Zone1 POLL: "Where do (your) Basic Human Rights come from? Zone1

[JoeB131]

I'll go with the Thomas Jefferson's wording in the Declaration of Independence signed by almost all our Founders:

". . .We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . ."

They believe and I believe that government does not grant us our rights but the government they envisioned SECURES the rights all of us already have. And no, I don't have to provide evidence or proof of God as our rights include us having whatever belief in that Creator that we may have.

And yet Jefferson went home and lived comfortably on the work of men who were born as slaves.

Proving my point that rights are what society thinks is acceptable.

 

[BackAgain]

There are no "rights".

There are privileges that the society at large is willing to tolerate. Sometimes these are detailed in law.

Anyone who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" to see how fast rights disappear when the room turns ugly.

Or "Undocumented Immigrants, 2025".

JoeBitch is one of those who will cry whenever anyone impinges on any of his rights.

Of course we have rights.

That they aren’t self-enforcing or even adequately protected when they sometimes get violated doesn’t mean those rights don’t exist.

 

[Chuz Life]

we arent talking about disagreeing,,

your opinion has no meaning in constitutionally protected rights,,

This comment begs the question about the times before the Constitution was drafted and later ratified.

Like, even before the (We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal) Declaration of Independence was written.

 

[Chuz Life]

JoeBitch is one of those who will cry whenever anyone impinges on any of his rights.

Of course we have rights.

That they aren’t self-enforcing or even adequately protected when they sometimes get violated doesn’t mean those rights don’t exist.

I have so many on ignore for obvious reasons.

It's clear they can't comprehend the differences between "denying, depriving, and violating" when it comes to rights.

Each (denying, depriving, and violating) has a clear and separate meaning, and they shouldn't be used interchangeably.

You said it well.

You can't deprive or violate a right that doesn't first "exist."

 

[Leo123]

Did God write the 2nd Amendment?

That is off topic.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeBitch is one of those who will cry whenever anyone impinges on any of his rights.

Of course we have rights.

That they aren’t self-enforcing or even adequately protected when they sometimes get violated doesn’t mean those rights don’t exist.

Oh, I'll complain, but I won't pretend that they exist.

If a right can't "self-enforce", then it isn't a right, it's a privilege everyone else agrees you should have. This is my point.

Now, because I love extreme examples, I give you the case of Ken McElroy

Ken McElroy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Short version of his case, he was an all-around hellraiser who terrorized the little town of Skidmore, MO.

Indicted 21 times, continuously beat the rap.

Then he was shot in broad daylight in front of 30-46 witnesses.

Yet not a one of those witnesses would say who did it, testify, or even give the police any leads to go on.

In short, an entire town decided this man had no rights.

 

[JoeB131]

Each (denying, depriving, and violating) has a clear and separate meaning, and they shouldn't be used interchangeably.

You said it well.

You can't deprive or violate a right that doesn't first "exist."

If it can be deprived or denied, then it isn't a right, it's a privilege.

 

[Chuz Life]

jesus knew their fate long before theirs were taken from him ... they are nowhere found in any desert bible than servitude and denial as the crucifiers made sure.

This hurt my brain.

No offense intended, I can't tell what you were trying to say.

 

[Foxfyre]

This hurt my brain.

No offense intended, I can't tell what you were trying to say.

After spending some time reading those posts, it is my opinion that you can relax and not worry. I'm pretty darn sure he has no clue what he is trying to say either.

Meanwhile, I am with the group that believes that a bad government/dictator/monarch whatever may infringe, violate, deny the rights of the people--you are right that the definition of each of those things varies--but they can't do that if such rights do not exist. The fact that people are prevented from exercising their rights does not negate the fact that rights exist.

 

[Chuz Life]

The basis for my beliefs on this is really an observation that led to a question and an answer. Maybe a bit of empathy too? That would be for a psychiatrist to determine.

I can observe any living thing and objectively see that the life that creature is living is (at the very least) biologically its own.

We can (should be able to) objectively look at a tree and determine that the life the tree is living belongs to the tree that is living it.

You can't remove one from the other without destroying both.

It is in that respect that even a tree has a right (proto-right, beginning right, primary right) to the life it is living.

That someone can cut down the tree is not proof that the tree did not have a right to the life it was living. It's only a fact that the tree's rights can be and were deprived, overcome, and violated (from the tree's perspective) anyway.

It is my observation, conclusion, and contention that our concept of Basic Human Rights began with that natural/ objective reality.

 

[BackAgain]

Oh, I'll complain, but I won't pretend that they exist.

If a right can't "self-enforce", then it isn't a right,

That’s absolute gibberish.

it's a privilege everyone else agrees you should have. This is my point.

You don’t have a point. A privilege is granted to you by another and doesn’t apply to all. A right, by contrast, applies to all.

Once again, if you have to rely on another person or entity to give you a right, then that same person or entity has the authority to take it away from you.

You or Antifa may violate my rights, which are not self-enforcing, but you are not able to deny me of those rights since you never gave them to me in the first place.

Now, because I love extreme examples, I give you the case of Ken McElroy

Ken McElroy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Short version of his case, he was an all-around hellraiser who terrorized the little town of Skidmore, MO.

Indicted 21 times, continuously beat the rap.

Then he was shot in broad daylight in front of 30-46 witnesses.

Yet not a one of those witnesses would say who did it, testify, or even give the police any leads to go on.

In short, an entire town decided this man had no rights.

The people of that town who were witnesses didn’t take a single right away from him. The dead have no rights. His killer arguably deprived him of his right to life.

You just don’t get it.

 

[BackAgain]

If it can be deprived or denied, then it isn't a right, it's a privilege.

Wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

You don’t have a point. A privilege is granted to you by another and doesn’t apply to all. A right, by contrast, applies to all.

Once again, if you have to rely on another person or entity to give you a right, then that same person or entity has the authority to take it away from you.

You or Antifa may violate my rights, which are not self-enforcing, but you are not able to deny me of those rights since you never gave them to me in the first place.

Okay, let's say after Trump Wrecks the economy, we get the ANTIFA Congress and President, and the first thing they do is decide that the Second Amendment is about militias. Oops, you dont belong to a militia and the nice man from the ATF stops by to collect your guns.

Do you still have a right to a gun at that point?

The people of that town who were witnesses didn’t take a single right away from him. The dead have no rights. His killer arguably deprived him of his right to life.

And everyone in the town was fine with it. No one peeped a word.

 

[BackAgain]

Okay, let's say after Trump Wrecks the economy, we get the ANTIFA Congress and President, and the first thing they do is decide that the Second Amendment is about militias. Oops, you dont belong to a militia and the nice man from the ATF stops by to collect your guns.

Do you still have a right to a gun at that point?

Yes. It’s just no longer one guaranteed by the Constitution.

And everyone in the town was fine with it. No one peeped a word.

Irrelevant.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes. It’s just no longer one guaranteed by the Constitution.

Irrelevant.

Post in thread 'That didn't take long. HR 127'

Jan 29, 2021

If you want to see leftardz heads really explode?

Try educating them on the fact that the 2nd Amendment is only part of the right to keep and bear arms.

A right that predates the Constitution itself.

• Chuz Life

 

[JoeB131]

Post in thread 'That didn't take long. HR 127'

Jan 29, 2021

If you want to see leftardz heads really explode?

Try educating them on the fact that the 2nd Amendment is only part of the right to keep and bear arms.

A right that predates the Constitution itself.

• Chuz Life

Naw, that wouldn't make heads explode because it's not particularly true.

Guns were actually RARE in colonial America and rarer still in Europe, because most people just didn't have a need for one.

 

[BreezeWood]

The fact that people are prevented from exercising their rights does not negate the fact that rights exist.

I'm pretty darn sure he has no clue what he is trying to say either.

- speaking of making no sense ff is the queen of mental deflection without purpose ... their little squiggly says it all.

 

[progressive hunter]

This comment begs the question about the times before the Constitution was drafted and later ratified.

Like, even before the (We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal) Declaration of Independence was written.

dont care about times before then,,

 

[ChristisKing]

That said, I would like to see any evidence or proof of God, to the extent that is possible.

Where do you think that life came from then? I'm not talking about evolution I'm talking about life itself as something can't evolve out of nothing.

 

[Chuz Life]

Where do you think that life came from then? I'm not talking about evolution I'm talking about life itself as something can't evolve out of nothing.

It's an intriguing question, "how\ where did life begin or originate?" However, it's not a question that has to be solved to conclude that a life (however it was originated) belongs to the individual who is living it.