Education a right ?

[editec]

So now rights are based on what people naturally do?
For starters there is no "natural" response to slavery. Actually the "natural" response if there is one would be to sit there and take it. BEcause historically that is what slaves have done.
But since you mention it, does that mean that there is a natural right to take a dump? Will you include that in the Rights Of Man? A satisfying bowel movement?

No. Historically, slaves have sought freedom from bondage. Sometimes, it has taken a long time to accomplish, but they eventually get there.

No. Historically slaves have not sought that. There have been perhaps a dozen slave uprisings in history. Slavery ended here because of the Civil War, not because of anything slaves did. This is similar to virtually every other time and place where slavery was abolished. It did not come about because of anything slaves did.

There have been thousands of slave uprisings. They're as common as dust in history.

There have been few successful slave uprisings, and perhaps that's what you meant to say.

Just correcting the record here, I have no dog in this fight.

 

[The Rabbi]

Care to document a few hundred?

 

[Murf76]

Care to document a few hundred?

It's just Wiki... but you can follow the links out for yourself.
Slave rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why is it that you believe that acceptance of slavery is a natural state of being for humans? I just don't see it. What I see is a natural human aversion to captivity.

Again, if there is no inherent "right" to be free... there's nothing WRONG with making another man your slave. Morality is entirely subjective when there is no authority higher than one man's word against another's.

 

[manifold]

Aversion to captivity is a natural state for virtually all animals, including man.

One walk through a zoo should satisfy anyone's need for proof.

But simply understanding that all humans prefer freedom to captivity does not make freedom itself a "natural" right. I believe Ribeye's point on slavery is that clearly freedom has been taken away in the past, therefore there is nothing extra special about freedom that precludes it being taken away. Bottom line is that rights are what we say they are, and that means it's a subjective determination. Trying to claim that the determination of what is or is not a right can somehow be completely objective is a logical fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

Care to document a few hundred?

It's just Wiki... but you can follow the links out for yourself.
Slave rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why is it that you believe that acceptance of slavery is a natural state of being for humans? I just don't see it. What I see is a natural human aversion to captivity.

Again, if there is no inherent "right" to be free... there's nothing WRONG with making another man your slave. Morality is entirely subjective when there is no authority higher than one man's word against another's.

Wiki link fails to substantiate claim.
Anyway, it is not acceptance of slavery that is the natural condition. It is that it is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people. That has been the pattern in human history right up until today, when slavery is still practiced in some areas of the world.
That doesn't make it right. But it doesn't make owning slaves a right either.
In all, arguing from what usually occurs to deduce a "right" to something is a fool's errand.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...

Yeah...like we should take advice from someone in a country full of sheep.

 

[Murf76]

Wiki link fails to substantiate claim.
Anyway, it is not acceptance of slavery that is the natural condition. It is that it is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people. That has been the pattern in human history right up until today, when slavery is still practiced in some areas of the world.
That doesn't make it right. But it doesn't make owning slaves a right either.
In all, arguing from what usually occurs to deduce a "right" to something is a fool's errand.

Like I said, you can follow the Wiki links out if you want to verify the information. It's up to you.

But I'm curious... if you don't think slavery is right, what is it exactly that makes it WRONG?
Again, morality is entirely subjective when there's no higher authority than one man's word against another's. So, why is it wrong for one man to enslave another?

 

[manifold]

Wiki link fails to substantiate claim.
Anyway, it is not acceptance of slavery that is the natural condition. It is that it is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people. That has been the pattern in human history right up until today, when slavery is still practiced in some areas of the world.
That doesn't make it right. But it doesn't make owning slaves a right either.
In all, arguing from what usually occurs to deduce a "right" to something is a fool's errand.

Like I said, you can follow the Wiki links out if you want to verify the information. It's up to you.

But I'm curious... if you don't think slavery is right, what is it exactly that makes it WRONG?
Again, morality is entirely subjective when there's no higher authority than one man's word against another's. So, why is it wrong for one man to enslave another?

Because my subjective determination is that freedom should be a basic human right.

And I'm damn glad most of the world agrees with me.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Most of us have the LEGAL RIGHT to an education as outlined by our STATE CONSTITUTIONS, or by laws written by our states for compulsory education.

Per usual, I'll note that until we agee on what the meaning of the word RIGHTS really is, we cannot truly have a rational discussion about them.

Must be a real quandary for the truant officer.

Right and compulsory in the same sentence,very interesting.

Not really....the truant officer is just enforcing the law....unless you are insinuating that a law automatically gives a right to the beneficiaries of that law.

 

[Murf76]

Because my subjective determination is that freedom should be a basic human right.

And I'm damn glad most of the world agrees with me.

So... if MY subjective determination is that you should be a slave, then all I have to do is to get a bigger bunch of people to agree with me and then it'll be A-okay to enslave you. Is that what you're saying?

 

[manifold]

Because my subjective determination is that freedom should be a basic human right.

And I'm damn glad most of the world agrees with me.

So... if MY subjective determination is that you should be a slave, then all I have to do is to get a bigger bunch of people to agree with me and then it'll be A-okay to enslave you. Is that what you're saying?

I just said that my subjective determination is that it's not ok silly.

 

[Murf76]

Because my subjective determination is that freedom should be a basic human right.

And I'm damn glad most of the world agrees with me.

So... if MY subjective determination is that you should be a slave, then all I have to do is to get a bigger bunch of people to agree with me and then it'll be A-okay to enslave you. Is that what you're saying?

I just said that my subjective determination is that it's not ok silly.

What makes your "subjective determination" more righteous than mine?

If I say you should be a slave, and if I can get the tyranny of a Democratic Majority to agree with me... then you become a slave. Right is might... according to you.
You have no innate human value with which to defend yourself. Your life is not sacred, in and of itself. There is nothing of YOU which cannot be owned by another.

 

[G.T.]

So... if MY subjective determination is that you should be a slave, then all I have to do is to get a bigger bunch of people to agree with me and then it'll be A-okay to enslave you. Is that what you're saying?

I just said that my subjective determination is that it's not ok silly.

What makes your "subjective determination" more righteous than mine?

If I say you should be a slave, and if I can get the tyranny of a Democratic Majority to agree with me... then you become a slave. Right is might... according to you.
You have no innate human value with which to defend yourself. Your life is not sacred, in and of itself. There is nothing of YOU which cannot be owned by another.

Luckily, the Humans who outlined your Rights in the Constitution agreed with him also.

You can feel that these rights came from some secret force or fairy, and that's fine. But in reality, they were not enforced until they were put to law, by man, here on Earth.

Don't knock people because they seek observable proof before they make their determinations. "Faith," probably shouldn't determine law.

 

[Murf76]

Luckily, the Humans who outlined your Rights in the Constitution agreed with him also.

You can feel that these rights came from some secret force or fairy, and that's fine. But in reality, they were not enforced until they were put to law, by man, here on Earth.

Don't knock people because they seek observable proof before they make their determinations. "Faith," probably shouldn't determine law.

You don't have to believe in God to understand that human life has innate value which simply IS. It exists because we're human, regardless of whether one believes we were created that way or evolved that way. We have an "unalienable right" to be human, and not somebody else's beast of burden.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wiki link fails to substantiate claim.
Anyway, it is not acceptance of slavery that is the natural condition. It is that it is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people. That has been the pattern in human history right up until today, when slavery is still practiced in some areas of the world.
That doesn't make it right. But it doesn't make owning slaves a right either.
In all, arguing from what usually occurs to deduce a "right" to something is a fool's errand.

Like I said, you can follow the Wiki links out if you want to verify the information. It's up to you.

But I'm curious... if you don't think slavery is right, what is it exactly that makes it WRONG?
Again, morality is entirely subjective when there's no higher authority than one man's word against another's. So, why is it wrong for one man to enslave another?

I did. The link did not support the contention. Sorry.

I dont think slavery is necessarily wrong. Neither do most people, depending on how you phrase the question.
Should prisoners be made to work during their sentence? Many people say yes. But this is a form of slavery.
What about military conscription? Again, yes.
What about criminals working off their restitution to their victims? I think you'd find a lot of support for this. But it's slavery.

 

[The Rabbi]

Luckily, the Humans who outlined your Rights in the Constitution agreed with him also.

You can feel that these rights came from some secret force or fairy, and that's fine. But in reality, they were not enforced until they were put to law, by man, here on Earth.

Don't knock people because they seek observable proof before they make their determinations. "Faith," probably shouldn't determine law.

You don't have to believe in God to understand that human life has innate value which simply IS. It exists because we're human, regardless of whether one believes we were created that way or evolved that way. We have an "unalienable right" to be human, and not somebody else's beast of burden.

What is the "innate value" of human life? Are they all equal? Can they be traded on a futures exchange? How do you know such a thing exists?

 

[G.T.]

You don't have to believe in God to understand that human life has innate value which simply IS. It exists because we're human, regardless of whether one believes we were created that way or evolved that way. We have an "unalienable right" to be human, and not somebody else's beast of burden.

That's what the Philosophy of thinking MEN has gotten us, sure. But it's still because they concluded that, not because of anything else, and that's the point. What makes something "unalienable" besides calling it that? If MEN didn't decide those rights were "unalienable," THEY'D BE ALIENABLE! God wouldn't stop us from alienating them. Nature wouldn't stop us from Alienating them. AND THEY WERE ALIENATED! FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS of HUMAN HISTORY!!

So MEN decided we have inherent Rights, and most Humans like that idea, but the idea of having inherent rights still came from Men but was not "actually" "inherent upon our being." That's whimsical speak. They're not from Nature. Not from "simply being Human," not from God. They're from Man enacted Law. The rights were Alienable before, and we have thousands of years of proof of their alienation.

 

[manifold]

So... if MY subjective determination is that you should be a slave, then all I have to do is to get a bigger bunch of people to agree with me and then it'll be A-okay to enslave you. Is that what you're saying?

I just said that my subjective determination is that it's not ok silly.

What makes your "subjective determination" more righteous than mine?

If I say you should be a slave, and if I can get the tyranny of a Democratic Majority to agree with me... then you become a slave. Right is might... according to you.
You have no innate human value with which to defend yourself. Your life is not sacred, in and of itself. There is nothing of YOU which cannot be owned by another.

You'd still never take my spirit.

But yes, that might makes right is a fundamental truism of humanity.

That is so regardless of how you or I might feel about it.

 

[Murf76]

You'd still never take my spirit.

EXACTLY. FINALLY. YES!

But yes, that might makes right is a fundamental truism of humanity.

That is so regardless of how you or I might feel about it.

Even "might" can't take from us that which cannot be truly taken, that which is OURS alone by virtue of our humanity, no matter how inhumanely we might be treated. We might be gagged, for example, deprived of our ability to speak. But if we are, we are violated of our "right" to speak. The fact that someone is capable of gagging you doesn't make it less of a violation if they do.

 

[manifold]

But yes, that might makes right is a fundamental truism of humanity.

That is so regardless of how you or I might feel about it.

Even "might" can't take from us that which cannot be truly taken, that which is OURS alone by virtue of our humanity, no matter how inhumanely we might be treated. We might be gagged, for example, deprived of our ability to speak. But if we are, we are violated of our "right" to speak. The fact that someone is capable of gagging you doesn't make it less of a violation if they do.

I agree. I simply understand that we share the same opinion, you just happen to believe it as fact.

The things that have thus far been enumerated as lawfully protected rights CAN truly be taken. And that's all that really matters at the end of the day, no?