Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

Sounds like something an alien would say. . . a communist alien.

I recall seeing a youtube video rebuttal to this...

Basically, it boiled down to, when more innocent bystanders are shot by NYPD than their intended target, we should have no problem with actually blind people owning/carrying guns in public


I mean, yeah, it's youtube and all that... but i still found it entertaining, funny, and somewhat true.

 reds8n wrote:
This space reserved for a joke about the Ashes

Your winnings, sir.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Something, something, Jim Crow law.

Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of why public sentiment, and not the law, are what ultimately matters.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

Hence 1776....

Rights are an entirely human construct that can be removed at any time. However if you want to pretend that a piece of paper is magical protection against that, feel free.

I'm assuming you are just misunderstanding what inalienable means. There is no right that cannot be violated or infringed upon that is the truth. But infringing on my right to self-defense or free speech etc. does not remove my right to such things. I have a right to self-defense, if you then pass a law making self-defense illegal you are infringing on my right, but I still have it and it is still valid. The "piece of paper" outlines human rights universal to all people, everywhere. It does not grant them and they are not limited to Americans or America. You might want to do some research on the U.S. Constitution before making inflammatory statements about it.

Spartak wrote:
I'm assuming you are just misunderstanding what inalienable means. There is no right that cannot be violated or infringed upon that is the truth. But infringing on my right to self-defense or free speech etc. does not remove my right to such things. I have a right to self-defense, if you then pass a law making self-defense illegal you are infringing on my right, but I still have it and it is still valid. The "piece of paper" outlines human rights universal to all people, everywhere. It does not grant them and they are not limited to Americans or America. You might want to do some research on the U.S. Constitution before making inflammatory statements about it.

Inalienable means "unable to be taken away". Any right can be taken away. Hell, even the right to self defence given by your constitution is not unlimited - try the old "self defence" line when the police come knocking on your door and you will be charged with extra crimes (on top of "living in the house next door to where the police swat team actually wanted to raid but they got the wrong house", having your pets being shot, etc ).

You have no inherent or intrinsic rights that cannot be infringed, therefore no right is inalienable. You may have certain rights granted to you and some may have more protections than others, but that does not and cannot make them inalienable.

You may want to look up what inalienable actually means before saying you have a magical bit of paper which says you have inalienable rights. I even provided a link on the previous page to a google search for the word "inalienable" (the first link of which is the definition) so you don't even have to type the word in...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
I'm assuming you are just misunderstanding what inalienable means. There is no right that cannot be violated or infringed upon that is the truth. But infringing on my right to self-defense or free speech etc. does not remove my right to such things. I have a right to self-defense, if you then pass a law making self-defense illegal you are infringing on my right, but I still have it and it is still valid. The "piece of paper" outlines human rights universal to all people, everywhere. It does not grant them and they are not limited to Americans or America. You might want to do some research on the U.S. Constitution before making inflammatory statements about it.

Inalienable means "unable to be taken away". Any right can be taken away. Hell, even the right to self defence given by your constitution is not unlimited - try the old "self defence" line when the police come knocking on your door and you will be charged with extra crimes (on top of "living in the house next door to where the police swat team actually wanted to raid but they got the wrong house", having your pets being shot, etc ).

You have no inherent or intrinsic rights that cannot be infringed, therefore no right is inalienable. You may have certain rights granted to you and some may have more protections than others, but that does not and cannot make them inalienable.

You may want to look up what inalienable actually means before saying you have a magical bit of paper which says you have inalienable rights. I even provided a link on the previous page to a google search for the word "inalienable" (the first link of which is the definition) so you don't even have to type the word in...

No... those are example of rights being infringed upon, the right remains even if its violated. When you murder someone you are INFRINGEING on their right to live, they lose their life not the right to it.

Spartak wrote:
I'm assuming you are just misunderstanding what inalienable means. There is no right that cannot be violated or infringed upon that is the truth. But infringing on my right to self-defense or free speech etc. does not remove my right to such things. I have a right to self-defense, if you then pass a law making self-defense illegal you are infringing on my right, but I still have it and it is still valid. The "piece of paper" outlines human rights universal to all people, everywhere. It does not grant them and they are not limited to Americans or America. You might want to do some research on the U.S. Constitution before making inflammatory statements about it.

The US constitution is a piece of law. The highest law of your land, but law none the less. As a statement of what are, and are not inalienable rights, it only has relevance as long as those rights remain the laws of the land. But you've argued that even if the law is changed, and they are no longer rights, then really they still remain inalienable rights, just because you really believe they are, and not only for you, but for people all over the world who've never had the protection of your constitution.

So why is it your list of inalienable rights that are important for all people, and not, say, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the Declaration on the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? What is it about your particular piece of law on rights that makes it so much more inherent to the human condition than the ones drafted by the UN or other countries?

 sebster wrote:

Spartak wrote:
I'm assuming you are just misunderstanding what inalienable means. There is no right that cannot be violated or infringed upon that is the truth. But infringing on my right to self-defense or free speech etc. does not remove my right to such things. I have a right to self-defense, if you then pass a law making self-defense illegal you are infringing on my right, but I still have it and it is still valid. The "piece of paper" outlines human rights universal to all people, everywhere. It does not grant them and they are not limited to Americans or America. You might want to do some research on the U.S. Constitution before making inflammatory statements about it.

The US constitution is a piece of law. The highest law of your land, but law none the less. As a statement of what are, and are not inalienable rights, it only has relevance as long as those rights remain the laws of the land. But you've argued that even if the law is changed, and they are no longer rights, then really they still remain inalienable rights, just because you really believe they are, and not only for you, but for people all over the world who've never had the protection of your constitution.

So why is it your list of inalienable rights that are important for all people, and not, say, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the Declaration on the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? What is it about your particular piece of law on rights that makes it so much more inherent to the human condition than the ones drafted by the UN or other countries?

Who said anything about my list being any better? All I am saying is that the Bill of Rights in the U.S. constitution outlines universal human rights. Are you saying it doesn't? The bill of rights declares our rights and enforces them through law it does not grant them.

Spartak wrote:
No... those are example of rights being infringed upon, the right remains even if its violated. When you murder someone you are INFRINGEING on their right to live, they lose their life not the right to it.

Is a glass of water still a glass of water when there is no water in it? A right which is not upheld is not a right any more than an empty glass is a glass of water. Nor is the glass intrinsically a glass of water simply because there is the potential for the glass to contain water.

Because there is the potential for people to be granted certain rights, that does not mean that those rights are an intrinsic condition of being a person.

Rights are a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will, to greater or lesser extents from totally to not at all. They cannot by their very nature be inalienable.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
No... those are example of rights being infringed upon, the right remains even if its violated. When you murder someone you are INFRINGEING on their right to live, they lose their life not the right to it.

Is a glass of water still a glass of water when there is no water in it? A right which is not upheld is not a right any more than an empty glass is a glass of water. Nor is the glass intrinsically a glass of water simply because there is the potential for the glass to contain water.

Because there is the potential for people to be granted certain rights, that does not mean that those rights are an intrinsic condition of being a person.

Rights are a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will, to greater or lesser extents from totally to not at all. They cannot by their very nature be inalienable.

No, if rights were "a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will" then they would not be "rights" they would be privileges. You as a human being have rights, those rights can be violated by individuals, governments and societies but they cannot be taken away. We can go back to my example of murder which you seem to have ignored. If I kill you your right to life has been violated, infringed if you will but you still have the right to that life. This is the basis of right and wrong, if you have no right to your life then I have done no wrong by taking it. Killing people is wrong weather there is a law prohibiting it or not. Right vs Privilege.

This is why we can't have nice things...

 d-usa wrote:
This is why we can't have nice things...

lol, sorry were a bit off topic. All blind and physically disabled individuals should be given subsidized firearms. The can pick them up at planned parenthood, that way we don't have to build a totally new infrastructure to distribute them. Buy birth control and the Gun's free!

Spartak wrote:
No, if rights were "a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will" then they would not be "rights" they would be privileges. You as a human being have rights, those rights can be violated by individuals, governments and societies but they cannot be taken away. We can go back to my example of murder which you seem to have ignored. If I kill you your right to life has been violated, infringed if you will but you still have the right to that life. This is the basis of right and wrong, if you have no right to your life then I have done no wrong by taking it. Killing people is wrong weather there is a law prohibiting it or not. Right vs Privilege.

There is no intrinsic right to life. You seem to be mistaking rights for some kind of fundamental feature of the universe, like Planck's constant (at least as far as we have been able to determine it is a fundamental feature of the universe). Without Planck's constant the universe simply would not function (at least, not function as it currently does anyway!). One cannot simply say that Planck's constant is whatever one wishes it to be. It is a fixed, immovable value. An intrinsic part of how the universe functions and how the universe is "assembled".

Rights are privilages, in so far as they are things granted to people by other people and/or the societies they represent. Different societies grant different privilages to different extents, with different limitations, different penalties on the privilages of people who offend against the laws of said society, etc.

I will agree that there are certain privilages which are extremely important, which should be protected and which should be exported and fostered in societies which do not have them.

But they are not inalienable.

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

If there is a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, why are drugs banned?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there is a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, why are drugs banned?

Excellent question, I wish I had a good answer for you. Suffice it to say your right to get loaded is being infringed upon.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there is a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, why are drugs banned?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
No, if rights were "a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will" then they would not be "rights" they would be privileges. You as a human being have rights, those rights can be violated by individuals, governments and societies but they cannot be taken away. We can go back to my example of murder which you seem to have ignored. If I kill you your right to life has been violated, infringed if you will but you still have the right to that life. This is the basis of right and wrong, if you have no right to your life then I have done no wrong by taking it. Killing people is wrong weather there is a law prohibiting it or not. Right vs Privilege.

There is no intrinsic right to life. You seem to be mistaking rights for some kind of fundamental feature of the universe, like Planck's constant (at least as far as we have been able to determine it is a fundamental feature of the universe). Without Planck's constant the universe simply would not function (at least, not function as it currently does anyway!). One cannot simply say that Planck's constant is whatever one wishes it to be. It is a fixed, immovable value. An intrinsic part of how the universe functions and how the universe is "assembled".

Rights are privilages, in so far as they are things granted to people by other people and/or the societies they represent. Different societies grant different privilages to different extents, with different limitations, different penalties on the privilages of people who offend against the laws of said society, etc.

I will agree that there are certain privilages which are extremely important, which should be protected and which should be exported and fostered in societies which do not have them.

But they are not inalienable.

Well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I happen to believe they are "some kind of fundamental feature of the universe" myself.

Spartak wrote:
Well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I happen to believe they are "some kind of fundamental feature of the universe" myself.

Unfortunately belief in something does not cause it to be so. However, that is your choice.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
Well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I happen to believe they are "some kind of fundamental feature of the universe" myself.

Unfortunately belief in something does not cause it to be so. However, that is your choice.

There are two sides to that coin my friend.

Spartak wrote:
There are two sides to that coin my friend.

Indeed there are. However, since rights can be unilaterally removed (or not given to start with) by human agencies, rights are not and cannot be inalienable. There is very little else to be said on the matter.

As to them being a fundamental part of the universe... I am afraid that is little more than wishful thinking tinged with a desire for humanity to be in any way important in an utterly impartial universe.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
There are two sides to that coin my friend.

Indeed there are. However, since rights can be unilaterally removed (or not given to start with) by human agencies, rights are not and cannot be inalienable. There is very little else to be said on the matter.

As to them being a fundamental part of the universe... I am afraid that is little more than wishful thinking tinged with a desire for humanity to be in any way important in an utterly impartial universe.

And were still takling about this why? I think your wrong, you think I'm wrong, good game. As I said agree to disagree.

Spartak wrote:
And were still takling about this why? I think your wrong, you think I'm wrong, good game. As I said agree to disagree.

[comic strip]There are people who are wrong on the internet![/comic strip]

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

No, you really shouldn't have...

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

Sometimes you just get blindsided.

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

Sometimes you just get blindsided.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Spartak wrote:
Who said anything about my list being any better? All I am saying is that the Bill of Rights in the U.S. constitution outlines universal human rights. Are you saying it doesn't? The bill of rights declares our rights and enforces them through law it does not grant them.

Well, if your set of rights are inalienable, and applicable to all people, then they must be somehow better than other lists of human rights. Either that or all lists of human rights are all inalienable, and they all apply to all people...

It's just, I think you should spend some time thinking about how the rights that you seem to believe are inherent just happen to line up very closely with the rights expressed in the constitution of your country.

Consider if a person were to claim that our inherent rights included the right to a basic standard of living, to be provided by the government. Such a claim has been believed by various governments over time, and I'm curious as to how you reason that a right such as that isn't an inherent right, but some other rights are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spartak wrote:
No, if rights were "a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will" then they would not be "rights" they would be privileges. You as a human being have rights, those rights can be violated by individuals, governments and societies but they cannot be taken away. We can go back to my example of murder which you seem to have ignored. If I kill you your right to life has been violated, infringed if you will but you still have the right to that life. This is the basis of right and wrong, if you have no right to your life then I have done no wrong by taking it. Killing people is wrong weather there is a law prohibiting it or not. Right vs Privilege.

Not really. Consider a dystopian world, where the government is able to kill anyone it deems an inefficient use of resources relative to the happiness they enjoy/provide to others. Consider that in this strange world, one day a guy stands up and says 'you can't just kill us when we're not happy enough relative to the resources we produce, I have an inherent right to life!' The government deems that speachmaking a nuisance, and the individual a drain on public happiness, and drags him off to the execution chamber.

And then there's no outrage, because in this bizarre world people agree with that decision. They prefer their government mandated happiness.

Does the right to life exist there? It isn't protected, and it doesn't even seem to be wanted by the people. The only thing that makes it inherent is you (and the dead guy) saying it is an inherent right, and what does that matter?

 d-usa wrote:

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

Sometimes you just get blindsided.

Hindsight is 20/20.

It doesn't look like you guys are going to see eye to eye on this.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

Sometimes you just get blindsided.

Hindsight is 20/20.

It doesn't look like you guys are going to see eye to eye on this.

I can see this quote pyramid going great places