We were talking about the declaration of independance and the universal declaration of human rights and how they stand as proof of the existence of human rights. You went off on a tangent about our leaders being idealistic and how they can pass laws. What does that have to do with my offer of proof? Absoultely nothing. Some of the rights declared in both these declarations are not recognized by law. It does not make them less of a right, it does not make the right nonexistant. It might be a “pipe dream” to want those rights "legalized’ but again, it does not mean the right doesn’t exist. Why you have such a hard time comprehending that I do not know.
Lawmakers realized the existence of human rights therefore created laws to protect them. Unforturnately many laws that exist to protect individual rights, deny anothers individual rights. Human rights existed before they law and were considered in writing the constitution. The constitution only makes what was considered legal and binding.
There are many of definitions of rights; human, individual, civil, constitutional, personal, inalienable, fundamental, legal, god given, equal, animal, natural. However according to you, the only right that is valid and real is any right that a law recognizes. Siince you can prove that they are not valid and real, you are basically just stating your opinion.
Legal rights and human rights are two separate things . . .
You wrote, “No, but what does this have to do with anything?”
You darvin, insinuated that I thought I held some kind of power and thought I could create a right at the drop of the hat when you wrote, "you don’t hold such power and thus can’t create rights at the drop of a hat. " I posted to let you know that I never never made the claim that I did hold any such power and that I could not create a right. So then, what does this have to do with anything? Ask yourself darvin, you are the one that made the statement not me. But I will add that I can declare a right at the drop of a hat. I believe I already have . . .
In the future, stick to the subject and do not make irrelevant remarks. it will save us both time, the latter which I do not have lot of to spend on a discussion board . . .
You wrote, “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 exist.”
If the right being violated did not exist, why was it ever made legal?
When I asked you if you believe in inherent human rights you answered, “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.”
Then you can’t ever claim that you believe in equal rights because equal rights do not exist for everyone. I find it very sad that you do not believe in equal rights. It people like you that submit easily to an idea and allow oppression of people.
you wrote, “A ‘human right’ is a pipe dream, something some people feel they are entitled to, a legal right is reality.”
No a human right is a human right and a legal right is a legal right.
You wrote, "You can claim all you want, it doesn’t make it true.
That statement applies to you as well . . .
You wrote, “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.”
The way that I am talking about them? I don’t think you understand what I am talking about, I really truly don’t. I do not think you grasp the whole concept of human rights.
“No, I think you are unrealistic because you are claiming a law is violating a right that you do not in fact have.”
I have a human right to be free to do with my time and body what I will. The law, by violates this right by prhobiting me to do those things, by banning those things.
“When did I claim your stance impractical?”
When you wrote, "You wrote, “It’s strange, I’m the one taking the pragmatic stance.” On of the meanings of the word pragmatic is practical. You figure the rest out . . .
you wrote, “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.”
I referenced women and minorities to make a point about human rights. Please reread what i wrote until you understand or ask me to explain it to you instead of pretending that you do.
You wrote, “And again you seem to be having problems with the concept of burden of proof, which is on you.”
The burden of proof is on anyone that makes a claim and calls it truth in which in this case, it lies on both of us.
You wrote, " 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."
You also made the claim that is doesn’t. Nevertheless, I DID offer two examples to support my claim and I quote myself in my previous thread which you obviously missed.
"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 . . . "
Now where is your proof that human rights do not exist?
I won’t comment on my debate style or yours. It is useless to debate opinons . .
You wrote, “There is no such thing as human rights, you claimed there existence, now where is the proof?”
It is not necessary for something to be tangibile in order for it to exist.
You wrote, “Well, considering that you have the self proclaimed intelligence of a dog (a claim I won’t challenge) what would be the point?”
See my note to diane on sarcasim . . .
You wrote, “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.”
Most people that I talk to agree with me. I know because I have been petioning. They ARE the public. And the club in mention is getting it’s license back soon. And soon we, who so choose, will no longer have our right denied by the city of Marietta because marietta by order of supreme court, will be lifting the ban on alcohol in nude bars or in bars where semi nudity can take place . . .
Oh and redundancy does not make your argument less valid it just makes the whole thing redundant . . .