What are people entitled to?

[Ghogiel]

I understand the OP just fine.

 

The constitution is an institution. It is not inherent rights of man by nature. The rights any society affords it citizens are only half the topics subject. My thoughts on them, it's nice to have a bit of paper supposedly guaranteeing some rights, but there is no entitlement to them. It can be considered luck of the draw.

[Kendo 2]

Oh you are only taking about the US citizens, and not people.

 

Well, being United States citizen, that is the path I have chosen.

This is why I am confused with you posting quotes from The Declaration. This topic is about what people are entitled to, so I don't quite understand why the rights stated in that document has anything to do with the debate.

 

Are you saying the only rights humanity should receive are the ones in The Declaration? What is your purpose for posting the quotes? That is what I am trying to figure out.

 

Okay, I'll try and explain. I'm using the Declaration as an example for the purposes of this debate. "What are people entitled to?" In the United States, people are entitled to certain organic rights. Citizens of France share simliar rights as well as several other countries. The debate topic was posed as question and I am answering in a clear and concise manner.

 

There is no-harm-no-foul in not understanding. If you have no interest in the topic and just want to derail it, that is another story.

 

Now can we please get back to the debate?

[marharth]

Oh you are only taking about the US citizens, and not people.

 

Well, being United States citizen, that is the path I have chosen.

This is why I am confused with you posting quotes from The Declaration. This topic is about what people are entitled to, so I don't quite understand why the rights stated in that document has anything to do with the debate.

 

Are you saying the only rights humanity should receive are the ones in The Declaration? What is your purpose for posting the quotes? That is what I am trying to figure out.

 

Okay, I'll try and explain. I'm using the Declaration as an example for the purposes of this debate. "What are people entitled to?" In the United States, people are entitled to certain organic rights. Citizens of France share simliar rights as well as several other countries. The debate topic was posed as question and I am answering in a clear and concise manner.

 

There is no-harm-no-foul in not understanding. If you have no interest in the topic and just want to derail it, that is another story.

 

Now can we please get back to the debate?

To ask you a question directly then to fully understand this, what is your views on what rights all humans should receive? Do you think that these rights are determined by men or nature?

[Ghogiel]

 

Okay, I'll try and explain. I'm using the Declaration as an example for the purposes of this debate. "What are people entitled to?" In the United States, people are entitled to certain organic rights. Citizens of France share simliar rights as well as several other countries. The debate topic was posed as question and I am answering in a clear and concise manner.

 

I understand that there are rights that governments afford their citizens. And your opinion is that the US is doing it right.

 

Ok. What has this got to do with 'organic rights', and saying "I believe we all have these organic rights, no matter what form our government takes. The concept is there and carved in stone. People want to be free."

 

Are you still defending this position?

[Kendo 2]

To ask you a question directly then to fully understand this, what is your views on what rights all humans should receive? Do you think that these rights are determined by men or nature?

 

Well, I'm not qualified to speak on what a yet-to-be-named-supreme being has in store for humanity, what it wants for us, if it cares, or if it is even aware of us.

 

For the purpose of this debate, I'm going to say that MEN, inspired by a higher calling have instilled in us the will and drive to be free. A major component of beig free is the 'organic rights' these men layed out for future generations. I'm going to say divinely inspired men created the rights we enjoy and then surrendered them to the masses. They belong to us and cannot be 'controlled' by the fools we might elect into office.

 

In short, men took what nature gave us and ratified into law.

 

I understand that there are rights that governments afford their citizens. And your opinion is that the US is doing it right.

 

Ok. What has this got to do with 'organic rights', and saying "I believe we all have these organic rights, no matter what form our government takes. The concept is there and carved in stone. People want to be free."

 

Are you still defending this position?

 

Sorry, missed this.

 

YES. I will defend it.

[Ghogiel]

To ask you a question directly then to fully understand this, what is your views on what rights all humans should receive? Do you think that these rights are determined by men or nature?

 

Well, I'm not qualified to speak on what a yet-to-be-named-supreme being has in store for humanity, what it wants for us, if it cares, or if it is even aware of us.

 

For the purpose of this debate, I'm going to say that MEN, inspired by a higher calling have instilled in us the will and drive to be free. A major component of beig free is the 'organic rights' these men layed out for future generations. I'm going to say divinely inspired men created the rights we enjoy and then surrendered them to the masses. They belong to us and cannot be 'controlled' by the fools we might elect into office.

 

In short, men took what nature gave us and ratified into law.

But it isn't ratified in law. We can look at plenty of countries where these liberties are not law. Natural law would be the most adaptable of the species survives to pass on it's genes. The nature of man gave us both Slavery and Liberty.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Kendo 2]

But it isn't ratified in law. We can look at plenty of countries where these liberties are not law. Natural law would be the most adaptable of the species survives to pass on it's genes. The nature of man gave us both Slavery and Liberty.

 

I'm looking at the intent. The tangible proof that man, as a species has the innate ability to recognize the rights of others and want for others what they would want for themselves. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc. I'm not denying there is a dark side, it just isn't something I'm going to address in this debate as it has no relevance.

[Ghogiel]

But it isn't ratified in law. We can look at plenty of countries where these liberties are not law. Natural law would be the most adaptable of the species survives to pass on it's genes. The nature of man gave us both Slavery and Liberty.

 

I'm looking at the intent. The tangible proof that man, as a species has the innate ability to recognize the rights of others and want for others what they would want for themselves. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.

You are debating the existence of morality, which is a set of agreed upon behaviours amongst a group of people. The species is known to change it's mind about these things. That is not equal to asserting there is tangible proof that there is a set in stone code of conduct enjoyed by all people.

[Kendo 2]

You are debating the existence of morality, which is a set of agreed upon behaviours amongst a group of people. The species is known to change it's mind about these things. That is not equal to asserting there is tangible proof that there is a set in stone code of conduct enjoyed by all people.

 

No, I'm not. You stated it hasn't been ratified in law.

 

But it isn't ratified in law. We can look at plenty of countries where these liberties are not law. Natural law would be the most adaptable of the species survives to pass on it's genes. The nature of man gave us both Slavery and Liberty.

 

I'm saying it is law and the United States Declaration of Independence and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen are the tangible proof that humans want for others what they want for themselves. And it is indeed 'carved in stone' because once people have organic rights they won't let them be taken away. People can be subjugated or intimidated but that spark, the 'power of self' can't be taken. There are examples in history where governments squashed the individual. The individual always comes back.

[Sepherose]

Humanity has no inalienable organic rights. Well, with exception of the natural order of things, which is to do what one must in order to survive. But here is the problem with that, in many cases that would be incompatible with modern society, as such, any entitlements we have, or rights we are given, are exactly that, given to us by those who make laws. This stands true anywhere in the world: In a Totalitarian country, one does not have the right to speak out against their government. In a society such as in the US, we do. It is really that simple on the surface, we are not instilled with rights from birth due to some intangible force of nature.

 

I'm saying it is law and the United States Declaration of Independence and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen are the tangible proof that humans want for others what they want for themselves. And it is indeed 'carved in stone' because once people have organic rights they won't let them be taken away. People can be subjugated or intimidated but that spark, the 'power of self' can't be taken. There are examples in history where governments squashed the individual. The individual always comes back.

 

This is not true everywhere which renders your example invalid, from my standpoint at least. This is a general question and you are using a few examples of free countries, where these things are ratified by law. Look at countries such as Somalia or China. Two very different countries, but in neither of these countries do the same laws apply.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Sepherose