[ENTP] Rights cannot be given.

Rights cannot be given.

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 68
Thank Tree9Thanks

This is a discussion on Rights cannot be given. within the ENTP Forum- The Visionaries forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Definition that pertains to the usage I am speaking on: right /rīt/ noun plural noun: rights 1. that which is ...

  1. #1
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Rights cannot be given.

    Definition that pertains to the usage I am speaking on:

    right
    /rīt/
    noun
    plural noun: rights

    1.
    that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

    2.
    a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.


    I would like to speak on the bold.

    Certainly I am not above arguing/speaking on semantics and/or
    the stated definition(s).

    My real interest in this is the line....

    Rights cannot be given, they may only be taken away.

    What do you think? True? False? If false; who decides?



  2. #2

    Interesting take on this. But I'll disagree as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is about freedom, justice and peace - yet many do not enjoy this.

    In the West, there are things like equality, freedom from discrimination. Yet it's as if we need to be given these when our freedom is infringed upon.

    Freedom of speech? Sure, as long as you adhere to social conventions and etc. Try talking about taboos and see where it takes you.

    Right to adequate living standards - not always the case. Right to education - so many people are in huge student debt. And so on.

    You might have to specify which rights you're talking about? The ones I listed seem to be ones that one needs to fight for.

    Going back to your definition - I am listing some examples to illustrate that having rights doesn't equate to 100% enjoying them.

  3. #3
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by FueledByEvil View Post
    Definition that pertains to the usage I am speaking on:

    right
    /rīt/
    noun
    plural noun: rights

    1.
    that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

    2.
    a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.


    I would like to speak on the bold.

    Certainly I am not above arguing/speaking on semantics and/or
    the stated definition(s).

    My real interest in this is the line....

    Rights cannot be given, they may only be taken away.

    What do you think? True? False? If false; who decides?
    I completely agree.

    The distinction you offer is that the second definition of rights attempts to undo the first. That is to say the first SHOULD read:

    1.
    that which is morally correct or objective inseparable from any moral agent.

    the which then is a "moral right", or a true right, or just a right.

    This leads then to second definition of rights which SHOULD read:

    2.
    a privilege delimited and granted by an immoral hierarchy.

    the which is a "legal or ethical right", a false right, or offering that which is already intrinsic.

    In such a way is seen clearly the issue I continuously point out, order IS NOT the GOOD.

    Note that this also belies all notions of the state or any authority offering anyone legal rights. Those rights are granted by objective moral truth, love itself, and any notion that they can be granted or taken away is itself quite immoral.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
    Interesting take on this. But I'll disagree as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is about freedom, justice and peace - yet many do not enjoy this.
    Okay, fair point. But I am not speaking on Universally anything.
    I am speaking on the core of rights and what that may mean. Not the results
    of the rights and fringe activity. I am not even referencing the outcome
    of induced rights. Think definition and less the outcome of what rights are
    in the current, in any given location.

    This is not a comparative of rights across locales.
    If it was? I would put forward that African and South American tribes
    by far still enjoy the most rights and freedoms. They naturally assume
    it.

    There is that famous line by ..Tecumseh? I am truly sorry if I bastardized that name.
    he was a great man. Anyhow..... When asked how much he would like to sell
    his land for his response was solid gold...

    "Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?" Seems obvious. ( well less the "great spirit"..but I get it)

    I am pretty sure he had not a notion and/or word for "rights".
    Its bloody well common sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
    In the West, there are things like equality, freedom from discrimination. Yet it's as if we need to be given these when our freedom is infringed upon.
    You cannot have freedom from discrimination. You may only have protection from action
    brought to bare against you via discrimination.

    One persons freedom becomes everyonelses responsibility.
    Rights are easy. It is the responsibility to care for others
    we have issue with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
    Freedom of speech? Sure, as long as you adhere to social conventions and etc. Try talking about taboos and see where it takes you.
    Truth is freedom. I try an speak it no matter the taboo. We disregard taboo's
    and sweep them under the rug to our great detriment. Not benefit.
    Speaking on Taboo's is what made homosexuality more open and more acceptable.
    Speaking on taboo's is what made Psychology, science, .....the list goes on.

    If we ever stop speaking on taboo's? We all lose. Quick like.

    Closing out any speech is tantamount to genocide of thought.
    A perverse retardation of thought is not acceptable.



    Quote Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
    Right to adequate living standards
    Subjective.




    Quote Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
    You might have to specify which rights you're talking about?
    None. But I am willing to. As seen above in my response to you.
    I am speaking on what the formulation or natural leaning is with the word rights.
    If the can be chosen?


    Quote Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
    Going back to your definition - I am listing some examples to illustrate that having rights doesn't equate to 100% enjoying them.
    Of course! I hate rights that are given. It is an insult and very power laden to
    assume anyone can dictate to me what I may or may not be able to do/think/say (within moral reason which is where we fail as humans).
    Also, I dont like the responsibility of having to accommodate generated rights based
    on the whims of a retard culture that choose rights based
    on how people feel about them in current context of human socioeconomic state.
    (not one culture am I speaking on here. Many.)

  6. #5
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by series0 View Post
    I completely agree.

    The distinction you offer is that the second definition of rights attempts to undo the first. That is to say the first SHOULD read:

    1.
    that which is morally correct or objective inseparable from any moral agent.

    the which then is a "moral right", or a true right, or just a right.

    This leads then to second definition of rights which SHOULD read:

    2.
    a privilege delimited and granted by an immoral hierarchy.

    the which is a "legal or ethical right", a false right, or offering that which is already intrinsic.

    In such a way is seen clearly the issue I continuously point out, order IS NOT the GOOD.

    Note that this also belies all notions of the state or any authority offering anyone legal rights. Those rights are granted by objective moral truth, love itself, and any notion that they can be granted or taken away is itself quite immoral.
    Agreed. Calamity at its deepest depths.

    A scourge of the so called moral agent. So it is the item we have spoken on before.
    For immoral to succeed the moral agent must sleep. Lets wake up shall we?

    Alas ....these rose colored lenses fit so well.

    Hey Series question for ya...... Hierarchies? Omnipresent yet controllable?
    Contrived and a control mechanism? These may not be mutually exclusive I suppose..... but
    at the core. What do you think?
    series0 thanked this post.

  7. #6

    more of a legal entitlement to have or do something without negative consequences to my thinking

  8. #7
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by ShashaCruz View Post
    more of a legal entitlement to have or do something without negative consequences to my thinking
    Sure. The second variation there that can be close to that.

    Yet I find negative in your context to be assumed negative.

    Punitive is what we do and in some cases that is not negative
    for the person.


    As an example.... I have to live with a truth.
    If I do not speak that truth my morality will suffer. If punitive damages
    are put upon me do to me living my truth? The punitive reaction is not negative (if not expected)
    it is a reaction that I am happy to take vs lying to myself and others by ignoring my moral truth.

    You see what I am saying?

  9. #8

    Positive rights often include guaranteed services. "Healthcare is a human right" must be a given right if it is accepted as a right.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negati...ositive_rights

  10. #9

    Quote Originally Posted by FueledByEvil View Post
    Okay, fair point. But I am not speaking on Universally anything.
    I am speaking on the core of rights and what that may mean. Not the results
    of the rights and fringe activity. I am not even referencing the outcome
    of induced rights. Think definition and less the outcome of what rights are
    in the current, in any given location.
    If rights are a legal entitlement, doesn't that imply that we are given them in the context of the wider system around us e.g. society?
    Geonerd thanked this post.

  11. #10
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by Grandmaster Yoda View Post
    Positive rights often include guaranteed services. "Healthcare is a human right" must be a given right if it is accepted as a right.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negati...ositive_rights
    By whom? Who decides?

    WHo should decide?


     
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:06 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0