Where do your rights come from?

a reply to: Stevenmonet

God? God gave me the right to be hungry and vulnerable to nature.

Government? A pecking order that arises from our hunger and vulnerability.

Rights? A supposed altruistic concept that allows, ideally, a species to co-exist for a common goal, to feed the hungry and protect the vulnerable, in order for that species to thrive.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

I'd say this puts us back at square one, what is an entitlement and what makes one moral or legal?

I would say entitlement would be synonymous with obligation, or reasonable expectation In how it is used within the definition.

A moral entitlement/obligation/reasonable expectation would be what you have found to produce beneficial results through trial and error in your activities, or that which your creator/god demands of you in order to be rightous, just, and or holy in their sight.

A legal/social/customary entitlement/obligation/reasonable expectation is one that has been formed by a spoken/writen/or unspoken compact between you and other humans/the government/or society.

This is how I see it at least.

a reply to: daskakik

You may be right that is why I asked them to reply back if I was over assuming or mischarterizing with my summary.

For me yes it is simple, but we should be able to relate our views to those who may not see it as so cut and dry.

That we see it as simple does not make it an objective fact. That it is debated is not in question, so why not look for correlations and garner a fuller understanding of the root principals involved?

I havn't taken any offense to what you have said regardless.

a reply to: Stevenmonet
Oh man, you got preachy on me.

Let's not forget that there are people in different parts of the world living under oppressive governments.

Worse than that, there are people in the US, living in neighborhoods controlled by gangs who have to act a certain way, if they know what is good for them.

Even worse than that, despite the proclamation mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, there are people, in the US, who live in a home where they are subjected to abuse; verbal, physical and sometimes even sexual.

Now, faith is fine and despite being an atheist, I understand why people feel what they feel, I wasn't always an atheist, but, in regards to the topic, would you honestly say that the rights of these people can be considered inalienable?

Are they not experiencing a living example of how alienable rights can be?

a reply to: CthruU

Lets be clear here - the unfortunate truth is that the only right we actually have is the right to breath air.......

Only if something "wicked this way comes" doesn't snuff your breath out.

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
I would say entitlement would be synonymous with obligation, or reasonable expectation In how it is used within the definition.

I have to disagree, an obligation implies a certain result from a person. My daughter is obligated to get passing grades in school.

If she had the right to pass or fail, I would not be able to reproach her.

She has that obligation and not that right and obviously they are not the same.

I, as a parent, can be understanding and forgive her if she fails in her obligation, but she isn't entitled to that.

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
a reply to: CthruU

Cool. Political pigeon holes aside at least you find my hypothesis accurate for today's state of affairs. I would be just as happy if you didn't agree with it.

That is why I'm intrigued by your pigeon hole remark maybe idk. Could just be it cut me and I need time to decide why. So I will do that.

We can agree to disagree regarding my intent, the value of my persuit, and whether it is godly till the cows come home, but thank you for helping me out at least.

"Cool" but i don't know how you plan to get an honest assessment of your hypothesis based on the ramblings of the usual occupiers of this site who have without a shadow of a doubt formed for want of a better term " a closed shop."

This closed shop is in no way the site itselfs fault it only offers a level playing field for members to operate but blind freddy can see these ""gangs"" close ranks on almost all threads.....

Your attempts at broad testing of the hypothesis will prove to be greatly lobb sided invalidating any serious attempts by you to test.

Hope you've considered this hypothesis.

Now - i dont question the value of YOUR intent/persuit but rather the value of your responses for reasons outlined above.........any serious questor would have to agree if they KNEW THEIR AUDIENCE.

Moreso more than ever with the topics in question by you.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I can feel what you are putting down. I can relate and your view point is as valid as any and shared by many regardless of whether I agree with it or not. My quick summation of your comment:

God gave you the right to be hungry and vulnerable

Government is a pecking order to to deal with hunger and vulnerability...

Rights are an altruistic concept that allows our species to thrive by taking care of the hungary and vulnerable.

So if I got this right your opinion Is that what is right/beneficial for society is what government decides and the focus should be/is for the society to thrive by feeding the hungry and providing security for the vulnerable.

I think I have my data set and you fit my hypothesis but let me ask you just to be clear.

Do you feel your society/government should have more control/oversight over your daily activities as long as it provides further security for the vulnerable and feeds the hungry?

I believe the answer is yes which is why I say you fit the model, but if I am over or wrongly assuming please let me know.

originally posted by: Stevenmonet

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Stevenmonet

I would say that rights are God-given, but Conservatives support, as rights, things that are at odds with God's Law.

For instance, the so-called "right to free speech" is at odd with "thou shall not bear false witness". In practice, this has lead to all sorts of evil being allowed in the USA, under the banner of its 1st Amendment.

Then there is the unbiblical 2nd Amendment. Clearly the carrying of a weapon, with any intent to use it, even in self-defense, is incompatible with multiple commandments (thou shalt not kill - thou shall not steal - forgiveness - trust in God to defend - not taking the Law into your own hands, & etc).

So, I don't think that Conservatives and right-leaning people are Godly. What they are is Pharisaical, pretending Godliness. Jesus called them "whitewashed tombs, on the outside all neat and clean looking, but on the inside, full of corruption".

The real truth is that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Left and right.

Quick snapshot here let me know if I'm unfairly characterizing your position as I understand it.

Rights: you feel your rights come from your god/creator......

Conservatives in your opinion are pharisees, but both left and right we are all sinners fall short of glory through sin and only gods grace can/will save us from the consequence of all sin which is death.

If that is correct I just need to know one thing In order to get complete and usable data set from what you have given me so far.

Do you feel your government needs/should have more or less control/oversight over your daily activities?

I feel that I should be involved in government at all levels. To just let someone else direct and do everything for me would an abnegation of my civic duty of care. I might one day sign over power of attorney, should I be unable to decide in my own interest, but I would never grant those powers to a stranger or a group of them.

I have been one of the founders of a political party that obtained (coalition) government in the country where I reside. I remain politically active and politically skeptical.

The duty of government is to administer their domain of responsibility to the best of their ability. In doing so, they must be audited, regulated, assayed demographically, and financially, almost constantly. 'Cause all humans are human.

Government should be as big as the size of the population it governs warrants, and no bigger. One of its goals is to achieve efficiency in resource use, for the optimal outcomes on behalf of as many of its constituents as is possible. Consideration for minority views must also play its part and must be granted a voice unless overridden by an real need of the majority.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Do you feel your society/government should have more control/oversight over your daily activities as long as it provides further security for the vulnerable and feeds the hungry?

Should it? It just does.

A Neolithic child couldn't survive without a mother who has some kind of familial support. Is family government? The person bringing home the bacon and the person making the bread set the rules, like it or not.

The family wants to live on that land for awhile? Then they better pay "taxes" to the local brutes, and give one or two of their daughters away, offer up a couple of sons to join the gang, otherwise marauders will just take what they want and kill the rest.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Stevenmonet
Oh man, you got preachy on me.

Let's not forget that there are people in different parts of the world living under oppressive governments.

Worse than that, there are people in the US, living in neighborhoods controlled by gangs who have to act a certain way, if they know what is good for them.

Even worse than that, despite the proclamation mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, there are people, in the US, who live in a home where they are subjected to abuse; verbal, physical and sometimes even sexual.

Now, faith is fine and despite being an atheist, I understand why people feel what they feel, I wasn't always an atheist, but, in regards to the topic, would you honestly say that the rights of these people can be considered inalienable?

Are they not experiencing a living example of how alienable rights can be?

First my Intent is to collect data that either supports or refutes my hypothesis. My opinions on the subject matter were shared in fairness to anyone willing to participate, but the discussion and reasoning of my you beliefs is only a secondary function of collecting data.

Is it valuable? Yes.

Has it allowed me to better define my terms? Check.

That is all.

Now to your point on whether/how what I feel are our god given rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable when there is obviously misery in the world!

Doing my best to relate this without causing offense or coming off preachy so bare with me.

All misery/suffering is the result of sin. All sin is wilfully commited. The punishment of all sin is death, all humans besides jesus are guilty of sin and therefore death is our only desert, but for gods mercy and jesus's sacrifice for our sins.

All of creation gives glory to god. Every knee shal bow and every tongue confess he is lord. All is for the glory of god.

Does that mean bad things don't happen? Nope just that through all things glory is brought to god.

I wish I could sit down with you and explain how and why every horrible situation can bring glory to god, but if I could I would be him and I'm not.

I can only tell you that is my faith.

Does the fact that to be born into flesh is to be born Into sin in and of itself justify all the evils that can befall humans, no.

The lord works in mysterious ways, but I have faith when all is revealed all will glorify him, now, and confess he is lord. He has never squelched on his contract with humans as far as a can tell, so I feel firmm in my conviction.

Hope this helps, but if not maybe a visit to job would help explain it better. I know that may be asking a lot from an admitted atheist, so I understand if you decline.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
I would say entitlement would be synonymous with obligation, or reasonable expectation In how it is used within the definition.

I have to disagree, an obligation implies a certain result from a person. My daughter is obligated to get passing grades in school.

If she had the right to pass or fail, I would not be able to reproach her.

She has that obligation and not that right and obviously they are not the same.

I, as a parent, can be understanding and forgive her if she fails in her obligation, but she isn't entitled to that.

Let's go back and read the full 2nd definition and see if we can come to some agreeable conclusion.

.
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
"she had every right to be angry"
Similar:
entitlement
prerogative

The similarities suggested are entitlement but that is used in the definition so let's move on to the next suggestion. Prerogative. Ok now let's use it in the sentance and see if it fits.

A moral or legal prerogative to have or obtain something or to act a certain way.

Ok now let's try it with my suggested similarities.

Obligation and reasonable expectation.

A moral or legal obligation to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

A moraly or legaly reasonable expectation to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

I changed moral to moraly and legal to legaly in order to make the grammar correct, but other than that I see no major difference between either of my suggested similarities or googles.

Whether you see it as an obligation, prerogative, or reasonable expectation the concept remains the same.

A better statement is if your daughter wants to be rightous in fulfilling her obligation to you/society she will get good grades.

You could also say it is moraly or legaly reasonable for you/society to expect your daughter to get good grades.

You can also say your daughter has a moral or legal obligation to you/society to get good grades.

I can't much more than a hairs difference between the above statements and the statement that.

It is moraly or legaly right in yours and societies eyes for your daughter to get good grades.

I hope this helps clear up any misunderstanding regarding the googles 2nd definition of right/rights.

originally posted by: CthruU

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
a reply to: CthruU

Cool. Political pigeon holes aside at least you find my hypothesis accurate for today's state of affairs. I would be just as happy if you didn't agree with it.

That is why I'm intrigued by your pigeon hole remark maybe idk. Could just be it cut me and I need time to decide why. So I will do that.

We can agree to disagree regarding my intent, the value of my persuit, and whether it is godly till the cows come home, but thank you for helping me out at least.

"Cool" but i don't know how you plan to get an honest assessment of your hypothesis based on the ramblings of the usual occupiers of this site who have without a shadow of a doubt formed for want of a better term " a closed shop."

This closed shop is in no way the site itselfs fault it only offers a level playing field for members to operate but blind freddy can see these ""gangs"" close ranks on almost all threads.....

Your attempts at broad testing of the hypothesis will prove to be greatly lobb sided invalidating any serious attempts by you to test.

Hope you've considered this hypothesis.

Now - i dont question the value of YOUR intent/persuit but rather the value of your responses for reasons outlined above.........any serious questor would have to agree if they KNEW THEIR AUDIENCE.

Moreso more than ever with the topics in question by you.

I dont see ats's members as somehow more closed off or closed shop than any other online gathering of individuals with diverse political and religious views.

Better said if not here then where?

I'm open to suggestions.

a reply to: chr0naut

Thank you for helping me to complete the data set. You rock!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ok I get that you are saying society controls/over sees our family activities in order to thrive by providing for the hungry and vulnerable. It just does and that is fine. It just doe not answer my question.

Would you rather it had more or less of that control/oversight.

It doesnt matter what is right now or even how your define it within any political spectrum. All that matters is whether you think it needs/deserves/should have or you are willing to give it more control/oversight over your daily activities, or if you feel it needs/desrves/should have or are you willing to see it have less control/oversight over your daily activities.


I think I have my data set from you, but would love confirmation.

You either are willing to give up or prefer more oversight/control from society/the government over your daily life, or my hypothesis doesn't fit you.

It seems clear to me by this point that you feel rights come from society/government since god left us hungry and vulnerable with only society/the government to provide security for the Hungry and vulnerable. Right?

You defined a thriving society as one that takes care of the hungry and vulnerable humans god abandoned/left with their only rights being starvation and vulnerability absent of society/government.

If their is room for a benevolent god In your world view I am highly doubtful, but that has no bearing on the fact you see society/government as the source of your rights.

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
First my Intent is to collect data that either supports or refutes my hypothesis. My opinions on the subject matter were shared in fairness to anyone willing to participate, but the discussion and reasoning of my you beliefs is only a secondary function of collecting data.

And that is why I will not be replying to the rest of your post.

So, keeping to the topic, some people think that god has given humans inalienable rights. There are instances when these rights are violated, so it would stand to reason that these rights are in fact not inalienable.

If they did come from an all powerful being and he did intend them to be inalienable, they would be. Reality proves otherwise.

That could be taken different ways but the most pertinent to the discussion would be that even if rights did come from god, he didn't mean for them to be inalienable.

That brings us back to the appeal to what the FF of the US wrote, and my fist reply in this thread, where I pointed out that while poetic license allowed them to write down something that resonates with people, it might not be the truth.

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
A better statement is if your daughter wants to be rightous in fulfilling her obligation to you/society she will get good grades.

That is not a better statement, in the terms of the topic, because you are not including her right to not be righteous.

It would seem to me that you are conflating rights with righteous, they are not the same thing.

Does she have the free will (right) to pass or fail as she sees fit?

If we say she has to fulfill her obligation to her mother and I or society , then we can't say she has a right to fail (dropout), if that is what she wants.

a reply to: daskakik

The inalienable or alienable nature of our rights is very interesting to discuss and has value as a topic of a thread all on it's own. I can see value for it even here as I have stated.

It especially holds value for our american members who have the words and therefore belief enshrined In the declaration of independence.

You can agree or disagree with the statement without effecting whether you believe your rights come from your god/creator or society/government as you have pointed out one can believe rights are alienable unt come from their creator/god just as well as they could believe their rights are unalienable and come from their god/creator.

No one is forcing you to provide or continue to provide any feedback at all, but I honestly value your opinions and sincerely thank you for sharing.

I couldn't test or better define the terms of my hypothesis without members like yourself volunteering their time, ideas, and beliefs.

I am on the left, but I think our rights come from the universe/creator, the government has no say in the manner.

We do form a pact with our government to give them control over us, but it is justified because the government is run by the people in a Democracy.

In the end, if the people don't think the government is honoring the pact, they can rebel. The government can't control the people unless they have a legitimate pact with the people, who agreed to it of their own free will.

In some cases, the government gains control through totalitarian means like armed police and surveillance. But they don't automatically have this control, they have to work for it.

The universe/creator is the one who granted us our rights and freedoms. The government takes them away, isn't that how it works?

a reply to: daskakik

Choose a definition for the word right/rights that is better suited to this topic than what Google or I have provided.

I am open to ideas, but am finding it harder to provide any further similarities for you.

The best I can do is point to a more complete form of definition number one from google:

1.
that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.
"she doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong"
Similar:
goodness
rightness

Notice rightness is one of the suggested similar words from Google. If you go to Google and click the drop down link for more similar words do you think rightous will also pop up like rightness did?

I only liked the 2nd definition better because it uses the mutually exclusive moral or legal. That means moral and legal have distinctly exclusive definitions among their similarities, and that it is the mutually exclusive ones could provide further clarity to our topic, but the 1st definition may resonate better with your personal example of your daughters grades the definition of rights.