Discussion Can someone explain what is a god given right?

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't think the US is as 'exceptional' as you think. People revolt when they feel desperate enough to do so, ideas of 'rights' don't really enter into it.

Never said the US is exceptional. In fact, the very principal of human rights is that none of us are exceptions in that regard; the rights belong to all humans, whether you're a citizen or not.

 

[Amused]

My two cents... for what it's worth.

I think "god given" and "inherent" are interchangeable here.

So what is an "inherent" right/freedom?

Whatever exists in the absence of action against a person. In the absence of oppression.

Freedom and rights exist so long as no one else is there to take them away from you.

That makes freedom and individual rights the default state or "inherent."

Now, freedom and rights ALWAYS must be limited by common laws and regulations when ever more than two people inhabit the same area. Because one person's freedoms and rights MUST end when they start to violate another's freedom and rights.

So then a balance must be found between limitations to inherent rights and freedoms and protecting inherent rights and freedoms from oppression.

Anyhow, that's my thoughts.

 

[pmv]

So what is an "inherent" right/freedom?

Whatever exists in the absence of action against a person. In the absence of oppression.

Isn't that a circular definition, as how do you define "oppression" without referring to "inherent rights"?

 

[pmv]

Never said the US is exceptional. In fact, the very principal of human rights is that none of us are exceptions in that regard; the rights belong to all humans, whether you're a citizen or not.

Well you did specifically say "American's govt was formed through violence in essence, and so we've maintained that we have an inalienable right to do so again, if necessary. "

That to me seems to be a tenet of American exceptionalism. Every country's government was formed through violence, and every country faces the possibility of violent revolt. I don't see that "inalienable rights" really have much to do with that.

 

[Amused]

Isn't that a circular definition, as how do you define "oppression" without referring to "inherent rights"?

If no one is there to oppress you, are you oppressed, or free?

If freedom is the default state, that is the inherent state.

No one can "grant" you freedom. They can only take it away, or stop taking it away. If they weren't there at all, you'd be free.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Well you did specifically say "American's govt was formed through violence in essence, and so we've maintained that we have an inalienable right to do so again, if necessary. "

That to me seems to be a tenet of American exceptionalism. Every country's government was formed through violence, and every country faces the possibility of violent revolt. I don't see that "inalienable rights" really have much to do with that.

Ah, I didn't really explain that well. I was using American-centric language because I'm American, none of it was to imply it's different everywhere else. There's some places where it is different, but the US isn't exceptional there really. While other countries were also formed through violence, I'm not aware of any that virtually codify the concept in the country's constitution for usage later. As for whether citizens of other countries feel it's their right to overthrow oppressors, that appears to depend on the country.

 

[pmv]

If no one is there to oppress you, are you oppressed, or free?

If freedom is the default state, that is the inherent state.

No one can "grant" you freedom. They can only take it away, or stop taking it away. If they weren't there at all, you'd be free.

If nobody else is there, i.e. you are alone on a deserted island, you will probably not survive (at a bare minimum, you need parents or you will quickly die as an infant). As soon as you have other people you have constraints and you have politics. I'm not convinced this notion of "inherent rights" makes any sense.

[Edit] I'm not entirely rejecting it, I just don't think it's as self-evident or as easy to justify as some claim. _Maybe_ there are certain things we are somehow biologically-wired to agree about.

 

[Amused]

If nobody else is there, i.e. you are alone on a deserted island, you will probably not survive (at a bare minimum, you need parents or you will quickly die as an infant). As soon as you have other people you have constraints and you have politics. I'm not convinced this notion of "inherent rights" makes any sense.

[Edit] I'm not entirely rejecting it, I just don't think it's as self-evident or as easy to justify as some claim. _Maybe_ there are certain things we are somehow biologically-wired to agree about.

It's pretty simple. Oppression requires action. Freedom requires no action. It requires being left alone.

Therefore freedom is the default state.

You are free until someone else applies force or coercion to limit your freedom.

 

[ivwshane]

It's pretty simple. Oppression requires action. Freedom requires no action. It requires being left alone.

Therefore freedom is the default state.

You are free until someone else applies force or coercion to limit your freedom.

So then we aren’t free as our “default state” is to live with others.

So again, “god given rights” are whatever rights society says they are.

 

[Lezunto]

Great definition, Amused.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So then we aren’t free as our “default state” is to live with others.

So again, “god given rights” are whatever rights society says they are.

Living with others doesn't necessitate them dictating how you live. In fact, in most periods of human existence if someone tries to control you, you just beat them about the head with a rock until they stop twitching then go on about your business.

 

[ivwshane]

Living with others doesn't necessitate them dictating how you live. In fact, in most periods of human existence if someone tries to control you, you just beat them about the head with a rock until they stop twitching then go on about your business.

Considering we are communal creatures, having an agreed understanding of what is right and wrong was most certainly a requirement to our advancement. Were there individual nomads? Sure, but they weren’t the norm.

We don’t live on an island by ourselves and never have, it’s why it takes two to procreate. As soon as you add that other person there is an agreement between at least two people of what each other’s “rights” are.

There is a reason humans are susceptible to group think and it’s not because we were always individuals who knew what they deserved.

 

[FlawleZ]

I keep hearing to 2A absolutists refer to 2A as a god given right. 2A is one of those rights not granted to black people.

If it is a God given right what does that exactly mean?

Where are you getting the idea that the 2A isn't granted to black people?

Conservatives call 2A a “ god given right”. Saw a CNN interview. I just wish the host thought of asking that

That explains a lot. They don't do a lot of thinking over there, just a lot of regurgitated propaganda. Sad really.

 

[MrSquished]

Where are you getting the idea that the 2A isn't granted to black people?


That explains a lot. They don't do a lot of thinking over there, just a lot of regurgitated propaganda. Sad really.

Uhhh yes they do.

You have quickly become one of the shittiest and dishonest posters on here. You are terrible.

Opinion | Yes, Gun Ownership Is a God-Given Right

Owning a gun is an extension of this law of nature, and has been recognized as such for a very long time in Anglo-America.

www.politico.com

 

[brandonbull]

The latest god given right is for your children to receive a religious education indoctrination that must be funded by taxpayers…

Supreme Court rules Maine's tuition assistance program must cover religious schools

The 6-3 opinion, which was along ideological lines, invalidates provisions in 37 state constitutions that ban the direct or indirect use of taxpayer money in religious schools.

www.npr.org

From the article: "In its clearest statement to date, the court said that if a state uses taxpayer money to pay for students attending nonreligious private schools, it must also use taxpayer funds to pay for attendance at religious schools. For all practical purposes, the decision thus invalidates provisions in 37 state constitutions that ban the direct or indirect use of taxpayer money in religious schools."

So people are mad that the SCOTUS ruled religious discrimination is not allowed when allocating tax payer money? What other forms of discrimination are you in favor of?

 

[MrSquished]

From the article: "In its clearest statement to date, the court said that if a state uses taxpayer money to pay for students attending nonreligious private schools, it must also use taxpayer funds to pay for attendance at religious schools. For all practical purposes, the decision thus invalidates provisions in 37 state constitutions that ban the direct or indirect use of taxpayer money in religious schools."

So people are mad that the SCOTUS ruled religious discrimination is not allowed when allocating tax payer money? What other forms of discrimination are you in favor of?

I would like a car to discriminate against you next time you are walking across the street.

 

[FlawleZ]

Uhhh yes they do.

You have quickly become one of the shittiest and dishonest posters on here. You are terrible.

Opinion | Yes, Gun Ownership Is a God-Given Right

Owning a gun is an extension of this law of nature, and has been recognized as such for a very long time in Anglo-America.

www.politico.com

I would like a car to discriminate against you next time you are walking across the street.

You're making threats of violence against members here and you have the audacity to call me terrible? What a joke.

 

[MrSquished]

You're making threats of violence against members here and you have the audacity to call me terrible? What a joke.

I accept that you admit that you lied since you provided no explanation of my proof that you are full of shit, again.

I don't really care if something happens to anybody as crazy as you people or him. Like I said, It's fine with me.

I'm done giving shits about horrific evil lying motherfuckers like you or him. You downplay violent insurrections so give me a fucking break about you giving a shit about violence. They killed acop and beat up other ones, and you downplay it. And they got about a minute away from probably killing the vice president and Congress people.

Brandon Bull is one of the most consistently evil posters here, he's as good as a fucking Nazi that was happy shooting Jews. And you are about a person who would have helped them cover it up as just a dust-up.

It's my god-given right to not wish good things upon evil people

You are a trash human being. Please look twice before crossing the street. Be careful out there.

 

[pmv]

It's pretty simple. Oppression requires action. Freedom requires no action. It requires being left alone.

Therefore freedom is the default state.

You are free until someone else applies force or coercion to limit your freedom.

If you are "left alone" as a newborn infant, you will die. Ergo the "default state" is death.

You continue to be incoherent. Almost nobody has ever fully been 'left alone' since we evolved to live in troops of pre-human apes. Even in those odd (probably apocryphal?) cases of abandoned infants being raised by animals, I'd bet they were constrained by the "rules" of the wolf pack or chimp troop.

Also, by your own measure I am not 'free', because if I try to walk or cycle around this city as if I'm 'left alone' someone will apply 'coercion' by running me over in their car for getting in their way. If I try to empty my bladder or bowels wherever I feel like it I'll be arrested. And so on.

I just don't see that this question of grounding "rights" is as simple as you seem to be claiming. Which is probably why different cultures and societies have had different ideas about what these "rights" are.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If you are "left alone" as a newborn infant, you will die. Ergo the "default state" is death.

You continue to be incoherent. Almost nobody has ever fully been 'left alone' since we evolved to live in troops of pre-human apes. Even in those odd (probably apocryphal?) cases of abandoned infants being raised by animals, I'd bet they were constrained by the "rules" of the wolf pack or chimp troop.

Also, by your own measure I am not 'free', because if I try to walk or cycle around this city as if I'm 'left alone' someone will apply 'coercion' by running me over in their car for getting in their way. If I try to empty my bladder or bowels wherever I feel like it I'll be arrested. And so on.

I just don't see that this question of grounding "rights" is as simple as you seem to be claiming. Which is probably why different cultures and societies have had different ideas about what these "rights" are.

This a pretty obtuse reaction to a simple concept. If you have a village of people milling about, providing food, clothing, etc for each other, you have a stable system where everyone stays out of each other's business. It requires an action of one of them, or a third party, to change that system to remove someone's rights to whatever it is they used to be doing.

 

[pmv]

So people are mad that the SCOTUS ruled religious discrimination is not allowed when allocating tax payer money? What other forms of discrimination are you in favor of?

How is it "religious discrimination" to use tax payer money only for secular, non-religious schools, rather than funding one particular religion? It's not as if the non-religious schools are specifically atheist or anti-theist schools, explicitly teaching children that there is no God.
You seem to be using the common ploy of equating 'secular' with 'anti-theist'. If one follows your logic then the state should be funding schools of every possible faith (even ones that haven't been invented yet) or else it is engaging in 'religious discrimination'.

 

[pmv]

This a pretty obtuse reaction to a simple concept. If you have a village of people milling about, providing food, clothing, etc for each other, you have a stable system where everyone stays out of each other's business. It requires an action of one of them, or a third party, to change that system to remove someone's rights to whatever it is they used to be doing.

If they are interacting, then they have rules to govern that interaction, ergo there will be actions to enforce those rules. At the minimum you seem to be presupposing the existence of private property - that requires enforcement.

All I'm saying is I don't think it's as simple to come up with "natural rights" as you are saying. I'm not saying it's impossible to do so, but invoking some mythical 'state of being left alone' doesn't really work as far as I can see.

 

[Amused]

If you are "left alone" as a newborn infant, you will die. Ergo the "default state" is death.

You continue to be incoherent. Almost nobody has ever fully been 'left alone' since we evolved to live in troops of pre-human apes. Even in those odd (probably apocryphal?) cases of abandoned infants being raised by animals, I'd bet they were constrained by the "rules" of the wolf pack or chimp troop.

Also, by your own measure I am not 'free', because if I try to walk or cycle around this city as if I'm 'left alone' someone will apply 'coercion' by running me over in their car for getting in their way. If I try to empty my bladder or bowels wherever I feel like it I'll be arrested. And so on.

I just don't see that this question of grounding "rights" is as simple as you seem to be claiming. Which is probably why different cultures and societies have had different ideas about what these "rights" are.

At this point I believe you are being deliberately obtuse.

Oppression requires action by another. Freedom requires no action by another.

Freedom is the default state.

I really cannot explain it any better.

I don't know why you need to believe freedoms and rights are granted to you, rather than taken from you. But OK.

I'll try again.

Freedom is gained when left alone.

Oppression happens when ANOTHER acts to limit your freedom by force or coercion.

Thus no one can GRANT you a freedom, they can only choose to stop oppressing you. Freedom happens AUTO-FUCKING-MATICALLY when oppression stops.

Do you get it now?

Or do you still need others to grant you freedom?

 

[pmv]

I don't know why you need to believe freedoms and rights are granted to you, rather than taken from you. But OK.

Because that's what I see happening in practice. I see 'freedoms' and 'rights' being defined to suit the interests of whoever has the power in a given society. The US in particular demonstrates that, in how it chooses to define those 'rights'.

Oppression happens when ANOTHER acts to limit your freedom by force or coercion.

Thus no one can GRANT you a freedom, they can only choose to stop oppressing you. Freedom happens AUTO-FUCKING-MATICALLY when oppression stops.

Again with the circular definitions. Freedom is the absence of oppression. Oppression is the absence of freedom. Can't say that explains much.

 

[Amused]

Because that's what I see happening in practice. I see 'freedoms' and 'rights' being defined to suit the interests of whoever has the power in a given society. The US in particular demonstrates that, in how it chooses to define those 'rights'.



Again with the circular definitions. Freedom is the absence of oppression. Oppression is the absence of freedom. Can't say that explains much.

The logic is linear just as soon as you discover the default state.

Question: Define the "Default state of an object."

"A default situation is what exists or happens unless someone or something changes it."

Oppression requires the action of another.

Freedom does not. It requires the OTHER to do NOTHING.

Let's switch this to bullying...

Freedom from being bullied is the default state. When a bully comes along and starts bullying you, it requires the action of another to terrorize you and take your freedom away by force.

But hey, if you're emotionally attached to bullies and rulers "granting" you freedom, nothing I say can fix that.

But I must tell you, your viewpoint is toxic. As soon as you realize your freedom is inherent, it is the default state of man, and can ONLY be taken away, you'll stop having a slave's mindset.