Education a right ?

[NYcarbineer]

Easy to say when you can't answer the question.
Once again: I know there is a right to keep and bear arms because the 2A says so. How do you know there is a right to education?

Can you deny Catholics the right to establish parochial schools?

Nope. Guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

Which thus means that in that sense education is a right just as free speech is a right.

As to what appears to be the other question, which is, is it an American child's right to receive an education, regardless of the ability to pay,

the answer is also YES. If you say no, please list the circumstances under which an American child can be denied a public education.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm a firm believer that Rights were given to us by the minds of Men, not by simply being born or a "creator." It's sad, but it's true in my eyes.

So, it's one that I'd add to the list that I believe men made to begin with. Why? Because I feel that Education partly pertains to Security. Pen vs. Sword, and all of that.

Saying that God gives us our rights is like saying God gives us our food. You will get very hungry waiting at your front door for God to show up with the groceries.

 

[Murf76]

Now children spent 12 years being indoctrinated in state supremacy.

And even after 12 years... they still don't manage to learn the difference between an "unalienable right" and a fucking commodity.

 

[The Rabbi]

Can you deny Catholics the right to establish parochial schools?

Nope. Guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

Which thus means that in that sense education is a right just as free speech is a right.

As to what appears to be the other question, which is, is it an American child's right to receive an education, regardless of the ability to pay,

the answer is also YES. If you say no, please list the circumstances under which an American child can be denied a public education.

No, education is not a right. Free exercise of religion is a right. In this case the education is merely ancillary to the exercise of religious rights.
Logic fail on your part.
An American child can be denied a public education if the proper legislation were passed.
I will point out that presently a very large percentage of American children are denied educations by being forced to go to local public schools.
In any case, your example is flawed. By analogy, emergency room treatment is a right because no one can be denied treatment. The fact thtat legally this is now the case does not argue for or against emergency room treatment being a right. A change in the law and this "right" would cease to exist.
That is not the case with other rights. If the city of Boston passed a law against printing the Boston Herald it would not stand up to court scrutiny because of hte 1st amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope. Guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

Which thus means that in that sense education is a right just as free speech is a right.

As to what appears to be the other question, which is, is it an American child's right to receive an education, regardless of the ability to pay,

the answer is also YES. If you say no, please list the circumstances under which an American child can be denied a public education.

No, education is not a right. Free exercise of religion is a right. In this case the education is merely ancillary to the exercise of religious rights.
Logic fail on your part.
An American child can be denied a public education if the proper legislation were passed.
I will point out that presently a very large percentage of American children are denied educations by being forced to go to local public schools.
In any case, your example is flawed. By analogy, emergency room treatment is a right because no one can be denied treatment. The fact thtat legally this is now the case does not argue for or against emergency room treatment being a right. A change in the law and this "right" would cease to exist.
That is not the case with other rights. If the city of Boston passed a law against printing the Boston Herald it would not stand up to court scrutiny because of hte 1st amendment.

By your logic no rights exist because any could be changed by legislation. The 2nd Amendment could be repealed, therefore there is no right to bear arms.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now children spent 12 years being indoctrinated in state supremacy.

And even after 12 years... they still don't manage to learn the difference between an "unalienable right" and a fucking commodity.

A gun is a commodity. Is the right to own one an 'unalienable right'?

 

[antagon]

Youa re avoiding the question.
So if the Bible does not provide information about what god wants, then what does? How has god communicated to you (or Jefferson for that matter) the information that education is a right?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, dumbass. its an american thing... you'll know when you get there.

OK, so an ipse dixit fallacy is the best you can do here. It must be "self evident".
Hey, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell. It's mine, I assure you. It's self evident.

What a 'tard.

while you assume it is retarded that rights exist through assertion, it is the basis of our government and many of the others which have patterned themselves after it. that you feel rights could be endowed by a piece of paper, be it a torah or the constitution is retarded. the constitution is a government charter and about the rights government has or defers to its constituent states and citizens. in that sense, i operate my on constitution where i feel i could pursue an education. its worked out for me beyond my capacity to make use of it. for you, its clearly still debatable whether you should learn anything or not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the original Constitution, women did not have the right to vote. Did that right thus not exist, until it was added to the Constitution, or was it always a right that our government, via the will of the people, had simply neglected to enforce?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Now children spent 12 years being indoctrinated in state supremacy.

And even after 12 years... they still don't manage to learn the difference between an "unalienable right" and a fucking commodity.

A gun is a commodity. Is the right to own one an 'unalienable right'?

Wrong. A gun is NOT a commodity. It's a tool....and the right of citizens to bear arms here in America is guaranteed by the Constitution.

You need to learn the definition of words before you shoot your mouth off.

 

[Murf76]

I hope everyone reading along understands that the people we see verbalizing their contempt and disbelief in "unalienable rights" are just a sampling of a larger ideology.

If we want to preserve our national heritage of respect for that which God (or nature) has bestowed upon mankind... leftists cannot be trusted in power. The notion that our "rights" can be arbitrarily assigned, means that they can just as easily be arbitrarily withdrawn.

 

[antagon]

In the original Constitution, women did not have the right to vote. Did that right thus not exist, until it was added to the Constitution, or was it always a right that our government, via the will of the people, had simply neglected to enforce?

no. voting is not a natural right. it is a type of participation in government. id say that right existed since it was added to the constitution.

natural rights are conceded in the constitution, and the government thus subordinates itself to them.

 

[G.T.]

I hope everyone reading along understands that the people we see verbalizing their contempt and disbelief in "unalienable rights" are just a sampling of a larger ideology.

If we want to preserve our national heritage of respect for that which God (or nature) has bestowed upon mankind... leftists cannot be trusted in power. The notion that our "rights" can be arbitrarily assigned, means that they can just as easily be arbitrarily withdrawn.

You think Nature granted the right to life? What of the food chain then, . A gazelle was not granted an inalienable right to life when a Lion bites its neck, huh? Or are you saying Nature was partial to men? Before civilized society, "Nature" did not have men respecting life. It was the other way around, MEN became smarter, not "Nature" or "God."

Sounds nice, but reality seems quite opposite. To knock people for having a different perspective is the antithesis of progress, tbh.

 

[Murf76]

A gun is a commodity. Is the right to own one an 'unalienable right'?

Phillip's right. It's a tool, a weapon. And sure, they can be bought and sold. But you can also make your own if you have the talent to do so. We are human animals. And because we're capable of defending ourselves, capable of making tools which aid in that endeavor, we have a right to do so.

Self-defense is not an imposition upon any other American's citizen rights. It doesn't require the labor or property of another to accomplish. It takes nothing away from anyone but from the person (or persons) who attempt first to take something away from us.

 

[Murf76]

You think Nature granted the right to life? What of the food chain then, . A gazelle was not granted an inalienable right to life when a Lion bites its neck, huh? Or are you saying Nature was partial to men? Before civilized society, "Nature" did not have men respecting life. It was the other way around, MEN became smarter, not "Nature" or "God."

Sounds nice, but reality seems quite opposite. To knock people for having a different perspective is the antithesis of progress, tbh.

Read a book, man. Seriously. Have you never heard of the philosophy of "Natural Law"?

I am Human... therefore I have a right to be Human. Lions have a right to be Lions, therefore... they have a right to bite any gazelle through the neck that they can catch.

 

[G.T.]

Read a book, man. Seriously. Have you never heard of the philosophy of "Natural Law"?

I am Human... therefore I have a right to be Human. Lions have a right to be Lions, therefore... they have a right to bite any gazelle through the neck that they can catch.

That doesn't even make any sense. You have a right to be human? Ok, humans were cannibals, murderers, predators, rapists.....all by NATURE. It was societal LAWS that changed this, not Natural ones. Natural LAW is the food chain. If my family is starving, and I'm bigger and badder than you, I take you or your food. And your wives, too, while I'm at it. THAT'S Nature. What you speak of is MAN's becoming CIVILIZED.

 

[antagon]

natural law already has an understood definition GT. youre making a symantic argument?

 

[G.T.]

natural law already has an understood definition GT. youre making a symantic argument?

I'm disagreeing with its understood definition.

 

[Murf76]

That doesn't even make any sense. You have a right to be human? Ok, humans were cannibals, murderers, predators, rapists.....all by NATURE. It was societal LAWS that changed this, not Natural ones. Natural LAW is the food chain. If my family is starving, and I'm bigger and badder than you, I take you or your food. And your wives, too, while I'm at it. THAT'S Nature. What you speak of is MAN's becoming CIVILIZED.

Clearly, you didn't take the time to google or to think your post through before you made it.

It's because we are Human that we are capable of Civilization. We can engage in a more detailed thought process, rise above the Barbarian, and understand that Peace is only possible when we refrain from imposing upon the rights of others.

Natural Rights are about being a Human Animal. They're about what we can provide for ourselves by virtue of our humanity. We can make a tool and defend our possession of it... therefore, no one has a right to take it from us. If they try, they are impeding our right to our own property and causing a situation in which conflict will naturally arise.

 

[G.T.]

I mean, even the Legal definition is flawed. Take a look: a body of law or a specific principle of law that is held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law

If it were derived from Nature, it would be Survival of the Fittest. It is not, it's derived from a species becoming Sentient and Civilized.

 

[G.T.]

That doesn't even make any sense. You have a right to be human? Ok, humans were cannibals, murderers, predators, rapists.....all by NATURE. It was societal LAWS that changed this, not Natural ones. Natural LAW is the food chain. If my family is starving, and I'm bigger and badder than you, I take you or your food. And your wives, too, while I'm at it. THAT'S Nature. What you speak of is MAN's becoming CIVILIZED.

Clearly, you didn't take the time to google or to think your post through before you made it.

It's because we are Human that we are capable of Civilization. We can engage in a more detailed thought process, rise above the Barbarian, and understand that Peace is only possible when we refrain from imposing upon the rights of others.

Natural Rights are about being a Human Animal. They're about what we can provide for ourselves by virtue of our humanity. We can make a tool and defend our possession of it... therefore, no one has a right to take it from us. If they try, they are impeding our right to our own property and causing a situation in which conflict will naturally arise.

Spare me the gradeschool tactics.

But no, Humans WERE Barbarians. Did you forget? In becoming Civilized, we assigned a list of inalienable rights. They were not assumed by Nature.