E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-12-2013, 03:03 PM   #81
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Quoting this for future reference of libtardism. So lets govern the NBA because it's unfair that Michael Jordan has an unfair NATURAL physical advantage over some fatty, or lets govern the music industry because Beyonce has an unfair vocal advantage...Your opinion is clear...you want the government to control all aspects of everyone's life and attempt to level the playing field. So, no more grades in schools, not fair for the dumb kids, no more sports, not fair for fatties, no more music allowed, not bad for ear bleeding voices, no more movies, not fair for the sh!tty wannabe actors, no more race car driving because it's not fair to the people that fail their driving test, etc. Your post is nothing short of insanity.
Not necessarily.

To your point, in my opinion it's the govt role to lay laws, etc to set up a frame work and the playing field. What occurs in the playing field, so long as its fair and no foul play, happens. Simple example, take a soccer game. If the team wins because they have better athletes, trained hard, etc then they win. We should celebrate their victory, their athleticism, etc. We shouldn't celebrate it because they cheated. So, in my opinion, the government is analogous to the referee.

Say if you had athletes taking performance enhancing drugs. That's an unfair advantage as opposed to everyone else. Is that fair? I think not.

I realize this is a very basic and simple example. It is not absolute, but I think you get the gist of it.

Again, it's my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
MDydinanM, it is quite simple - if you aren't "religious" as you say, which I assume means you do not believe in a divine creator, then you simply cannot either understand or agree with the most basic and fundamental aspect of our country's founding. That is fine, if that is your position. I just find it amusing that people take the bait and continue to try to persuade you otherwise.
Absolutely it's my opinion.

I understand the concept of what others are saying here - that our Constitution does not grant rights, that it protects innate rights, etc. I also understand that concept is what is taught in school, is the majority and populist view. It seems to me though that the Constitution is, in part, built on the premise that there are innate rights. My opinion challenges the idea of innate rights and if they do in fact exist because I'm not entirely convinced based off the examples I've provided in previous posts. If they do not exist, the the Constitution and the notion of rights, falls apart - kind of.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
^ I am quite convinced you are just "posting out loud" i.e., like thinking out loud, and haven't really thought this through. But if you really believe this, please explain from where the "government" obtains the power to, as you say, "levy rights?" And just so you know, viewpoints such as this are quite frightening to those of us who do believe that all humans are created equal, and it is only through their willful agreement that humans grant any powers at all to any form of government.
Of course I'm posting out loud. I also think the government get's its power to govern from the people - social contract so to speak. I've stated this earlier in this thread. But I just view it differently. I share the same view on willful agreement that the people allow themselves to be governed. But I don't think innate rights and granting the government power necessarily go hand in hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
You should read up on the Magna Carta for insight into how the concept of rights evolved to most people's current understanding. And I really cannot understand how someone could live and go to school in this country and still have trouble understanding and believing in unalienable rights, without also despising everything about America.
It's not that I don't understand it, I do. I'm just not entirely convinced. I was born in this country, but grew up overseas since my parents were stationed abroad. I've seen how other governments treat their people, and have, at least, a basic understanding of world history. So basically I'm skeptical. I can still love my country and have a different view on things.

If we have innate rights, why is it not universal? Why does it only seem to be prevalent in the Western world, especially in America? Why didn't it exist previously, say the Stone Ages? Or was it the logical progression of ideas - human ideas.

If we, as humans, have innate rights, do other animals have innate rights? Serious question. Do the same rights apply to a dog, cat, bird? Humans, are technically animals, mammals at that. So do all mammals have innate rights?

Another example, as I've previously mentioned, is lets take the 2nd amendment. The "right to bear arms", specifically, and lets take the word "arms" and assume a modern interpretation that it means guns.

If guns did not exist thousands of years ago, then how can it be an innate right? In other words, how can an innate right exist for something that did not exist at the time?

But ok, let's change the context of the use of the term "arms" and change it to say, a spear, a bow and arrow, or a rock which existed hundreds of years ago. You would have to, be default, assume that mankind had a priori knowledge that such things had to exist and could be used to defend themselves from tyranny. To further the point, let's take a caveman and a rock. How did he know that a rock can be used as a weapon? Was it through a priori knowledge? An innate idea? Or was it through empirical observation where a caveman learned such things - thus a posterori knowledge? My opinion is the latter.

-------------------------------


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
They are innate cuz we say so. Lol
I think, perhaps, yes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
When we get into the philosophical aspects of rights, things get a lot murkier.
Absolutely

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
Religious folks like to say that human rights come from their deity or deities. That works well for them because in most of their mythologies, the deities have the dual advantages of being the ultimate authority on everything, and usually being morally infallible.
Agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
But being given rights by a religious character creates the same problems as being given rights by a govt. A new minister comes to town, the Catholic Pope changes his mind about something, a televangelist needs better ratings, someone revises the translation of an ancient dogmatic text, today's religion falls and is replaced by a new one, and BOOM, your rights are changed.
Of course. I never said my opinion or view was infallible. I'm sure it is. From what I've seen, pretty much the majority of philosophical theories always had a "yes, but". They were not absolute because sooner or later someone would come along and disprove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
So, since "god-given" rights are just as flimsy as "king-given" or "article 3, subsection 132a" given rights, we're left with establishing something more solid.

The irony is that what we're left with is believing our rights exist simply because they do. It's morally correct from our point of view. It's necessary for people to live life as fully as possible, which we consider a good thing. It is what is required for people to function together in a mostly peaceful society, which we consider a good thing.

Here's the way my heathen brain looks at it. Say you're the only person on the planet. You've got the whole thing to yourself, no other people, no supernatural beings, no legacy of ancestors. You'd be totally and completely free to do, say, think, feel, believe whatever you want. The only limits on you would be your own mind and the forces of the natural world around you. That is the maximum amount of freedom possible, and that's "the ideal situation".

Now, lets say a spaceship arrives with a few dozen other people and you all decide to form a community. Your goal in that community would be to preserve "the ideal situation" for everyone as much as possible. But you recognize that with more than one person, absolute freedom isn't possible, because one person exercising their absolute freedom might impede someone else's ability to do the same.

When you sat down to document the rights you wanted to ensure everyone had in order to preserve as much of "the ideal situation" as possible/practical, what would you cite as the "source" of those rights?
All very good points and you use a great analogy. I honestly don't have a real good answer to "the source" of those rights - not at the moment. That is one of the shortfalls in my view is if rights are a human construct, then where does the idea originate from?

One could possibly say the human experience. That through trial and error, and empirical observation they figured out what worked and what didn't, and set about creating ideas based on observation. Therefore the knowledge is a posteriori

I am sure, however, that you can provide examples of a priori knowledge as well.

Again, appreciate your comments.
__________________

Last edited by MDydinanM; 08-12-2013 at 04:08 PM.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use