YOU have NO RIGHTS!

No EJ Rock, you do not have the right to kill someone, you CAN kill someone if you choose, this is NOT the same as it being your 'right'.

There is no such thing as a 'right'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By definition, there is such a thing as a 'right.' You're proposing a situation in which you say nothing can be completely guaranteed and then calling it a 'right.'

You should make up some other word for it, and stopping trying to redefine what everyone else agrees the definition of 'right,' as previously posted is.

There is nothing in the definition of 'right' which speaks of its permanance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree. I believe a "right" would be an expectation of something that is due to all persons as compared to, for example, a "privilege" which may not be due, but which may be granted to a few and hence is not enjoyed by many.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe that what she is saying is that we are subjugated at birth into an authoritative structure that is society. The wild child is thus seduced into obedience by means of various contrivences. If true, then one must question all precepts that define our personal values and motivations.

Do we have a right to kill, it's not a right I would give myself or wish to explore; nontheless, how do I know that killing is not part of my true nature, possibly having been suppressed by the dictates of my environment.

Other than that, we surrender ourselves in various degrees for various reasons.

 

The word God exists as does an idea of what God represents, but atheists while understanding and accepting both word and definition do not believe that God himself exists.

I am not redefining a word I am stating the same thing here re rights.

The word and idea of what a 'right' is exists, but in fact there is NO such thing as a 'RIGHT'.

 

Can some one here present me with a single 'right' that is 100% enforced and thus defines a 'right' and not contradicted, confined, altered, ignored or denied.

As if any of the above take place, there is no 'right', just the idea that there should be one, and that is not the same as one existing.

you can't vote if under 18
cant vote if not on elecetoral register
cant vote if not British citizen even if resident for 9yrs

thus a privilage not a right
also votes have been found to have been fraudulently manipulated by the powers that be, thus no respect re alleged 'right'

 

Do we have the 'right to exist,' or do we merely exist?

 

This is mainly correct however, I do not accept we have a right to do anything, we merely do and that does not in itself we mean are allowed by some devine form of justice to do so.


Do animals have a 'right' to kill each other or do they just kill each other?
The answer is they just do. In the animal kingdom the 'idea' of a 'right' does not exist, this is a human concept.

The fact that one 'right' can be used to deprive another of their 'right' demonstrates the absence of genuine 'right'.

For a genuine right to exist, we would all, without question have to recognise them and abide by and respect them. We do not, thus 'no rights'. It is only 'right' when it suits.

 

Does the human right act apply to all persons alive or merely to those whose countries signed up for it?

Because if they do only apply to and protect only those that signed up for them, this is a clear case of privilage not human right. Unless of course those not signed up to the agreement are not humans?

The civilians in the wars are having their 'human rights' denied them which implies that these humans are not entitled to enjoy those rights because they are at war.

Thus the 'rights' are only meaningful when it suits the governements for them to be so and the effect of granting them does not impact on the controlling body.

Indeed, they are not human rights they are privilages.

 

Maybe it works that we have the right to do anything. Merely by doing it, we have a right to, otherwise we wouldn't be able to do it.

Do animals have a 'right' to kill each other? Yes, because they do it. If they didn't have the right to, then it would be impossible for them to do it.

 

Blinkin' 'ell and cor blimey ToR I do believe your'e right in this 'ere debatable issue. Now then, just start a collection.

 

I think we are debating at crossed purposes


Lets take an example:

You may say 'we have the 'right to eat'.

Do the starving millions stare at the sky and say, 'I have the right to eat' or do they merely desire to eat and lament that they cannot do so and suffer the consequences.

A right is promoted as being a protected entitlement to enjoy certain freedoms, thus we do not prevent people from eating........or do we?
We don't dictate what goes into peoples mouths? Or do we? Think about it.
We are being dictated to all the time, about what we can and cannot do with regard to even the most basic of perceived 'rights' thus rights are only as good as the government enforcing them.

Do you see how fragile your 'rights' are?

 

you have a right to work.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and just because you have a right to something doesn't mean it cannot be taken away, the "unalienable" rights are rights which many countries agree their citizens ought to have. that is why some people are very upset over the situation in the middle east. it all has to do with this "justice" thing.

 

Let's say you have the right to vote for any election in your country.

You can vote.

See how rigid rights can be.

 

I think our point of quibble is the difference between having rights, and having the ability to exercise them. I'm saying that we always have rights, and you're saying that rights only exist in their ability to be exercised. The starving millions have the right to eat, just not the ability. So does the idea of 'rights' hinge upon their exercisabilty? is that even a word?

I would tend to think that it does not. To say that it does would be like saying that a car is a car only when you drive it. If someone takes away your ability to drive it, then is it no longer a car?

 

Basically fellow humans

the message of this thread is thus:

Be Grateful for everything that you have,
your life, your health, your freedom, your choices, your education, your culture, your history, as it is all earned, inherited or given to you.

It is not your birth right to expect anything only to enjoy and to protect the privilages that are part of your existance as they are not privilages enjoyed by everybody.

be humble

The disabled do not enjoy the right to an able body
The starving do not enjoy the right to food
The uneducated/poor do not enjoy the right to an education
Orphans do not enjoy the right to have parents



Be grateful and seek to share and protect that which you are grateful for

 

Hmm... In a democracy, I would think that all rights are defined by the community, ideally. Within that environment, you would want an open podium so that all voices might be heard, so that the community might make an informed decision.

In my society there are opinions that consolidate into large political power entities. Between those camps we see the struggle of power and control, and the degradation of individual liberties. Overall, we see the slow decay of the individual spirit.

In short, I would say that it is within the struggle that we lose our individual freedoms. What one party gives, the other takes away. I would say that what you reconize as being the government is probably more the powers of manipulation and the power that we give them. They are seductive, more so if we wish to cause change. The problem is, we must first support the dogma with which they proclaim.

 

People don’t have rights. They have privileges. We live in a hierarchy. The people at the top of our social hierarchy (Politicians, dictators, kings, queens, Ect.) are the individuals that decide which privileges the lower ranking members in our society are allowed to have. They also make the social rules and traditions that allow low ranking members to obtain a higher rank over a period of time. These rules and traditions usually separate the strong from the weak. Strength can come in the form of intelligence, determination, bravery, ruthlessness, and compassion. The strong will always take advantage of the weak, and any privileges that the weak have, are the privileges that the strong allow the weak to have.

 

TheoryOfRelativity:

Theories of guerilla warfare actually postulate that no matter how monolithic a country is, it can be brought down with a dedicated enough band of rebels. A succesful revolution thus could even be staged in the US.

 

Rights are not ordained by any government.
Rights are not based on the law.
The law is based on our rights.
Fundemental rights. Human rights. Natural rights.
Everybody has ethical rights independent of any law.