MAGAThread XVII: All Things NOT Impeachment

[Tarsonis]

The natural right to bear arms doesn't mean anyone has to provide you with a gun for the umpteenth time. If the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed tommorrow I'd still consider the right to bear arms a right.

Just cause current government says it's a right doesn't mean it's a right.

Amazing, in your attempt to be snarky you failed to notice the distinction of natural rights. It's almost like you dont understand what rights actually are.

[New haven america]

Just cause current government says it's a right doesn't mean it's a right.

You have no valid argument.

You can't flip the script of gaslight something that only happened ~10 posts ago.

[Chernoslavia]

It is not a fucking right. Just because the government says so doesn't make it so.

How is this difficult?

The Civic duty performed by the providing the service, allows for the right to a jury trial to be fulfilled for said defendant. Thus, one can be entitled to the services of others, if that service is considered a legally required civic duty.

You have completely missed the point. You have a natural right to pursue a service, but people don't have to provide you with that service. The latter is what's not a natural right.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

yet another trump fuck up, gdp grew by 2.3% and not the promisesd 3%

[Gormwood]

yet another trump fuck up, gdp grew by 2.3% and not the promisesd 3%

FOXNews will flip the numbers to 3.2%, watch.

[The Black Forrest]

Next time you bring up anything having to do with the 2nd Amendment I'm going to quote this post right back to you.

Do it. And watch how you'll get proven wrong.

You do have a right to a musket.

[Chernoslavia]

Do it. And watch how you'll get proven wrong.

You do have a right to a musket.

Right. But you don't have to provide me with one, it just means I have a right to try, acquire, and possess one.

...Or if you are referring to old US law mandating that every man between the ages of 17-45 have a musket and powder and join a militia, that's not really what could be considered a right either as it obligates you to do something.

[Tarsonis]

How is this difficult?

The Civic duty performed by the providing the service, allows for the right to a jury trial to be fulfilled for said defendant. Thus, one can be entitled to the services of others, if that service is considered a legally required civic duty.

You have completely missed the point. You have a natural right to pursue a service, but people don't have to provide you with that service. The latter is what's not a right.

No i didnt miss the point. The issue is you are trying to lean on semantics, but it doesn't actually help you.

The Constitution guarantees a right to jury trial. Thus we require in law that people make themselves available for jury duty. And we call it a civic duty. But that civic duty is what allows for the right to jury trial to be fulfilled. Thus the the right to a jury trial, is a right to a person's dutiful service in this regard.

[Tarsonis]

How is this difficult?

The Civic duty performed by the providing the service, allows for the right to a jury trial to be fulfilled for said defendant. Thus, one can be entitled to the services of others, if that service is considered a legally required civic duty.

You have completely missed the point. You have a natural right to pursue a service, but people don't have to provide you with that service. The latter is what's not a natural right.

Natural rights don't exist, as they must be defined. Rights are whatever we say they are.

[Chernoslavia]

You have completely missed the point. You have a natural right to pursue a service, but people don't have to provide you with that service. The latter is what's not a right.

No i didnt miss the point. The issue is you are trying to lean on semantics, but it doesn't actually help you.

The Constitution guarantees a right to jury trial. Thus we require in law that people make themselves available for jury duty. And we call it a civic duty. But that civic duty is what allows for the right to jury trial to be fulfilled. Thus the the right to a jury trial, is a right to a person's dutiful service in this regard.

Yes you have because I am referring to natural rights, not what a government considers a right. You can argue for how much having universal healthcare is beneficial to society but at the end of the day you do not have a right to other people's goods or services. For something to be a right it must not step on the rights of others.

[Tarsonis]

No i didnt miss the point. The issue is you are trying to lean on semantics, but it doesn't actually help you.

The Constitution guarantees a right to jury trial. Thus we require in law that people make themselves available for jury duty. And we call it a civic duty. But that civic duty is what allows for the right to jury trial to be fulfilled. Thus the the right to a jury trial, is a right to a person's dutiful service in this regard.

Yes you have because I am referring to natural rights, not what a government considers a right. You can argue for how much having universal healthcare is beneficial to society but at the end of the day you do not have a right to other people's goods or services. For something to be a right it must not step on the rights of others.

So you're against a guaranteed right to trial, as the right necessitates the service be provided. You're against guaranteed right to an attorney, because that guarantee necessitates services be provided.

[Chernoslavia]

You have completely missed the point. You have a natural right to pursue a service, but people don't have to provide you with that service. The latter is what's not a natural right.

Natural rights don't exist, as they must be defined. Rights are whatever we say they are.

So if the government were to pass an amendment like in the Purge series declaring that I have a right to murder, rape, or steal at a certain day every year you would truly consider that a right? Because the government defines it as such?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Could you guys like take to the Sovereign Citizen thread?

[Tarsonis]

Natural rights don't exist, as they must be defined. Rights are whatever we say they are.

So if the government were to pass an amendment like in the Purge series declaring that I have a right to murder, rape, or steal at a certain day every year you would truly consider that a right? Because the government defines it as such?

If the culture operated that way, most people would. But way to dodge the point. The point is the idea of natural rights necessitates that humanity he innately endowed with them. But,absent a creator, humanity isn't innately endowed with anything, as the universe doesnt endow jackshit. Rights are either endowed by a creator, or they are endowed by mutual assent.

[Chernoslavia]

Yes you have because I am referring to natural rights, not what a government considers a right. You can argue for how much having universal healthcare is beneficial to society but at the end of the day you do not have a right to other people's goods or services. For something to be a right it must not step on the rights of others.

So you're against a guaranteed right to trial, as the right necessitates the service be provided. You're against guaranteed right to an attorney, because that guarantee necessitates services be provided.

No, I am saying I don't consider having someone attend jury duty or an attorney having to defend you as a right.

[Tarsonis]

So you're against a guaranteed right to trial, as the right necessitates the service be provided. You're against guaranteed right to an attorney, because that guarantee necessitates services be provided.

No, I am saying I don't consider having someone attend jury duty or an attorney having to defend you as a right.

No it's a duty, a duty that without which the right could not be fulfilled. Thus, the right to that thing is the right to the duty of those serve said duty.

Your argument isn't with me then, but the law of hypothetical syllogism

[Chernoslavia]

So if the government were to pass an amendment like in the Purge series declaring that I have a right to murder, rape, or steal at a certain day every year you would truly consider that a right? Because the government defines it as such?

If the culture operated that way, most people would. But way to dodge the point. The point is the idea of natural rights necessitates that humanity he innately endowed with them. But,absent a creator, humanity isn't innately endowed with anything, as the universe doesnt endow jackshit. Rights are either endowed by a creator, or they are endowed by mutual assent.

No it doesn't. Natural rights are rights you're already born with, that someone can't take away. We don't need a creator to recognize the right to forage for food, defend yourself, or pursue happiness.

[Tarsonis]

If the culture operated that way, most people would. But way to dodge the point. The point is the idea of natural rights necessitates that humanity he innately endowed with them. But,absent a creator, humanity isn't innately endowed with anything, as the universe doesnt endow jackshit. Rights are either endowed by a creator, or they are endowed by mutual assent.

No it doesn't. Natural rights are rights you're already born with, that someone can't take away. We don't need a creator to recognize the right to forage for food, defend yourself, or pursue happiness.

No you have the ability.

And it's not a right because I can also have the ability to block your ability to forage for food, to defend yourself, and to pursue happiness, and without the law nobody could stop me unless they're more powerful than I am.


If it requires strength to possess, it's not a right.

[Chernoslavia]

No it doesn't. Natural rights are rights you're already born with, that someone can't take away. We don't need a creator to recognize the right to forage for food, defend yourself, or pursue happiness.

No you have the ability.

And it's not a right because I can also have the ability to block your ability to forage for food, to defend yourself, and to pursue happiness, and without the law nobody could stop me unless they're more powerful than I am.


If it requires strength to possess, it's not a right.

Just because these are breached by both governments and individuals doesn't make them less of a right.

[Tarsonis]

No you have the ability.

And it's not a right because I can also have the ability to block your ability to forage for food, to defend yourself, and to pursue happiness, and without the law nobody could stop me unless they're more powerful than I am.


If it requires strength to possess, it's not a right.

Just because these are breached by both governments and individuals doesn't make them less of rights.

Except it does if I deam so. If I deam you're foraging to be in competition with mine, I'm well within my "rights" then to end said competition through violence. Your existence would be a threat to mine.

If I harvest all the food, I'm not obligated to share with you what I've collected. I've now disrupted your right to forage, by making it impossible for you to do so, even though I was only exercising my right to forage. And you would need to eliminate me, in order to eat.

Essentially these abilities are not innate, but are only obtained through power. They're earned. They're not innate.

[Genivaria]

Just because these are breached by both governments and individuals doesn't make them less of rights.

Except it does if I deam so. If I deam you're foraging to be in competition with mine, I'm well within my "rights" then to end said competition through violence. Your existence would be a threat to mine.

If I harvest all the food, I'm not obligated to share with you what I've collected. I've now disrupted your right to forage, by making it impossible for you to do so, even though I was only exercising my right to forage. And you would need to eliminate me, in order to eat.

Essentially these abilities are not innate, but are only obtained through power. They're earned. They're not innate.

Indeed, innate rights are a lovely legal fiction we've created to help bolster our positions.
In reality however when we say that 'healthcare is a right' or 'I have a right to own a gun' it's more accurate that they think 'this SHOULD be a right' not 'it IS a right'.

[Chernoslavia]

Just because these are breached by both governments and individuals doesn't make them less of rights.

Except it does if I deam so. If I deam you're foraging to be in competition with mine, I'm well within my "rights" then to end said competition through violence. Your existence would be a threat to mine.

If I harvest all the food, I'm not obligated to share with you what I've collected. I've now disrupted your right to forage, by making it impossible for you to do so, even though I was only exercising my right to forage. And you would need to eliminate me, in order to eat.

Essentially these abilities are not innate, but are only obtained through power. They're earned. They're not innate.

No you wouldn't be, you just chose to do just that and in turn I have the right to defend myself from your act of aggression.

You have a moral right to life, liberty and happiness but no one has to aid you in these pursuits.

[Chernoslavia]

Except it does if I deam so. If I deam you're foraging to be in competition with mine, I'm well within my "rights" then to end said competition through violence. Your existence would be a threat to mine.

If I harvest all the food, I'm not obligated to share with you what I've collected. I've now disrupted your right to forage, by making it impossible for you to do so, even though I was only exercising my right to forage. And you would need to eliminate me, in order to eat.

Essentially these abilities are not innate, but are only obtained through power. They're earned. They're not innate.

Indeed, innate rights are a lovely legal fiction we've created to help bolster our positions.
In reality however when we say that 'healthcare is a right' or 'I have a right to own a gun' it's more accurate that they think 'this SHOULD be a right' not 'it IS a right'.

I guess looking back, it'd be incorrect to call them natural rights as that would imply things like I have a right to raid a village for their food because it's in nature to fight for resources, maybe I should refer to them as just human rights from now on.

[Tarsonis]

Indeed, innate rights are a lovely legal fiction we've created to help bolster our positions.
In reality however when we say that 'healthcare is a right' or 'I have a right to own a gun' it's more accurate that they think 'this SHOULD be a right' not 'it IS a right'.

I guess looking back, it'd be incorrect to call them natural rights as that would imply things like I have a right to raid a village for their food because it's in nature to fight for resources, maybe I should refer to them as just human rights from now on.

Well at least now we're on to something.

[Chernoslavia]

I guess looking back, it'd be incorrect to call them natural rights as that would imply things like I have a right to raid a village for their food because it's in nature to fight for resources, maybe I should refer to them as just human rights from now on.

Well at least now we're on to something.

Agreed.

So can we talk about what can be considered human rights in an appropriate thread?