It was the popular opinion of our founding fathers, it is the popular opinion of the writers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.amnestyusa.org/udhr.html among others. I guess most of our leaders were or are not “living in reality.” Perhaps it is the other way around that those who claim that there are no rights unless they are legal are not living in reality.
I posted a thread and claimed a right, defined the right and spent alot of time explaining myself to people that could not ponder the thought that there may exist such a right, one that falls neatly under the catergory of human and individual rights, to then be insulted and flatly told I am wrong. Well if I am so wrong, prove it other wise shut up and quit telling me that I have no right when in fact, the only right I don’t have is the legal right.
Really? How do you know that people did not go on about the the right to speak freely. Maybe it was not an issue then and other things were. But the right to speak freely in essence is a human right. The right to watch naked people dance while I consume alcoholic is a human right.
Codes associated with such names as Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Draco, Solon and Manu outline standards of conduct for fairly homogenous groups within limited territorial jurisdictions; international law not yet born. Many great religions are precursors of human rights in their requirements to treat fellow humans with dignity and help provide for each other’s needs as the basis for a good community.
It seems that people began to recognize the existence of human rights the first time someone wrote “thou shalt.”
But anyhow, according to you Dravin, whether my right actually exists is now simply a matter of opinion. Yet you have agreed with jodi that was not, was a fact. LOL! Again, it is merely a legal fact that I don’t have the right but not a fact that I actually don’t have the human right which again, I have claimed from the very beginning that I do. In my OP, I did use the word infringement though violation would have been a better word. The conservative tight asses who want to hold everyone to their “biblical” moral standards will do anything they can to do it. They could careless about my human rights, they have an agenda beyond that, their own christian utopia. But the attorneys that represent them know that they can’t hold me to their religious standards so then they claim that strip clubs and alcohol together increase the crime rate and lower property values. In this particular case it has not. Attorney’s for the owners of strip clubs claim that it is a violation of their first amendment and fourteenth amendment rights to ban both alcohol and nudity together. But now the government is claiming that it can violate such rights if they feel it is necessary. What is the fucking point of having the god damned right in the first place? Yet another reason why i hate our current government . . .
The marietta public official whose relative came out of the closet in the local strip club was more than likely worried about what his conservative tight assed christian supporters would think if he allowed his relative to carry on with such “immoral” behavior . . .
Well, according to classical liberals, the idea of “rights” only becomes an issue when law/goverment exists. Originally, in the state of nature, there’s no need to seperate “rights” from any other human behavior, because everyone is free to do everything. It’s only when a goverment comes along to restrict behavior, that certain things are distinquished and called “rights” over which the government doesn’t (or shouldn’t) have any power over.
It seems like, going back to the original question, there are two basic questions at issue:
Does/should the government have the power to regulate where and how a business operates?
Does/should the government have the power to restrict the sale of alcohol?
As to the first question, we see that governments do have the power to regulate the operation of businesses within their jurisdiction. There are a number of laws, recognized as constitutional and legitimate, establishing zoning, times of operation, and health and employment standards.
As to the second, we see that government has the power to restrict alcohol sales. In most jurisdictions, alcohol beverage control limits who may sell alcohol. Government may restrict who alcohol is allowed to be sold to, and what days and hours it may be sold.
Consequently, this is not an unwarrented extension of the government’s regulatory power.
Jodi wrote, “you think you have a “natural” right – endowed by nature – to drinks and T&A? It is to laugh. Where is the Fundamental Titty Bar of the Natural World, anyway? Oh, wait: There isn’t one.” - Jodi
In which I replyed, "If your saying it is not my human or “natural” right as a human to T&A and drinks, then prove it is not. "
Which led Dewey to write, "Un-uh. Doesn’t work that way. You are the one making the claim; you are the one that has to support it. "
Which in turn I wrote, “Which claim is that? I’ll wait for you to copy and post where I made the claim about what is distinctly natural and what is not. The only claim that I made was that I had a human right. The argument about what is natural and what is not is an entirely new argument brought up by Jodi.”
Jodi completely ignored all this and Dewey, it seems, has left the building, so to speak.
Still waiting for “lil miss can’t be wrong” to prove her claim . . .
Which is bascially what I said in my post to you above was it not? The existence of one created the existence of another. I’ll certainly go for that . . .
Captain Amazing, there were no original questions at issue such as the ones you posted. I know the government has the power to regulate and restrict alcohol. I was essentially ranting against the fact that they do.
Should the government have these powers? (You didn’t answer you own questions) I guess that is a matter of opinion . . .
The claim is that simultaneous titty-watching and drinking is a natural right. You made that claim. As the maker of the claim, you have to defend it. You cannot just state a claim and then tell your opponents to disprove it; the burden of proof is on you.
The only reason I’ve “left the building” is (a) Jodi, et al have basically said everything I would have said, and I saw no need to be repetitive, and (b) Jodi evidently is more inclined to speak with brick walls than I am.
See above re: telling me to fuck off again, results thereof, and then hold your breath.
You may want to remember this as a tactic, by the way. If you insult people repeatedly, in the face of clear warnings not to do so, then you’ll find they won’t bother to respond to you any further, and then you can claim you’ve won the argument.
It’s very effective, even here in the Pit; you’ll just have to run the risk that no one else will notice that driving people away is not actually synonymous with winning.
They were idealistic, and since they are leaders they can pass laws that make those hopes actual rights, you don’t hold such power and thus can’t create rights at the drop of a hat. They had power, they felt people should have certain freedoms, they made laws that ensured those freedoms, and thus your right to worship as you please (within reason) and to print something critical of the government was born, before there were laws that protected such things you had no right concerning such things.
It is those that claim rights that they are not granted by the government that aren’t living in reality. A ‘right’ that can’t be exercised isn’t a right; it’s a hope or dream. And once you get the government of the United States (in this case) to pass law recognizing the ‘right’ to look at nekkid people and drink booze (at the same time and place), then you can claim that you have a right to do such things, until such time you simply wish you were free to do those things.
If you claim a right that isn’t recognized by the local government and are surprised that they won’t let you exercise your proclaimed right, then it is you that isn’t being realistic, or in other words living in reality.
It’s strange, I’m the one taking the pragmatic stance and I’m being accuse of not living in reality, tis worthy a belly laugh.
You brought up the claim, the burden of proof is on your shoulders, and you sound like some of the more conservative people I know. It isn’t up to me to prove God exists; it’s up to you to prove he doesn’t. And since you can’t prove a negative, and hand waving is easy to do you simply have to shrug your shoulders and sigh. Nice to know you borrow debating tactics from the likes of Jack Chick and Friends.
And anyway, there is no such thing as an illegal right, legal rights are what it is all about, if the law doesn’t say you have it, you quite literally don’t and can’t use this non-existent right as reason why a law should be appealed.
What makes it so? See if you were claiming freedom of speech you would have something going for you, it is a right recognized be multiple governments, but your proclaimed right has no backing, but for the fact that two people say you have it, including you.
You need to work on your rereading comprehension, rather badly I might add, if you want I can see about finding you a tutor. What rights we are ‘entitled’ to are decided by public opinion. Public opinion and the law of the land does not grant you the ‘right’ to drink and look at nekkid people. Thus that right is not afforded you and does not exist, and claiming it does is false.
You know this thread wouldn’t be as long as it is if you would just accept the fact that you are claiming rights not afforded you by the government and just stick to the voicing your opinion about how stupid and crummy the law is. But instead somebody pointed out a mistake and you lashed out at the audacity of somebody to point out an error you made.
Then it is also just merely a legal fact that my right to be given a million dollars is not recognized by those that set the laws. And yes, this is a valid analogy no matter how much it smarts to see how flimsy your basis actually is. If the government does not afford you a proclaimed right it is no right, it is only a pipe dream.
How so?
Not allowing somebody to drink alcohol and watch naked people has nothing to do with religion, or the free exercise there off, looking at nekkid people while drinking booze has nothing to do with freedom of speech, or the press. Nor is it not allowing you to peaceably assemble, and it has nothing to do with redress of grievances.
Actually Dewey, the claim AGAIN that I made was that it was a human right. She made the claim that “titty bars” were unnatural. If you can’t see that these are two separate claims and two separate arguments then I truely feel for you . . .
Oh and I am a brick wall? LOL! I am tough and solid as such and stick to my beliefs just as it seems others do. Label me what you will but until you or another can refute what I have presented, you are just making noise . . .
I do believe the implication is that you are so set and refusing of change that you stand still against all reason and that bending in the slightest would cause you to crack, crumble and possibly fail.
No, the 14th amendment would make sense, if you were trying to make a constitutional argument, in this case the privileges and immunities clause. If you can argue that the first amendment protects your right to dance naked and serve alcohol under the US Constitution, then that clause means that a state can’t prohibit it also.
Oh okay, but that makes the violation of the second dependant on the first (1st and 14th being the ones involved), and since we know my stance on if it violates the 1st we can extrapolate my stance about it being a violation of the 14th.
I did not tell you to fuck off. I said fuck you . . .
I have run into your type many times before both online and off. When you are cornered, you duck and run . . .
You failed to answer a direct question, before I “insulted” you and ignored many valid points that I made on more than one occasion. Now since I have asked you to directly answer a question or two, you leave the thread and the debate based on the fact that I insulted you. You insulted me many more times than I ever insulted you and that is a fact that can be proven by reading through these posts. It is all there. And in case you weren’t aware, (obviously you weren’t), saying “fuck you” or telling someone to “fuck off” is NOT an insult to ones character . . .
I see what you are all about, winning, hence your comments and the REAL reason you left. Bet you are the type that really, really, hates to lose . . . Try seeing debates as less of a competiton and more of a learning experience.
What is exactly are youy saying here. That our founding fathers were not in tune with reality? That the rights declared in the declaration of independence are nothing but hopes? That the ones in our constitution are idealistic as well? Please explain your statement above. Remember I have a tiny brain, not much smarter than your average dog . . .
You wrote “you don’t hold such power and thus can’t create rights at the drop of a hat.”
I never said I did hold power and could change rights at the drop of a hat. I did however mention that I work towards changing laws by my involvement. I believe all people can. Do you disagree?
You wrote, “They had power, they felt people should have certain freedoms, they made laws that ensured those freedoms, and thus your right to worship as you please (within reason) and to print something critical of the government was born, before there were laws that protected such things you had no right concerning such things.”
So then, according to you, women and minorites had no inherent human right to equality before they had they “legal” right?
You wrote, “It is those that claim rights that they are not granted by the government that aren’t living in reality. A right’ that can’t be exercised isn’t a right; it’s a hope or dream.” "
An when those women and minorites claimed that they had a right to equality, they were not living in reality? Have you considered that the “reality” of their lack of a legal right to the same opportunites and privilages that others had made them declare their right in the first place? Please show how in truth, these peopel or I for that matter, am not living in reality by claiming a "human right. A human right is still a right. Not a legal right but a human right.
You wrote, “And once you get the government of the United States (in this case) to pass law recognizing the ‘right’ to look at nekkid people and drink booze (at the same time and place), then you can claim that you have a right to do such things, until such time you simply wish you were free to do those things.”
I can still claim that I have a right while being denied the freedom to exercise it all the while which is what I have been doing all along . . .
You wrote, “If you claim a right that isn’t recognized by the local government and are surprised that they won’t let you exercise your proclaimed right, then it is you that isn’t being realistic, or in other words living in reality.”
Oh I am not surprised when the local government denies me my rights, nothing “government” in general does to “surprise” me anymore. I am pretty used to being regulated and restricted. Instead I am pissed. Anyway, please show again how claiming a human right makes me unrealistic.
You obviously seem to think it is unrealistic to want to live my life in a way that allows me personal freedoms like freedom of choice. To live a life that allows me certain pleasures that do not directly infringe upon the rights of others. I have no desire to hurt anyone or make their life complicated, I just want to live in peace and with as few or little complications as well.
You wrote, “It’s strange, I’m the one taking the pragmatic stance and I’m being accuse of not living in reality, tis worthy a belly laugh.”
Which part of my “stance” is impractical?
You wrote, “You brought up the claim, the burden of proof is on your shoulders, and you sound like some of the more conservative people I know.”
The examples I used above when I was talking about women and minorities believing in human rights I offer as proof of it’s existence. I also offered the fact that it was written in our declaration of independence as well as in the universal declaration of human rights as proof of it’s existence. What proof do you have to offer of it’s non exitence? Looking forward to your offer of proof . . .
You wrote, “It isn’t up to me to prove God exists; it’s up to you to prove he doesn’t. And since you can’t prove a negative, and hand waving is easy to do you simply have to shrug your shoulders and sigh. Nice to know you borrow debating tactics from the likes of Jack Chick and Friends.”
Why bring god into the argument and who the hell is this jack guy? Actually, I don’t care who jack is . . . Never mind . . .
You wrote, “And anyway, there is no such thing as an illegal right, legal rights are what it is all about, if the law doesn’t say you have it, you quite literally don’t and can’t use this non-existent right as reason why a law should be appealed.”
LOL! I never claimed there was such a thing as an illegal right. Where in the hell did you come up with that? If the law says I don’t have it, it means I literally don’t have the legal right. That is all that it means. It does not erase the existence of a human right.
You wrote, “What makes it so? See if you were claiming freedom of speech you would have something going for you, it is a right recognized be multiple governments, but your proclaimed right has no backing, but for the fact that two people say you have it, including you.”
WTF? I am getting tired of repeating myself . . .
“You need to work on your rereading comprehension, rather badly I might add, if you want I can see about finding you a tutor.”
Which part of what you or anyone else wrote am I not comprehending? Please tell me so that I can finally, with your help, comprehend it . . .
“What rights we are ‘entitled’ to are decided by public opinion.”
LOL! Really?
“Public opinion and the law of the land does not grant you the ‘right’ to drink and look at nekkid people.”
It is not public opinon dear, it is a city ordinance and the decision was not made by the public, but of a few officials.
You wrote, “Thus that right is not afforded you and does not exist, and claiming it does is false.”
I have a human right that is being denied here by the law. The right does exist and claiming it is not “false.”
“You know this thread wouldn’t be as long as it is if you would just accept the fact that you are claiming rights not afforded you by the government”
blah, blah, blah . . . How do you know? Can you see the future or what would have been?
You wrote, “and just stick to the voicing your opinion about how stupid and crummy the law is. But instead somebody pointed out a mistake and you lashed out at the audacity of somebody to point out an error you made.”
I never made an error. If I did, point it out.
“Then it is also just merely a legal fact that my right to be given a million dollars is not recognized by those that set the laws. And yes, this is a valid analogy no matter how much it smarts to see how flimsy your basis actually is. If the government does not afford you a proclaimed right it is no right, it is only a pipe dream.”
They exist, they are recognized by law, thus they are not hopes but reality, before those laws existed though they were nothing but hopes, nothing wrong with hoping and trying to get what you feel you are entitled to written into law as a right, but until such time that the law supports you all you are doing is spouting pipe dreams.
No, but what does this have to do with anything? I never said you shouldn’t try to get the right appeal, but trying to get it repealed because it violates your proclaimed rights isn’t really valid.
Nope, before it was passed into law they could not claim that laws were violating their rights, along those lines, because the rights that were supposedly being violated don’t exsist.
A ‘human right’ is a pipe dream, something some people feel they are entitled to, a legal right is reality.
You can claim all you want, it doesn’t make it true.
Because human rights do not exist the way you are talking about them, what you are talking about is what you feel should be true, which isn’t how the world works.
No, I think you are unrealistic because you are claiming a law is violating a right that you do not in fact have.
When did I claim your stance impractical? I claimed you are living on pipe dreams and hopes and wishing them rights, which is unrealistic.
The fact that the United States government has ruled and passed into law that women and minorities are equal has nothing to do with your proclaimed right to drink booze and look at nekkid people. And again you seem to be having problems with the concept of burden of proof, which is on you. You are claiming that a right exists that the law doesn’t grant, I want proof that such is true, you made the claim, now youj bring the proof to support your claim.
Because, your debate style is a mirror image of that used by Fundamentalists the world over, a debate style that is generally held as inexcusable and intellectual laziness. That Jack Chick is somebody who uses the same school of debate that you do.
There is no such thing as human rights, you claimed there existence, now where is the proof? Legal rights exist in a rather tangible way, unlike your proclaimed rights.
Well, considering that you have the self proclaimed intelligence of a dog (a claim I won’t challenge) what would be the point?
In a Representative Republic the officials are there to do the will of their constituents, if nobody thought that drinking booze and looking at nekkid people should be illegal then the law wouldn’t be in place, just because you don’t agree with the opinion does not make it no longer public opinion.
Huh? Are you now claiming that law recognizes your proclaimed right? Cite please.
Your claiming of a right that is not in existence, please point to me the legal document that protects your supposed right to look at nekkid people and drink booze?
Prove the right exists, come now, I’m waiting… what is that? You can’t?
Wow, what a surprise. Claiming something exist without any sort of proof at all is spotty at best. See, we keep on coming back to the same thing, that your supposed right exists because you claim it does.
Yes, I do get redundant from time to time, I sometimes feel the urge to summarize, redundancy does not invalidate my argument now matter how much you may wish it to.
What questions did I answer, not answer, refuse to answer, or whatever the hell you are trying to say here?
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
Until your self admitted dog sized brain is able to wrap around and comprehend the things other posters have been asking from you, it really would be redundant for me to ask the same.
I posted several questions to jodi which she did not answer and refused to answer basically blaming her refusual to answer them on me. If she would have answered the questions honestly, it she would have had to admit that I was correct, which she did not want to do. So then, I then challenged YOU to answer the same questions, never said I asked you specifically a question, rather asked you to answer those questions I had asked her.
As for your other comments, you obviously fail to recognize sarcasm. Your bad . . .
Now unless you have some “real thought” that pertains to this discussion, I suggest you run along before you embarass yourself . . .