No officers directly charged with Breonna Taylor's death

[Electric Skeptic]

You seem to be very literal minded. If you have an unalienable right to say, life, does that make you immortal or something? What's to stop someone from violating your right and murdering you? It doesn't mean you don't have the right, just that someone didn't respect that right and violated it.

So it's just that the government recognises (i.e., claims) that you have a god-given right that cannot be taken away from you...and then happily violates it?

Exactly what does it mean, then, to say that someone has a right to something, if that right can be violated? How is that any more meaningful than a subjective moral which says you shouldn't do whatever violates that person's right?

[Sparko]

So it's just that the government recognises (i.e., claims) that you have a god-given right that cannot be taken away from you...and then happily violates it?

Exactly what does it mean, then, to say that someone has a right to something, if that right can be violated? How is that any more meaningful than a subjective moral which says you shouldn't do whatever violates that person's right?

It means the government doesn't have to give you the right in order for you to have it by default. The reason it is in our D of I and is the basis for our constitution is because our government recognizes that we have rights and we are granting our government certain exceptions to those rights in order to govern us. If a fundamental right is not mentioned in the constitution, it doesn't mean we don't have it. But by allowing the government to govern us, we have to allow them to control some of our rights, while reserving others for ourselves. That means a citizen does give up their right to freedom if they break the law. It is something we as a society have granted to the government to have power.

[Electric Skeptic]

It means the government doesn't have to give you the right in order for you to have it by default. The reason it is in our D of I and is the basis for our constitution is because our government recognizes that we have rights and we are granting our government certain exceptions to those rights in order to govern us. If a fundamental right is not mentioned in the constitution, it doesn't mean we don't have it. But by allowing the government to govern us, we have to allow them to control some of our rights, while reserving others for ourselves. That means a citizen does give up their right to freedom if they break the law.

Sorry, but 'unailenable' means it can't be given up, either. The government claims to recognise these 'rights' and then violates them as they choose.

So, again, then what is the point of claiming rights if they can simply be ignored? I might as well claim I have a right to be a millionaire.

My entire point here is that the idea of 'rights' (except as something that a government gives, like Miranda) is incoherent and, essentially, meaningless.

[Sparko]

Sorry, but 'unailenable' means it can't be given up, either. The government claims to recognise these 'rights' and then violates them as they choose.

So, again, then what is the point of claiming rights if they can simply be ignored? I might as well claim I have a right to be a millionaire.

My entire point here is that the idea of 'rights' (except as something that a government gives, like Miranda) is incoherent and, essentially, meaningless.

You just have no idea what it means. So you never answered me. The Dec of Ind says we have an unaleinable right to life. Does that mean we can't die? Does that mean nobody can kill us?

[Electric Skeptic]

You just have no idea what it means.

It's meaningless, as I said.

So you never answered me. The Dec of Ind says we have an unaleinable right to life. Does that mean we can't die? Does that mean nobody can kill us?

THat's what it says. Stupid, isn't it?

[myth]

I don't need your permission to do as I please, but thanks for your meaningless consent.

It was meant to match your meaningless reply to a comment that wasn't directed at you. Figured you'd get that. Guess not.

[Sparko]

It's meaningless, as I said.


THat's what it says. Stupid, isn't it?

Or you have no idea what unalienable means or can't grasp the fact that someone can abridge a right without removing it.

[Electric Skeptic]

It was meant to match your meaningless reply to a comment that wasn't directed at you. Figured you'd get that. Guess not.

Next time try to post something coherent. Then people might "get that".

[Electric Skeptic]

Or you have no idea what unalienable means or can't grasp the fact that someone can abridge a right without removing it.

No, I know precisely what it means. For example, I know that an unalienable right cannot be surrendered, which you did not.

And nobody has spoken about "abridging" anybody's rights. We are talking about them being violated. Completely and utterly.

And you still haven't answered my repeated question. What is the point of calling something a "right" if it can be - and has been - repeatedly violated? In what way is calling such a thing a right even meaningful?

[Sparko]

No, I know precisely what it means. For example, I know that an unalienable right cannot be surrendered, which you did not.

And nobody has spoken about "abridging" anybody's rights. We are talking about them being violated. Completely and utterly.

And you still haven't answered my repeated question. What is the point of calling something a "right" if it can be - and has been - repeatedly violated? In what way is calling such a thing a right even meaningful?

So you don't know what "abridged" or "right" means either. Par for the course.

[seanD]

It means the government doesn't have to give you the right in order for you to have it by default. The reason it is in our D of I and is the basis for our constitution is because our government recognizes that we have rights and we are granting our government certain exceptions to those rights in order to govern us. If a fundamental right is not mentioned in the constitution, it doesn't mean we don't have it. But by allowing the government to govern us, we have to allow them to control some of our rights, while reserving others for ourselves. That means a citizen does give up their right to freedom if they break the law. It is something we as a society have granted to the government to have power.

Problem with that notion is interpreting "breaking the law." Sometimes it can be cut and dry, and sometimes it can be a bit gray. For example, cops going out of their way to enforce the strict lockdown measures was essentially enforcing "the law." I think we as conservatives have got to be careful about "back the blue." I'm not saying we jump on board the leftist "defund police" mantra because that's logical absurdity and idiocy, but there are two extreme sides to this we need to be mindful of. "Back the blue" at all times just because we're conservatives can be dangerous.

[Electric Skeptic]

So you don't know what "abridged" or "right" means either. Par for the course.

Still wrong. As is apparent, it is I who do know what they mean. But I can understand that you refuse to actually examine your position.

And you still have yet to answer my question - which is rather telling.

[Sparko]

Still wrong. As is apparent, it is I who do know what they mean. But I can understand that you refuse to actually examine your position.

And you still have yet to answer my question - which is rather telling.

If you define what rights are, you would have the answer to your question. Which is why I am saying you don't know what rights are.

clue: Entitlements. Privileges. Powers.

You can have a legal or a moral right to something. That doesn't mean someone can't take it from you.

If I have the right to say, a piece of property, That doesn't mean someone can't take it away from me (say steal my car), it just means that I am entitled to own that piece of property and the thief is not.

[Electric Skeptic]

If you define what rights are, you would have the answer to your question. Which is why I am saying you don't know what rights are.

clue: Entitlements. Privileges. Powers.

You can have a legal or a moral right to something. That doesn't mean someone can't take it from you.

If I have the right to say, a piece of property, That doesn't mean someone can't take it away from me (say steal my car), it just means that I am entitled to own that piece of property and the thief is not.

Which is precisely my point. How is calling something a 'right' even meaningful if it can be repeatedly taken with impunity?

[Sparko]

Which is precisely my point. How is calling something a 'right' even meaningful if it can be repeatedly taken with impunity?

How can you call anything you have your property if it can be taken from you?

Just because something can be take from you doesn't mean it isn't yours.