Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 61 of 300 (659013)
04-11-2012 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Taq
04-11-2012 5:35 PM


Re: Human Rights
Yes, that is what many have argued but all the evidence refutes that argument.
The water example is equally silly example.
When it comes to water being wet, what does all the evidence show?
The evidence shows though that life and liberty are not intrinsic to being human.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 5:35 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 11:17 AM jar has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 62 of 300 (659017)
04-11-2012 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
04-11-2012 5:30 PM


A statist by any other name...
But the rights are granted by a government and apply only within a given context.
Let me provide an example of a right that you have that is not granted to you by the government.
Under the US Constitution, the federal government has enumerated powers only. The government has no rights at all; only duties, and enumerated powers to carry out those duties.
So in any case a) not within the umbrella of the government's enumerated powers and/or b) residing totally within the individual rights carved out by the constitution, your rights cannot be considered to be granted by the government, because the government cannot legally exercise the power to affect those rights without exceeding its powers.
Example:
Nothing in the constitution grants the executive branch the power to quarter soldiers at your house against your will during peace time. In addition, your right to avoid such a situation is explicitly protected by the Third Amendment.
Note that it cannot be truly said that the bill of rights grants you that right. You actually would have the right even without the bill of rights, because the executive branch has no constitutional authority to contravene that right.
While it is true that the US Army has bigger tanks, more men, and more armament than you and that you have no power to successfully, physical oppose General Moron's command to occupy your house during peace time, the taking away of your house is evidence that your rights have been violated and not that they did not exist. Taq is dead on about that point.
Those rights do not exist except within "our" belief context.
There is a sense in which this statement is correct. But it is a sense in which absolutely nothing that the government succeeds in doing is ever an infringement of your rights. Under such a sense, slaves never had any moral authority to object to their status, and Korematsu's interment during WWII was unquestionably just, because the government defines just. I don't accept either proposition. In fact I know those propositions to be completely, unambiguously wrong.
Such a definition is not standard word usage. You are free to use the word rights as you do, but in an argument where everyone else is clearly using a different, viable, and standard definition, I don't see how your calling them wrong has any merit.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 04-11-2012 5:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 04-11-2012 8:24 PM NoNukes has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 300 (659019)
04-11-2012 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
04-11-2012 7:22 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
You are of course free to make any claims that you want.
But yes, the state can have the right to quarter soldiers in my house and in fact, even in the US that has happened. Now I may well believe that they have no right to do so, and I may well express my belief that the government has no right to do so, but they still can do so.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2012 7:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 04-12-2012 3:54 AM jar has replied
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 11:32 AM jar has replied

  
Probare
Junior Member (Idle past 4366 days)
Posts: 5
From: Farmington, Maine, United States
Joined: 04-12-2012


(1)
Message 64 of 300 (659026)
04-12-2012 1:16 AM


I think you take too extreme cases for both sides. I normally identify as a liberal, but there's only so far one can take that. I don't know any liberal who's that reserved in judgement, and most of my family are liberal. As a liberal, I say that I do not mind homosexuality, pornography, religions other than Christianity... I also own guns though, I'm not a "blow-heads-off-then-ask-questions" type, I just own guns. I'd use guns for defense, but I mainly use them for sporting. I do not myself nor see many other people who accept sex with 5 or 9 year-olds. I'm not personally against high school kids having at, but at that point they've got the education and mental presence to think.
You were closer with conservatives, but still off. I've got much less of an argument here because I tend to think that conservatives are too touchy about a lot of things which frankly aren't their business.

Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Douglas Adams
By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. - Richard Dawkins

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2012 10:08 AM Probare has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 300 (659034)
04-12-2012 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by jar
04-11-2012 8:24 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
But yes, the state can have the right to quarter soldiers in my house and in fact, even in the US that has happened.
Can you demonstrate a source of a "right" for the US government to quarter soldiers in your house during peacetime or are you just making up stuff.
It is in fact, unlawful for the US government to do so under the constitution. Further, I have not merely asserted such to be the case, I've demonstrated why such is true. In response, all I get from you is mere assertion.
I may well express my belief that the government has no right to do so, but they still can do so.
The US government has no rights -- at all.
You express the belief that if the government in fact acts illegally, the government is not merely infringing a right; you in fact never had that right.
As I and others have pointed out, that proposition is ridiculous. In essence your position is that nobody has any rights, but only access to privileges allowed by the government.
Further, I believe I can demonstrate from some of your own prior postings that you don't even believe that rights are granted by the government.
For example in our discussion about a judge whose racially charged joke about Obama leaked out, you took the position that the judge had a right to share such jokes with his buddies and that any leaker had only the right to delete the email rather than to release it for public consumption. And what might be the source of said right? Certainly not the federal government, who would not be involved on either side. Certainly not the constitution, which does not deal with free speech issues between two non-state actors.
As another example, you argued that a church has every right to exclude inter racial couples, and that I had no right to attempt to persuade the pastor to change the policy. Where does the right to practice religion free from persuasion by private parties come from?
Let me suggest that your current position concerning rights is a mere semantic point, and uses a definition of rights that few people would bother with. There is indeed a right not to have the state cover your living body with a tank when you are peacefully protesting in a public square. Korematsu did have all the rights that every other American enjoyed under the constitution.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 04-11-2012 8:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 04-12-2012 9:38 AM NoNukes has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 66 of 300 (659043)
04-12-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Artemis Entreri
04-11-2012 12:10 PM


I simply responded to the idea that human rights don’t stop at the US border, with an example of human rights that do stop at the US border. Of course your response would be to ignore it and make up something else ::rolls eyes::
I was neither ignoring it, not making anything up. This is exactly the point I was responding to.
If rights are something inherent, as Taq believes, then they do not stop at the Mexican border; whether or not these rights are being violated.
If rights are nothing but a legal fiction, then they still do not stop at the Mexican border. Mexican law entitles Mexicans to pretty much the same rights as American law entitles Americans. That the broken system of government means those rights are not enforced, doesn't mean they're not there, on paper.
You, on the other hand, are claiming human rights stop at the US border because people in Ciudad Juarez are incapale of exercising them. But this is silly. A 'right' is something to which you are entitled, whether you consider this entitlement to be inherent or simply a legal formality. If you're morally entitled to something, you're still morally entitled to it, even if someone imorally takes it away. if you're legally entitled to something, you're still legally entitled to it even if someone illegally takes it away.
This isn't a difficult concept.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-11-2012 12:10 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 300 (659053)
04-12-2012 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by NoNukes
04-12-2012 3:54 AM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Actually, in both of the examples you mention the Right devolves from the US Constitution.
My position is that reality shows that rights are granted by a government, society, culture.
Also, please read what I actually write. I said
jar writes:
But yes, the state can have the right to quarter soldiers in my house and in fact, even in the US that has happened. Now I may well believe that they have no right to do so, and I may well express my belief that the government has no right to do so, but they still can do so.
The state, a generic state. The US Constitution is the source of any rights that a US Citizen has, and in the case of the US, it was one of the rights that our government said devolved to the individual.
The reason that is listed in the US Constitution is precisely because in other states, that is not the case and the government can quarter troops in an individual's house.
Staes have whatever rights they are capable of enforcing.
AbE:
Also, I don't think you can show that I ever said someone did not have the right to release the judges e-mail to the public but that I found it in poor taste that anyone did so.
Nor did I say that you do not have the right to complain about the behavior of the pastor, rather that again, it was none of you business.
Edited by jar, : see AbE;

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 04-12-2012 3:54 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2012 9:32 AM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 68 of 300 (659056)
04-12-2012 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
04-11-2012 5:15 PM


Re: Human Rights
You don't lose your rights. You always have the rights that all humans have. Whether those rights are violated is a separate issue.
I think I get it: Natural rights aren't really real, they're just some imaginary things that people think other people ought to have, regardless of whether or not having them benefits that person in any way.
That african slave from 1000 years ago? yeah, he had all the rights a modern day american has, he was just chained up starving in the desert... but he still had his rights!
Violating a person's human rights does not make those rights go away. They are not lost. They are still there.
And by "being there", you mean that you pretend that they are there. They're not really there doing anything, they just should be there in a magical make-you-feal-warm-and-fuzzy sort of way, right?
Human rights are not things that humans are physically incapable of doing. They are moral guidelines of how we should treat each other. To reference Hume, human rights are an ought, not an is. We can say that slavery is bad because it violates human rights. Showing that someone owns a slave does not make this human rights violation go away.
That's oddly religious... These rights seem to stem from rationalism or, fuck it, pull out the big card: they were just endowed by our Creator!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 5:15 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 300 (659058)
04-12-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Probare
04-12-2012 1:16 AM


I tend to think that conservatives are too touchy about a lot of things which frankly aren't their business.
That's religious people. They've hijacked conservatism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Probare, posted 04-12-2012 1:16 AM Probare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Taz, posted 04-12-2012 10:21 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 71 by nwr, posted 04-12-2012 11:01 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 102 by Probare, posted 04-13-2012 1:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 70 of 300 (659063)
04-12-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by New Cat's Eye
04-12-2012 10:08 AM


CS writes:
That's religious people. They've hijacked conservatism.
I used to think this.
But recently, I started looking in the past and I realized that religion had always been hand in hand with conservatism.
Can you give us an example of when conservatism wasn't based on religious ideals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2012 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Jazzns, posted 04-12-2012 11:13 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 126 by Probare, posted 04-13-2012 7:38 PM Taz has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 71 of 300 (659072)
04-12-2012 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by New Cat's Eye
04-12-2012 10:08 AM


That's religious people. They've hijacked conservatism.
I sometimes wonder whether it is the other way around; that conservatives hijacked Christianity.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2012 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 72 of 300 (659074)
04-12-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Taz
04-12-2012 10:21 AM


Non-Religious Conservativism?
Can you give us an example of when conservatism wasn't based on religious ideals?
Easy. Objectivism - Wikipedia
Modern Republicans are actually moving more and more toward a philosophical and economic position that advocates the REJECTION of religion.
This is at the same time that they are also clinging fiercly to social issues based on religion. Its a very weird paradox but being nearly 100% contradictory has never stopped Republicans before.

BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Taz, posted 04-12-2012 10:21 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 73 of 300 (659076)
04-12-2012 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
04-11-2012 5:57 PM


Re: Human Rights
When it comes to water being wet, what does all the evidence show?
I guess I could argue that the property of being wet is just a consensus of what we agree on, right?
The evidence shows though that life and liberty are not intrinsic to being human.
What would that evidence be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 04-11-2012 5:57 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 04-12-2012 11:24 AM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 74 of 300 (659077)
04-12-2012 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Taq
04-12-2012 11:17 AM


Re: Human Rights
You are, of course, free to argue most anything, at least in the US. Buz does it all the time.
The evidence is that even in the US the State has the right to take away someone's life or liberty.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 11:17 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 11:34 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 75 of 300 (659078)
04-12-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by jar
04-11-2012 8:24 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Now I may well believe that they have no right to do so, and I may well express my belief that the government has no right to do so, but they still can do so.
You are confusing an is with an ought (Hume's Is/Ought problem). One is not the other. Rights are statements of how things ought to be. They are not derived from how things are (the is). Can a government hypothetically do whatever it wants? Yes. No one is disagreeing with this. However, human rights are not contingent on what the government does or does not do. The argument of whether or not a person has a specific right is not determined by the actions of the government. Rather, specific rights are determined by reason and morality.
Just so you don't think that I am talking out of my ass, here is a paragraph from the wiki page on natural rights:
quote:
17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."[11] Another 17th-century Englishman, John Lilburne (known as Freeborn John), who came into conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell governed republic, argued for level human basic rights he called "freeborn rights" which he defined as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law.
You can certainly debate the legitimacy of this school of thought, but I thought I would let you know that I am drawing from the work of others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 04-11-2012 8:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 04-12-2012 11:36 AM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024