Rights V Privilege

[BIGDAN]

In other words you have no rights.

Only the Right to Die, if you can convince me otherwise well i'm still listening, i've just had enough of the Sarcasm and Bullshit.

You know what I say "A sucker born every minute."

So you resort to "Taunts" and "Sarcastic Non-Useful Comments" when someone disagrees with you do you? No wonder no one on here takes you seriously and thinks of you as an A******E. It also gives you no credibility and does not help one little bit you know in these Topics, if you want to get your "Total Posts" to the Level of SAJ or 9 or ET then i suggest you post about the "Weather where you are" type of Topics, and leave the Serious Stuff to those who want to take it Seriously, you know it makes sense.

MH

"There's none so blind as those who will not see, and none so deaf as those who will not hear"

Regards, Danny

[Mary Hartman]

"There's none so blind as those who will not see, and none so deaf as those who will not hear"

Regards, Danny

Since you are the only one who makes sense in your eyes, discussions of ANY agenda with an inkling of diplomacy is not happening. Well, unless you discuss it with the people in your own head.

You made an honest and true fact sarcastic which is the direction you are headed once again..

IN YOUR HEAD.

Since your only right is to die,,,,,well it's your life and limb.

Just leave me out of whatever it is you have planned there bub.

[Electrophile]

And the second you can afford such things, you hae the right to purchase them.

That is not the same thing has having the right to own those things from birth. You can only own property, be it land or a car or an iPod, when you have the money. It's not some inherent thing we're all born with. No one was born with the right to own anything. There's no such thing as the

"right to purchase".

[BIGDAN]

Since you are the only one who makes sense in your eyes, discussions of ANY agenda with an inkling of diplomacy is not happening. Well, unless you discuss it with the people in your own head.

You made an honest and true fact sarcastic which is the direction you are headed once again..

IN YOUR HEAD.

Since your only right is to die,,,,,well it's your life and limb.

Just leave me out of whatever it is you have planned there bub.

Hi MH,

You have got me totally wrong, if you wanted to be left out then maybe you should have taken your own advice before posting your Sarcastic Remarks in the first place. If on the other hand you have some genuine input then please give it, if not and you only want to make Sarcastic Remarks then pleae do as you say you want to do, BUT OUT.

Again i only asked this,

"I would like to know your opinions please"

Then people started to post the "Bill of Rights" and the "Declaration of Independence" as some sort of "Divine Reference" to the fact that we actually have "Inalienable Human Rights" which i believe we dont. If as i pointed out in my previous post that

"When the USA, Russia, China, GB, andthe Rest of the Civilised World "Walks the Walk" rather than "Talks theTalk", these Meaningless Documents will remain "Rich Whiteman'sPrivileges" rather than "Everyman's Rights"

Lets face it, if there were "Inalienable Human Rights" then the USA would be the First Country to see that they were adhered too wouldnt they? instead of being the First Country to deny those Rights to People the World over, you see where i'm going?

And i stand by what i have said 100%, just because i'm the only one on here at the moment with that opinion does not mean that i am wrong, stupid or unable to consider the other sides point of view, does it?

Regards, Danny

PS, Now when are you going to stop your Name Calling, your Sarcastic Remarks, and start to post something meaningful that is worthy of discussion, i await you next comment.

[Black Dawg]

Money seems to buy more priveledges. This is why there exist, even in a so called classes society, a privedledge class that average Americans guack at. Some priledges come with positions. An example of priveledge is my boss has more priveledges than me. He can come and go from work as he please with less scrutiny.

Many of our so called Rights were paid for by the blood of our fore fathers. When rights are not recognized they exist on paper only until the cause is taken up again. Our second amendement has been reduced to a document status. The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is slipping away fast. What rights do you find that worth shedding your blood.

Remember "Freedom is not Free" -- somebody had to pay for it.

[Mary Hartman]

Hi MH,

You have got me totally wrong, if you wanted to be left out then maybe you should have taken your own advice before posting your Sarcastic Remarks in the first place. If on the other hand you have some genuine input then please give it, if not and you only want to make Sarcastic Remarks then pleae do as you say you want to do, BUT OUT.

Again i only asked this,

"I would like to know your opinions please"

Then people started to post the "Bill of Rights" and the "Declaration of Independence" as some sort of "Divine Reference" to the fact that we actually have "Inalienable Human Rights" which i believe we dont. If as i pointed out in my previous post that

"When the USA, Russia, China, GB, andthe Rest of the Civilised World "Walks the Walk" rather than "Talks theTalk", these Meaningless Documents will remain "Rich Whiteman'sPrivileges" rather than "Everyman's Rights"

Lets face it, if there were "Inalienable Human Rights" then the USA would be the First Country to see that they were adhered too wouldnt they? instead of being the First Country to deny those Rights to People the World over, you see where i'm going?

And i stand by what i have said 100%, just because i'm the only one on here at the moment with that opinion does not mean that i am wrong, stupid or unable to consider the other sides point of view, does it?

Regards, Danny

PS, Now when are you going to stop your Name Calling, your Sarcastic Remarks, and start to post something meaningful that is worthy of discussion, i await you next comment.

How hard is it to comprehend that I will not argue with someone who insists on arguing in the wrong. And being in the wrong is being right (according to you).

Easy enough for you?

See that other thread you started to argue if you must.

Peace and the right will win out over this archaic psychobabble.

It's just a matter of time. You want to argue about things which have been law for hundreds of years and institutions that are followed by millions of people.

Just so you can spew hatred and nonsense.

Pal, it makes no sense...you are arguing in the wrong.

[BIGDAN]

How hard is it to comprehend that I will not argue with someone who insists on arguing in the wrong. And being in the wrong is being right (according to you).

Your doing a mighty good job so far, keep it up, the troops on here demand entertainment of the highest order.

Easy enough for you?

No, i want it so i can understand it, in English, not Gibberish, OK?

See that other thread you started to argue if you must.

No, i cant say that i do, please direct me.

Peace and the right will win out over this archaic psychobabble.

Peace will get you Crucified, weather you are Right or Wrong, "archaic psychobabble" now that sounds interesting, could you direct me to their Website or post a link?

It's just a matter of time. You want to argue about things which have been law for hundreds of years and institutions that are followed by millions of people.

Doesnt make them "Rights" just because they have been around for hundreds or thousands of years does it?

Just because someone called them "Laws" or "Rights" means nothing,

Laws can and always are broken cant they?

And i dont live in an "Institution" so why would i care about them? Although at times i think that people that do believe in Institutions should live in one, preferably one that wont let them out.

Just so you can spew hatred and nonsense.

Ha, what hatred? Show me? Nonsense yes, but not Hatred.

Pal, it makes no sense...you are arguing in the wrong.

Prove me wrong then, you have the "Right" dont you?

Regards, Danny

PS, Just so that you know what we are argueing about, i dont believe that there are ANY "INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS", and you do, then prove to me this,

1. Who gave you these "Rights" and were they qualified to give you them?

2. "Who" makes sure they are not "Violated"

3. And if your "INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS" " are "Violated" who is it that will go to the Ends of the Earth to make sure you are Compensated Properly and the Wrongs that have been done to you under those "INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS" are put Right?

Answer these questions correctly and you could change my mind, seriously.

[Mary Hartman]

Amazing how you can argue with yourself. In twenty years you will be walking the streets of London mumbling in low tones.

Oh well, sounds like it's where you belong.

Almost forgot.

[Anjin-san]

Hi all,

Amazing how you can argue with yourself. In twenty years you will be walking the streets of London mumbling in low tones.

Oh well, sounds like it's where you belong.

Almost forgot.

Lovely, how you insult people you don't agree with,lovely,...

KB

[BIGDAN]

Amazing how you can argue with yourself.

And i always win, oh no you dont, oh yes i fcuking do so button it, OK BIGDAN.

In twenty years you will be walking the streets of London mumbling in low tones.

You know me oh so well. HUM HUM MUMBLE MUMBLE.

Oh well, sounds like it's where you belong.

Absolutely.

Almost forgot.

I didnt, just goes to show that you should never Cross Swords with your Betters dosent it?

I'll take that as a "NO" then shall i?

So you cant answer these three simple questions then?

1. Who gave you these "Rights" and were they qualified to give you them?

2. "Who" makes sure they are not "Violated"

3. And if your "INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS" " are "Violated" who is it that will go to the Ends of the Earth to make sure you are CompensatedProperly and the Wrongs that have been done to you under those "INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS" are put Right?

I suppose that makes me "Right" then, i take no pleasure in this as i was anticipating a good debate with you, i suppose you will be getting back to the "Sarcastic Remarks" once again? Oh sorry you already have, silly me.

Untill the next time then?

Regards, Danny

PS, How's the Weather like where you are then? Very Cloudy and Dismal i would suppose, over here its Very Clear and Sunny, and i can smell "Napalm" too, the Smell of Victory i'm told.

[BonzoLikeDrumer]

Well put 'Electrophile'

Apart from the "Right to Die" I cant thing of one "Right" that someone, be that a Government, an Offical or a Person that cant take that "Right" away, can you? can anyone?

Regards, Danny

"You have the right to remain silent"....... "You have a right to have an attorney present".....

You remember those rights? Along with the others that you are told while you are being taken to the jail house?

Even the highest judge in the country can not take away those right's!

Unless your an escaped convict being dragged back to prison you do have those basic right's!

Right's (stated in article 3 and 4 of the US Constitution) that we wanted for all the citizens at the start of the whole idea of getting away from the King. That and unjust taxes.

Article Three: Judicial power

Main article: Article Three of the United States Constitution

See also: wikisource:Constitution of the United States of America#Article III

Article Three describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court. The article requires that there be one court called the Supreme Court; Congress, at its discretion, can create lower courts, whose judgments and orders are reviewable by the Supreme Court. Article Three also creates the right to trial by jury in all criminal cases, defines the crime of treason, and charges Congress with providing for a punishment for it. This Article also sets the kinds of cases that may be heard by the federal judiciary, which cases the Supreme Court may hear first (called original jurisdiction), and that all other cases heard by the Supreme Court are by appeal under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Article Four: States' powers and limits

Main article: Article Four of the United States Constitution

See also: wikisource:Constitution of the United States of America#Article IV

Article Four describes the relationship between the states and the Federal government and amongst the states. For instance, it requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records, and court proceedings of the other states. Congress is permitted to regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records, or proceedings may be admitted. The "privileges and immunities" clause prohibits state governments from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of resident citizens (e.g., having tougher penalties for residents of Ohio convicted of crimes within Michigan.) It also establishes extradition between the states, as well as laying down a legal basis for freedom of movement and travel amongst the states. Today, this provision is sometimes taken for granted, especially by citizens who live near state borders; but in the days of the Articles of Confederation, crossing state lines was often a much more arduous and costly process. Article Four also provides for the creation and admission of new states. The Territorial Clause gives Congress the power to make rules for disposing of Federal property and governing non-state territories of the United States. Finally, the fourth section of Article Four requires the United States to guarantee to each state a republican form of government, and to protect the states from invasion and violence.

The Miranda right's mandated in 1966 to reduce brutality are related to the 5th amendment. Ironically they are the one set of right's that many completely ignore when they get into trouble!

[BIGDAN]

"You have the right to remain silent"....... "You have a right to have an attorney present".....

You remember those rights? Along with the others that you are told while you are being taken to the jail house?

Even the highest judge in the country can not take away those right's!

Unless your an escaped convict being dragged back to prison you do have those basic right's!

Right's (stated in article 3 and 4 of the US Constitution) that we wanted for all the citizens at the start of the whole idea of getting away from the King. That and unjust taxes.

Article Three: Judicial power

Main article: Article Three of the United States Constitution

See also: wikisource:Constitution of the United States of America#Article III

Article Three describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court. The article requires that there be one court called the Supreme Court; Congress, at its discretion, can create lower courts, whose judgments and orders are reviewable by the Supreme Court. Article Three also creates the right to trial by jury in all criminal cases, defines the crime of treason, and charges Congress with providing for a punishment for it. This Article also sets the kinds of cases that may be heard by the federal judiciary, which cases the Supreme Court may hear first (called original jurisdiction), and that all other cases heard by the Supreme Court are by appeal under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Article Four: States' powers and limits

Main article: Article Four of the United States Constitution

See also: wikisource:Constitution of the United States of America#Article IV

Article Four describes the relationship between the states and the Federal government and amongst the states. For instance, it requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records, and court proceedings of the other states. Congress is permitted to regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records, or proceedings may be admitted. The "privileges and immunities" clause prohibits state governments from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of resident citizens (e.g., having tougher penalties for residents of Ohio convicted of crimes within Michigan.) It also establishes extradition between the states, as well as laying down a legal basis for freedom of movement and travel amongst the states. Today, this provision is sometimes taken for granted, especially by citizens who live near state borders; but in the days of the Articles of Confederation, crossing state lines was often a much more arduous and costly process. Article Four also provides for the creation and admission of new states. The Territorial Clause gives Congress the power to make rules for disposing of Federal property and governing non-state territories of the United States. Finally, the fourth section of Article Four requires the United States to guarantee to each state a republican form of government, and to protect the states from invasion and violence.

The Miranda right's mandated in 1966 to reduce brutality are related to the 5th amendment. Ironically they are the one set of right's that many completely ignore when they get into trouble!

Hi 'BonzoLikeDrumer'

Hey man i'm gonna come clean with you, i was trying (unsucessfully) to draw someone out about the "Unalienable Human Rights" that Thomas Jefferson voiced way back in the day when the "Bill of Right " was drawn up, nobody took it up, shame, it could have been a good debate.

There are too many people on here with other agendas to do that, my mistake, sorry folks.

Now let me put this too you,

Thomas Jefferson was talking about "Inalienable Human Rights" granted to you/us by "GOD" not by "MAN".

"For Americans, human rights are a matter of national values. They view human rights as crucial to protecting the dignity, fairness and opportunity that all people deserve. And they treasure the historic American ideal, voiced by Thomas Jefferson, of inalienable rights that flow from our creator." (GOD)

http://www.thenation...0071224/jenkins

But as we know, Governments in Particular and People in General have no feelings towards "GOD" at all, and in fact lead a Very Satanic Life Devoid of any "Godly Morality" so in effect all bets are off with "GOD" and your "Unalienable Human Rights" or "Bill of Rights" is now defunked, kaput, passed on, expired, gone to meet its maker, kicked the bucket, shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile, THIS IS AN EX-RIGHT! (sorry for going all "Monty" on you, i forgot myself)

Now in reply to you opening statement "You have the right to remain silent"....... "You have a right to have an attorney present".....when did that apply to the Innocent People taken to the Guantanamo Bay Prison/Gulag/Stalag? or to the Innocent People Killed and Abused in Abu Ghraib Prison/Gulag/Stalag? So in fact you have no rights when the Governments of this World say so, because "GOD" has deemed us Unworthy of those "Rights" and what "GOD" gives he can take away, which as far as i'm concerned he has done.

Now is that clear enough for you or do you want me to go in more to detail?

Regards, Danny

[wanna be drummer]

That is not the same thing has having the right to own those things from birth. You can only own property, be it land or a car or an iPod, when you have the money. It's not some inherent thing we're all born with. No one was born with the right to own anything. There's no such thing as the

"right to purchase".

So what are you implying? Property of any kind is a "privilege" too?

We all have the right to own stuff. It's just up to you to get it. I have the right to go to Harvard if I want. But that doesn't mean I can just get in just because I want to. You have to work for it. We have the right to own guns, but that doesn't mean we're born with them does it? No, but we can certainly get them if we want. It's just a matter of getting the funds.

[Dzldoc]

Hi 'BonzoLikeDrumer'

Now in reply to you opening statement "You have the right to remain silent"....... "You have a right to have an attorney present".....when did that apply to the Innocent People taken to the Guantanamo Bay Prison/Gulag/Stalag? or to the Innocent People Killed and Abused in Abu Ghraib Prison/Gulag/Stalag? So in fact you have no rights when the Governments of this World say so, because "GOD" has deemed us Unworthy of those "Rights" and what "GOD" gives he can take away, which as far as i'm concerned he has done.

Now is that clear enough for you or do you want me to go in more to detail?

Regards, Danny

It doesn't! it only applies to citizens of the United States of America!

As far as innocent people goes, those innocent people have killed many innocent people of their own country!

[BIGDAN]

It doesn't! it only applies to citizens of the United States of America!

As far as innocent people goes, those innocent people have killed many innocent people of their own country!

And thats where it all goes wrong them Doc, when we all get "Inalienable Human Rights" then you might get away with calling them "Rights" untill then, na.

And the second part of your post is total BS, and you know it, thats why you have released them without charge, still a few years in the slammer will sort them out ah, and thats what you call "Inalienable Human Rights" is it? well you can keep em, there worth about as much as "kok-sucking" in your Navy, a Dollar, a Dollar Twenty Five, have a nice day y'all.

Regards, Danny

[Electrophile]

So what are you implying? Property of any kind is a "privilege" too?

We all have the right to own stuff.

Owning a home is not a right. Owning a car is not a right. Owning a pair of $200 sneakers is not a right. They are properties, that can only be owned when the appropriate amount of cash is exchanged for them. The right to own a gun is primarily, a right to self-defense. Of course you have to exchange money to get it. Unless you wanna go the way of a five-finger discount and steal the damn thing. That being said, the concept of "owning stuff" is not a right. You don't have the right to own anything. I don't have the right to own anything. What we have is the ability to own stuff, by the means of cash exchange. Property as a concrete substance, no matter what it is, is not a privilege. The ability to own it however, is. Those who can afford to own things, have the privilege of owning them.

Look at the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Those people thought they had a right to own a home, which they don't, because they thought "oh hell, I'm an American and the American dream is a 2-story house with a white picket fence and I'm going to buy this house I can't afford because it's my 'right'. Yeah right. If there was such a thing as a "right to own stuff", everyone would have everything. You're lumping this is in with the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to a jury trial.....all these ACTUAL rights outlined in our laws. It doesn't jive.

[Nathan]

Electrophile is correct.

Owning Property is not a right, and that is an extremely dumb way to look at it, too. Why? Because if owning property is a right, then every single person on the planet would own property. But a lot of people don't. Why? Money.

Maybe, before the bartering system, owning property was a right. Now, it's a privilege bestowed upon those with enough money to buy property.

The problem with this debate is that no one is understanding this:

"Rights" cannot be removed. They cannot be taken away. They cannot be squashed, squandered, destroyed... Rights are there forever...

Only problem is, they don't actually exist. BIGDAN is quite right when he says "we only have the right to die." What he's saying is simply this:

-Your free speech can be taken away. Some people in this world don't even get to say what they want.

-Your freedom of religion can be taken away. Some people in this world are not allowed to practice a religion different from their State Religion.

-Your freedom of expression can be taken away. Some people in this world aren't even allowed to express themselves.

-Your freedom of assembly can be taken away. Some people aren't allowed to dissent.

-Your ability to own property can be taken away. Especially if you don't have any money. This is all about how rich you are, because at the end of the day, the one religion every single living person on this planet holds to is the religion of Money. Money is what really rules the world.

-Your freedom to marry whomever you want can be taken away. Hell... in America, Gays and Lesbians are still fighting to have this freedom.

-Your equality can be squashed in favor of somebody else. Not even America is truly equal.

-Your freedom itself can be removed. Many times it may be for the right reasons (if you're a serial killing pedophile rapist, you should not be free... period). But many times it is also for the wrong reasons (World War II, Japanese-Americans, Internment Camps; The Holocaust and the 12 million who lost their lives; thousands of other examples exist in our history and even our present, and will continue to exist in our future)

-Your very LIFE can be taken away from you. And that you can never get back.

However, despite all that, the one thing we are guaranteed to never lose is our Right to Die. We will all die. Some will die sooner then others. But not one single person can escape death, and no one can keep you from dying. Therefore, Death is truly a Right, as it is truly inalienable and cannot be violated.

The rest are privileges, because they can, have been, and will again be squashed, trampled upon, and taken away.

[Mary Hartman]

I'll take that as a "NO" then shall i?

So you cant answer these three simple questions then?

1. Who gave you these "Rights" and were they qualified to give you them?

2. "Who" makes sure they are not "Violated"

3. And if your "INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS" " are "Violated" who is it that will go to the Ends of the Earth to make sure you are CompensatedProperly and the Wrongs that have been done to you under those "INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS" are put Right?

I suppose that makes me "Right" then, i take no pleasure in this as i was anticipating a good debate with you, i suppose you will be getting back to the "Sarcastic Remarks" once again? Oh sorry you already have, silly me.

Untill the next time then?

Regards, Danny

PS, How's the Weather like where you are then? Very Cloudy and Dismal i would suppose, over here its Very Clear and Sunny, and i can smell "Napalm" too, the Smell of Victory i'm told.

That's still pretty impressive, actually. I've never seen someone answer someone else, then answer themselves and yet to top it off cut and paste both posts and answer those.

Man that's pretty swift.

HOW YOU DO DAT BUCKWHEAT?

[wanna be drummer]

Owning a home is not a right. Owning a car is not a right. Owning a pair of $200 sneakers is not a right. They are properties, that can only be owned when the appropriate amount of cash is exchanged for them. The right to own a gun is primarily, a right to self-defense. Of course you have to exchange money to get it. Unless you wanna go the way of a five-finger discount and steal the damn thing. That being said, the concept of "owning stuff" is not a right. You don't have the right to own anything. I don't have the right to own anything. What we have is the ability to own stuff, by the means of cash exchange. Property as a concrete substance, no matter what it is, is not a privilege. The ability to own it however, is. Those who can afford to own things, have the privilege of owning them.

I disagree. I understand what you're saying, but I believe we all have the right to own things. For example, if I find a rock shaped a president or something stupid like that on my property, i have the right to own it and keep it with me if i wish.

Look at the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Those people thought they had a right to own a home, which they don't, because they thought "oh hell, I'm an American and the American dream is a 2-story house with a white picket fence and I'm going to buy this house I can't afford because it's my 'right'. Yeah right. If there was such a thing as a "right to own stuff", everyone would have everything. You're lumping this is in with the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to a jury trial.....all these ACTUAL rights outlined in our laws. It doesn't jive.

It is their right. You can't just say no you can't own a home. You can turn down their attempt at getting a loan but that person can still own a home, they just have to look harder. Or, they can choose to build one themselves. Or they can get an apartment.

As far as this "everyone would be own everything" that just doesn't hold ground. You can't have a kid and then have everyone say "NO YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ANYTHING!" Wrong, if he works for it and pays for it, he has the right to own it.

Electrophile is correct.

Owning Property is not a right, and that is an extremely dumb way to look at it, too. Why? Because if owning property is a right, then every single person on the planet would own property. But a lot of people don't. Why? Money.

Um...good argument guys? Well if thats the case, then everyone who says we have a right to health care, then that can't be a right because then "Everyone would have health care then" right?

Just because you have a right to own property, doesn't mean you will have property. Another example, you have the right to bear arms...but that doesn't mean you have to...

Maybe, before the bartering system, owning property was a right. Now, it's a privilege bestowed upon those with enough money to buy property.

The problem with this debate is that no one is understanding this:

"Rights" cannot be removed. They cannot be taken away. They cannot be squashed, squandered, destroyed... Rights are there forever...

Well then by definition no one has rights and there's no point to having government as government by definition limits freedom of people. If there are no such things as rights, then slavery should still exist. Crimes shouldn't be illegal. If rights don't exist, then nothing is right or wrong, and I know I'm about to get hit with flak for saying that but by all means prove me wrong.

Only problem is, they don't actually exist. BIGDAN is quite right when he says "we only have the right to die." What he's saying is simply this:

Actually attempted suicide is a crime so technically no you don't.

But in all seriousness that's such a lame argument. Death is a bioloical fact for us. So is defacating or seeing or feeling. Are those "rights" too

-Your free speech can be taken away. Some people in this world don't even get to say what they want.

-Your freedom of religion can be taken away. Some people in this world are not allowed to practice a religion different from their State Religion.

-Your freedom of expression can be taken away. Some people in this world aren't even allowed to express themselves.

-Your freedom of assembly can be taken away. Some people aren't allowed to dissent.

-Your ability to own property can be taken away. Especially if you don't have any money. This is all about how rich you are, because at the end of the day, the one religion every single living person on this planet holds to is the religion of Money. Money is what really rules the world.

-Your freedom to marry whomever you want can be taken away. Hell... in America, Gays and Lesbians are still fighting to have this freedom.

-Your equality can be squashed in favor of somebody else. Not even America is truly equal.

-Your freedom itself can be removed. Many times it may be for the right reasons (if you're a serial killing pedophile rapist, you should not be free... period). But many times it is also for the wrong reasons (World War II, Japanese-Americans, Internment Camps; The Holocaust and the 12 million who lost their lives; thousands of other examples exist in our history and even our present, and will continue to exist in our future)

-Your very LIFE can be taken away from you. And that you can never get back.

So what? What does this prove? That some people defy the rights of others?

However, despite all that, the one thing we are guaranteed to never lose is our Right to Die. We will all die. Some will die sooner then others. But not one single person can escape death, and no one can keep you from dying. Therefore, Death is truly a Right, as it is truly inalienable and cannot be violated.

The rest are privileges, because they can, have been, and will again be squashed, trampled upon, and taken away.

Oh ok, so who decides these "privileges" may I ask? The government? So if the year was 1855 you'd be aruing FOR slavery because these people don't have any rights, according to the government, whereas I'd say that they have a right to live freely. Am I wrong?

[Electrophile]

I disagree. I understand what you're saying, but I believe we all have the right to own things. For example, if I find a rock shaped a president or something stupid like that on my property, i have the right to own it and keep it with me if i wish.

A rock? That's your example? Where on the property is the rock? If some kid is walking past our house and sees a stick shaped like a peace sign and takes it off our lawn, can I have him arrested for theft? Hell no. It's a stick. I don't own that stick just because it's on our lawn. The same as you don't own that rock just because it is on yours. If someone wants that rock they can take it. You can't own something you didn't pay for. Did you pay for that rock? Here's the litmus test - if you can have someone arrested for stealing it/vandalizing it/damaging it, you can say you own it. That means it's a viable commodity whose ownership has been transferred over to you. If you lose that rock, are you going to post "Lost Rock" signs all over the neighborhood like you would if you lost a pet? See where I'm getting at? There is no such thing as an inherent right to own anything. There just isn't. Point out to me where it exists, either in the Constitution or in a law book somewhere.

It is their right. You can't just say no you can't own a home.You can turn down their attempt at getting a loan but that person canstill own a home, they just have to look harder. Or, they can choose tobuild one themselves. Or they can get an apartment.

No, there is no right to own a home, and yes you CAN tell someone they can't own a home. If they can't afford it, you tell them no. Real simple. If more lenders did that, there wouldn't have been a mortgage crisis. No, they got swayed by the same cockamamie argument you're presenting and they gave these people loans they would never repay and then gasp! the banking system nearly collapsed. You don't have the right to own a home. You just don't. You don't even have the right to own an apartment. A right implies it's set in stone somewhere or guaranteed. Are you saying we're all guaranteed hone ownership? Can you point that one out to me as well? I'd like to know what laws you've been reading where we're guaranteed all these things like property and houses. If so, I need to get in on that.

[wanna be drummer]

A rock? That's your example? Where on the property is the rock? If some kid is walking past our house and sees a stick shaped like a peace sign and takes it off our lawn, can I have him arrested for theft? Hell no. It's a stick. I don't own that stick just because it's on our lawn. The same as you don't own that rock just because it is on yours. If someone wants that rock they can take it. You can't own something you didn't pay for. Did you pay for that rock? Here's the litmus test - if you can have someone arrested for stealing it/vandalizing it/damaging it, you can say you own it. That means it's a viable commodity whose ownership has been transferred over to you. If you lose that rock, are you going to post "Lost Rock" signs all over the neighborhood like you would if you lost a pet? See where I'm getting at? There is no such thing as an inherent right to own anything. There just isn't. Point out to me where it exists, either in the Constitution or in a law book somewhere.

On a very technical level, yes the rock is yours and technically the kid stole from you. But these are semantics so let's just ignore the aforementioned example.

I'm not talking about rights the Constitution gives us nor anything you'd find in a law book. I'm saying that humans have the right to own things. That's why we do. We have the right to acquire material goods as we go through life. Example: Everyone goes through lfie owning something. Therefore, using that death thing everyone loves so much this means that it is a right no?

No, there is no right to own a home, and yes you CAN tell someone they can't own a home. If they can't afford it, you tell them no. Real simple. If more lenders did that, there wouldn't have been a mortgage crisis. No, they got swayed by the same cockamamie argument you're presenting and they gave these people loans they would never repay and then gasp! the banking system nearly collapsed. You don't have the right to own a home. You just don't. You don't even have the right to own an apartment. A right implies it's set in stone somewhere or guaranteed. Are you saying we're all guaranteed hone ownership? Can you point that one out to me as well? I'd like to know what laws you've been reading where we're guaranteed all these things like property and houses. If so, I need to get in on that.

No Liz, you can't just tell someone that they cannot own a home. You can refuse them a loan, you can refuse them to rent from you, but they can always go somewhere else and get a home if they acquire the means to do so. Et voila they are sheltered.

And again, I'm not guaranteeing that everyone will et one nor do I advise iving them away for free. What I am merely suggesting here is that if someone wants a home, they have the right to try and get one. That cannot be taken away.

[~tangerine~]

Hi Tangerine,

Thats a good one, but how do i know that the Brainwashers havent already paid me a visit?

Kind Regards, Danny

Hi Danny, you may be thinking of extraterrestrials i think they let you keep your thoughts, they just borrow them

[Nathan]

Um...good argument guys? Well if thats the case, then everyone who says we have a right to health care, then that can't be a right because then "Everyone would have health care then" right?

Actually, if they have a right to Health Care, then everyone would have Health Care, because it would be a right, and therefore it could not be taken away. As it is right now, Health Care is a privilege afforded to those who can afford it. It'd be a nice if Health Care was a right, but it's not.

Just because you have a right to own property, doesn't mean you will have property. Another example, you have the right to bear arms...but that doesn't mean you have to...

So you'd still have a gun even if it was illegal?

Wait... no?

Well then, I guess owning that gun wasn't a right after all since it was taken from you.

Well then by definition no one has rights and there's no point to having government as government by definition limits freedom of people. If there are no such things as rights, then slavery should still exist. Crimes shouldn't be illegal. If rights don't exist, then nothing is right or wrong, and I know I'm about to get hit with flak for saying that but by all means prove me wrong.

Yes and no.

No one actually has any rights, but we need a government we need a government to ensure our privileges. I am no anarchist. I don't have enough faith in humanity to be an anarchist.

Actually attempted suicide is a crime so technically no you don't.

Actually that's not entirely correct. You will be put in a facility if you attempt suicide, but it is not a crime punishable by jail time, fines, etc.

And yes, you do, because everyone will die eventually.

But in all seriousness that's such a lame argument. Death is a bioloical fact for us. So is defacating or seeing or feeling. Are those "rights" too

Wrong outlook on it.

So what? What does this prove? That some people defy the rights of others?

No. Rights cannot be defied. Privileges can. Therefore, it proves that people defy the privileges of others... not the rights.

Oh ok, so who decides these "privileges" may I ask?

The government we have elected.

The government? So if the year was 1855 you'd be aruing FOR slavery because these people don't have any rights, according to the government, whereas I'd say that they have a right to live freely. Am I wrong?

How the hell am I supposed to know? I wasn't alive then. I didn't grow up in that culture. If I had the same feelings then that I do today, then you can sure-as-fuck bet that'd I be an abolitionist and equal-rights defender. But if I grew up in that era, and I grew up in the South then (like I did in the current era) then who knows. Maybe I would be racist defending slave ownership. I can't know because I wasn't alive then and wasn't influenced by the atmosphere at the time.

And assuming you would think the same thing you do today is fucking retarded and you know it.

[~tangerine~]

The problem with this debate is that no one is understanding this:

"Rights" cannot be removed. They cannot be taken away. They cannot be squashed, squandered, destroyed... Rights are there forever...

Only problem is, they don't actually exist. BIGDAN is quite right when he says "we only have the right to die." What he's saying is simply this:

-Your free speech can be taken away. Some people in this world don't even get to say what they want.

-Your freedom of religion can be taken away. Some people in this world are not allowed to practice a religion different from their State Religion.

-Your freedom of expression can be taken away. Some people in this world aren't even allowed to express themselves.

-Your freedom of assembly can be taken away. Some people aren't allowed to dissent.

-Your ability to own property can be taken away. Especially if you don't have any money. This is all about how rich you are, because at the end of the day, the one religion every single living person on this planet holds to is the religion of Money. Money is what really rules the world.

-Your freedom to marry whomever you want can be taken away. Hell... in America, Gays and Lesbians are still fighting to have this freedom.

-Your equality can be squashed in favor of somebody else. Not even America is truly equal.

-Your freedom itself can be removed. Many times it may be for the right reasons (if you're a serial killing pedophile rapist, you should not be free... period). But many times it is also for the wrong reasons (World War II, Japanese-Americans, Internment Camps; The Holocaust and the 12 million who lost their lives; thousands of other examples exist in our history and even our present, and will continue to exist in our future)

-Your very LIFE can be taken away from you. And that you can never get back.

However, despite all that, the one thing we are guaranteed to never lose is our Right to Die. We will all die. Some will die sooner then others. But not one single person can escape death, and no one can keep you from dying. Therefore, Death is truly a Right, as it is truly inalienable and cannot be violated.

The rest are privileges, because they can, have been, and will again be squashed, trampled upon, and taken away.

Good post Nathan. Privileges and rights can always be taken away... you said it better than Bigdan, lol (just kidding Danny) and so back to my original post (which i meant in all seriousness) you have a right to your thoughts! I agree about the death thing too, but i see so much of that i don't want to call it a right, more of an inevitable occurence.

[Mary Hartman]

My butt has the right to sit in this chair too. But stating that that is the only right it has in this universe is lame and ignorant.

It has the right to sit in jeans.

It has the right to get a tattoo.

It has the right to sit on one cheek (_^__)

Or the other (__^_)

Pretty lame in my opinion.

I mean someone saying death is their only right in this world is defeatist and lazy.

So which priv or right do we have to take away from BIGDAN?

His right to die?

I will opt out to defend numerous other rights and NOT let people tell me that my only right is DEATH!

I will surely steer clear from his sort. They sound like they will whimper to non existence.