Rights

[Tecumsehsbones]

interesting portion of the declaration of independence. Penned by a man who owned several slaves. Somehow I can't pass over the irony in that.

What's hard about it? In addition to owning slaves, TJ thought female "men," men under the age of 21, native men, and men who didn't own property weren't "men," and therefore weren't equal.

He did, however, advance the idea. He enlarged the circle of "equal men" from the hereditary nobility to all white male property owners over 21.

Gotta start somewhere.

And I do hope you understand that the Declaration of Independence was a statement of why the colonies were committing treason, enit? It never did, and does not, form any part of the law of the United States.

 

[Liberalman]

A woman's right to choose by killing their little baby in the womb

 

[SLM]

I think that's captured in my definition of a right as "an aspect of life where the will of the holder of the right cannot be challenged."

One of the things that makes it a right is that you can't be compelled to use it any particular way.

Except for when you are.

I completely get where you're coming from here but, if we're looking at a definition of rights to mean that which we inherently own, then I think we would have to broaden your definition to say "should not be challenged" or "should never be compelled", don't you think? Because geography alone plays a huge role in what our functioning birth right is ultimately determined to be. If you're born in North America or Europe, for example, the rights you have are far greater (in scope and in number) than in say China or North Korea.

If we are saying that rights are outside/above/beyond the law, laws of the land, then that makes them within the purview of all human beings doesn't it? So shouldn't the definition fit that? Or maybe that is simply not possible.

 

[Ludlow]

What's hard about it? In addition to owning slaves, TJ thought female "men," men under the age of 21, native men, and men who didn't own property weren't "men," and therefore weren't equal.

He did, however, advance the idea. He enlarged the circle of "equal men" from the hereditary nobility to all white male property owners over 21.

Gotta start somewhere.

And I do hope you understand that the Declaration of Independence was a statement of why the colonies were committing treason, enit? It never did, and does not, form any part of the law of the United States.

Oh,,,so when he wrote those lines they applied to those who qualified in the category of "All Men",, in his mind. Makes sense. Learn something new eva day.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

A woman's right to choose by killing their little baby in the womb

There might still be a thread or two you haven't diverted with your dead baby crusade. You should really go check.

Except for when you are.

That's kind of the next step. We start with pure rights, and then start dealing with complexities like what are the limits of rights, and how do we resolve it when two (or more) people have rights in the same area.

Until we get a reasonable working definition, there's not much point in using the term.

I completely get where you're coming from here but, if we're looking at a definition of rights to mean that which we inherently own, then I think we would have to broaden your definition to say "should not be challenged" or "should never be compelled", don't you think? Because geography alone plays a huge role in what our functioning birth right is ultimately determined to be. If you're born in North America or Europe, for example, the rights you have are far greater (in scope and in number) than in say China or North Korea.

I'd say "culture" or "society," rather than geography. The British, French, and other European notions of rights hopped the Atlantic, for example. As a planet, we're starting to work on the idea of universal rights, but that's still in the early stages. Let's stick with Anglo-descended cultures to start, then work on expanding it.

If we are saying that rights are outside/above/beyond the law, laws of the land, then that makes them within the purview of all human beings doesn't it? So shouldn't the definition fit that? Or maybe that is simply not possible.

As I said, that's more advanced stuff.

 

[Liberalman]

There might still be a thread or two you haven't diverted with your dead baby crusade. You should really go check.

The OP deals with rights and a woman's right to choose is one of those rights and rescuing pets from abusive owners and then putting it to sleep is after a week if a new person can't be found, this is another right. and soon euthanasia will be another right for those children to put their elders to sleep because nursing home fees are too expensive.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Oh,,,so when he wrote those lines they applied to those who qualified in the category of "All Men",, in his mind. Makes sense. Learn something new eva day.

Exactly. The fact that Jefferson wasn't perfect doesn't make him useless. Martin Luther King said "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Another way of saying that is "The group of humans who count as "men" or "people with rights" expands." Slowly and haltingly, to be sure, but I think there's no arguing that the group of Jeffersonian "men" is now much larger than it was in 1776.

The OP deals with rights and a woman's right to choose is one of those rights and rescuing pets from abusive owners and then putting it to sleep is after a week if a new person can't be found, this is another right

The OP, to anyone with reading skills, asks about the definition of rights. Being the author of the OP, I can assure you with great confidence that I didn't intend the thread to be yet another place for you to weep for the dead beebees. If you want to do that, why don't you start a thread? You could call it "Liberalman Wants Everybody To Know He Weeps For the Dead Beebees."

 

[Liberalman]

The OP, to anyone with reading skills, asks about the definition of rights. Being the author of the OP, I can assure you with great confidence that I didn't intend the thread to be yet another place for you to weep for the dead beebees. If you want to do that, why don't you start a thread? You could call it "Liberalman Wants Everybody To Know He Weeps For the Dead Beebees."

As I said before this is a discussion of rights and my comments are to give examples of rights that we enjoy as a society.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

As I said before this is a discussion of rights and my comments are to give examples of rights that we enjoy as a society.

As I said before, I wrote the damn OP, and it's about the definition of the term "right," not your hobbyhorse.

But don't let that stop you.

Hey, why don't you nip over to the "Welfare Bums" thread and shed a few tears for the dead beebees. There could be someone, somewhere, who hasn't yet heard of your Deep Concern For the Murdered Beebees.

 

[Ludlow]

Exactly. The fact that Jefferson wasn't perfect doesn't make him useless. Martin Luther King said "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Another way of saying that is "The group of humans who count as "men" or "people with rights" expands." Slowly and haltingly, to be sure, but I think there's no arguing that the group of Jeffersonian "men" is now much larger than it was in 1776.


The OP, to anyone with reading skills, asks about the definition of rights. Being the author of the OP, I can assure you with great confidence that I didn't intend the thread to be yet another place for you to weep for the dead beebees. If you want to do that, why don't you start a thread? You could call it "Liberalman Wants Everybody To Know He Weeps For the Dead Beebees."

Like they say,,,anything can be justified depending on your point of view.

 

[Liberalman]

As I said before, I wrote the damn OP, and it's about the definition of the term "right," not your hobbyhorse.

But don't let that stop you.

Hey, why don't you nip over to the "Welfare Bums" thread and shed a few tears for the dead beebees. There could be someone, somewhere, who hasn't yet heard of your Deep Concern For the Murdered Beebees.

Just did that

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Like they say,,,anything can be justified depending on your point of view.

Yes, Jefferson didn't achieve perfection in one day. Therefore he was worthless scum. Whatever.

 

[Ludlow]

No, he was simply following his rights. In those days, owning human property was legal therefore his "right", and the rights of many of the other founders. So when you read words like, We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,, you must simply say, hey, he wasn't perfect. The fact that he wasn't perfect and contradicted his words by how he lived and what he practiced, justifies the double standard. Was he worthless scum?, I don't know, I didn't know the man. I do know however, that he owned human property. Make of it what you wish.

 

[SLM]

Yes, Jefferson didn't achieve perfection in one day. Therefore he was worthless scum. Whatever.

No, he was simply following his rights. In those days, owning human property was legal therefore his "right", and the rights of many of the other founders. So when you read words like, We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,, you must simply say, hey, he wasn't perfect. The fact that he wasn't perfect and contradicted his words by how he lived and what he practiced, justifies the double standard. Was he worthless scum?, I don't know, I didn't know the man. I do know however, that he owned human property. Make of it what you wish.

Actually I think what this highlights is that what we perceive to be as our rights is really little more than what we want. I want to be free, therefore it is my right. It is only when we grant others that same consideration as we do ourselves that this notion of what rights are begins to take any kind of shape. The words used by Jefferson are not rendered incorrect simply because he had a more narrow view of the world than we do. An inalienable right, according the definition, is the right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, transferred.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Actually I think what this highlights is that what we perceive to be as our rights is really little more than what we want. I want to be free, therefore it is my right. It is only when we grant others that same consideration as we do ourselves that this notion of what rights are begins to take any kind of shape. The words used by Jefferson are not rendered incorrect simply because he had a more narrow view of the world than we do. An inalienable right, according the definition, is the right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, transferred.

That, my dear, was pretty damn brilliant.

Allow me to pose a third working definition: A right is a freedom or choice that we desire, and acknowledge that everyone should have the same. When a large enough slice of the population agrees, the right will be enshrined in law.

 

[SLM]

That, my dear, was pretty damn brilliant.

Thank you but I just thought that was pretty obvious.

Allow me to pose a third working definition: A right is a freedom or choice that we desire, and acknowledge that everyone should have the same. When a large enough slice of the population agrees, the right will be enshrined in law.

I'd say that's as close to a perfect definition of the term, the notion of what rights are, as we're probably going to get. Unless there is just some aspect I'm not thinking of because this is a very difficult thing to nail down. Kind of like trying to describe a colour to someone who cannot see.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Thank you but I just thought that was pretty obvious.

Most brilliance is. I've been thinking about this issue for 30 years, and reading many of the greatest thinkers on the subject, and I never came to quite such an elegant concept.

I'd say that's as close to a perfect definition of the term, the notion of what rights are, as we're probably going to get. Unless there is just some aspect I'm not thinking of because this is a very difficult thing to nail down. Kind of like trying to describe a colour to someone who cannot see.

I think it's great, and it even accounts for why we have rights in the Constitution or Charter, rights conceived by judges in courtrooms, rights created by private contract, and rights that people fervently believe they have even though nobody, or nobody official, agrees.

It also gives us the concept of a "false right," i.e. a freedom or choice you want for yourself but want to deny to others.

 

[eh1eh]

We have the right to exist.
After that we don't have any 'rights'. At least not any more than a dog, cat, ant or jellyfish...et al.
In our existence we can choose to create a society where we cooperate and treat each other with kindness. None of this, while I feel it is important to our continued existence, is actually a 'right'.
We can only choose to not fukk each other over in the name of greed.
I guess we may want to make that a 'right', if it is possible.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

We have the right to exist.
After that we don't have any 'rights'. At least not any more than a dog, cat, ant or jellyfish...et al.
In our existence we can choose to create a society where we cooperate and treat each other with kindness. None of this, while I feel it is important to our continued existence, is actually a 'right'.
We can only choose to not fukk each other over in the name of greed.
I guess we may want to make that a 'right', if it is possible.

That doesn't define the term "right," so it's not very helpful in the context of what we're trying to do here.

 

[eh1eh]

That doesn't define the term "right," so it's not very helpful in the context of what we're trying to do here.

Maybe it defines the undefinable nature of 'right'.
The term is only relevant to the relationship of humans to humans.
In the big picture no entity has any 'rights'.