| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:04 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
 |
|
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:22:07 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Another, perhaps more popular way to phrase it would be:
- laws a consequence of rights (rights reign supreme)
- rights are a consequence of laws (laws reign supreme)
|
Nonsense to both
You're setting up straw-men arguments that have no
validity.
Laws protect "rights"
Natural rights are not man-made---laws (rule of law)
assures society they are protected to the greatest
extent possible
When you have a "right to an attorney"---that emanates
from the rule of law, legislation and society.
You can't find any "god-given right" to an attorney (or
a gun) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:22:07 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
Another, perhaps more popular way to phrase it would be:
- laws a consequence of rights (rights reign supreme)
- rights are a consequence of laws (laws reign supreme)
Nonsense to both
You're setting up straw-men arguments that have no
validity.
|
Nonsense to your response. There is no straw man; it is a careful
analysis of the core of two opposing ideologies. Rather than examine
them for their merits, you choose to post off-hand comments that have no
substance and aren't worthy of further discussion.
| Quote: |
Laws protect "rights"
|
Really? How does the Chicago handgun prohibition protect rights?
| Quote: |
Natural rights are not man-made---laws (rule of law)
assures society they are protected to the greatest
extent possible
When you have a "right to an attorney"---that emanates
from the rule of law, legislation and society.
You can't find any "god-given right" to an attorney (or
a gun)
|
Sure I can.
Point 1 ('right to an attorney'): Someone that has the right to liberty
(read: they haven't forfeited that right) can preserve that liberty
using whatever means necessary, provided those means don't infringe upon
the rights of others. The 'right to an attorney' is a misnomer -- there
is no such right, rather it is an explicit protection from
unjust/unwarranted loss of liberty at the hand of government.
Point 2 ('right to a gun'): Someone that has the right to life (read:
they haven't forfeited that right) can preserve that life using whatever
means necessary, provided those means don't infringe upon the rights of
others. The 'right to a gun' is a misnomer -- there is no such right,
rather it is a crude reference to the right to life and the right to
defend that life. Additionally, and not inconsequentially, the 'right
to a gun' can also be in reference to the 'right to happiness'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 3, 9:37 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:36:24 -0700, Peter Franks
n...@none.com> wrote:
should NO LAW infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law
abiding?
Laws are in place to prevent behavior.
Yes, that would be a liberal viewpoint.
The liberal ideology is that all others are incapable of controlling
themselves, so the law must be enacted to force them into correct
behavior.
Where did you get that one from?
"Liberal" has its roots in the "liberty", the opposite of what you claim
liberalism is.
"liberal" may claim "liberty", but at the core, that is false.
The true core of the ideology is that laws reign supreme over rights.
A fact-free claim made up out of whole cloth.
|
Right back at you -- I see no facts supporting your claims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 3, 9:41 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
The core assertion remains. There are two ideologies: one where rights
reign supreme, the other where laws reign supreme.
Neither is the case in the USA. Rights are supreme except in a few
limited circumstances.
|
If rights aren't supreme in all cases, then rights aren't supreme. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:27 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Jul 4, 12:20 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:37 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:36:24 -0700, Peter Franks
n...@none.com> wrote:
should NO LAW infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law
abiding?
Laws are in place to prevent behavior.
Yes, that would be a liberal viewpoint.
The liberal ideology is that all others are incapable of controlling
themselves, so the law must be enacted to force them into correct
behavior.
Where did you get that one from?
"Liberal" has its roots in the "liberty", the opposite of what you claim
liberalism is.
"liberal" may claim "liberty", but at the core, that is false.
The true core of the ideology is that laws reign supreme over rights.
A fact-free claim made up out of whole cloth.
Right back at you -- I see no facts supporting your claims.
|
I haven't made a claim. You made a claim about liberalism, and
continue to repeat it - all without evidence.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:29 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Jul 4, 12:21 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:41 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
The core assertion remains. There are two ideologies: one where rights
reign supreme, the other where laws reign supreme.
Neither is the case in the USA. Rights are supreme except in a few
limited circumstances.
If rights aren't supreme in all cases, then rights aren't supreme.
|
And if laws aren't supreme in all cases, neither are laws. Neither
are supreme in the USA.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Rights are supreme.
A law that violates a right is unconstitutional.
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:gIhak.11206$F97.8495@newsfe18.lga...
| Quote: |
Which reigns supreme? Rights over laws (1), or laws over rights(2)?
(1) Conservative viewpoint?
(2) Liberal viewpoint? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:06 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 4, 12:20 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:37 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:36:24 -0700, Peter Franks
n...@none.com> wrote:
should NO LAW infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law
abiding?
Laws are in place to prevent behavior.
Yes, that would be a liberal viewpoint.
The liberal ideology is that all others are incapable of controlling
themselves, so the law must be enacted to force them into correct
behavior.
Where did you get that one from?
"Liberal" has its roots in the "liberty", the opposite of what you claim
liberalism is.
"liberal" may claim "liberty", but at the core, that is false.
The true core of the ideology is that laws reign supreme over rights.
A fact-free claim made up out of whole cloth.
Right back at you -- I see no facts supporting your claims.
I haven't made a claim.
|
"'Liberal' has its roots in the 'liberty'" is a claim.
| Quote: |
You made a claim about liberalism, and
continue to repeat it - all without evidence.
|
The name of the ideology is largely irrelevant. In a majority of my
posts, I use the 'term' followed by (?) to indicate that it is my
presumptive opinion.
The core issue remains unchallenged: There is one ideology of rights
reign supreme over laws, and a contrary ideology of where laws reign
supreme over laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:43 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Jul 4, 10:06 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
You made a claim about liberalism, and
continue to repeat it - all without evidence.
The name of the ideology is largely irrelevant. In a majority of my
posts, I use the 'term' followed by (?) to indicate that it is my
presumptive opinion.
|
Since you can't support your use of liberal and conservative, even
with quotes, how about stop using those terms.
| Quote: |
The core issue remains unchallenged:
|
I've challenged that in another post.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:20:04 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Right back at you -- I see no facts supporting your claims.
|
Your "arguments" are fallacies
They require a reader to accept your version of
warrant, your validity of the claim, then disprove (or
prove) your statement.
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.gw-bush,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
| Quote: |
=============================================================
|
PAJAMATROLL FORGES ANOTHER-------------
| Quote: |
On Jul 3, 7:34 am, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
Robertson was claiming that his daughter "needed to
keep her finger on a trigger" when government did
something he didn't like
Um, noooooooo....
He said his daughter, and all of America's youth, might need to "keep
their finger on the trigger" to preserve freedom in this country"....
|
Incorrect..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/373455826f8a6915?hl=en&dmode=source
| My nineteen-year-old daughter has embraced anarcho-capitalism
| (I never even knew she was paying attention to my rants!), and
| the future of freedom in this country rests in their hearts
| and minds, and if need be, their trigger fingers.
|
| I strongly suggest you start playing nice, Gary.
WHACK ! ! !
.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:27:25 -0700 (PDT), Josh
Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
A fact-free claim made up out of whole cloth.
Right back at you -- I see no facts supporting your claims.
I haven't made a claim. You made a claim about liberalism, and
continue to repeat it - all without evidence.
|
"Begging the question" fallacy---along with half-dozen
others.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:06:57 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I haven't made a claim.
"'Liberal' has its roots in the 'liberty'" is a claim.
|
Liberal (as applied to american politics) has it's
roots in 18th century philosophy.
| Quote: |
You made a claim about liberalism, and
continue to repeat it - all without evidence.
The name of the ideology is largely irrelevant. In a majority of my
posts, I use the 'term' followed by (?) to indicate that it is my
presumptive opinion.
|
Again, fallacy argument.
You're constructing an argument that is without merit.
| Quote: |
The core issue remains unchallenged: There is one ideology of rights
reign supreme over laws, and a contrary ideology of where laws reign
supreme over laws.
|
AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT
Description: An argument from the truth of a
hypothetical statement, and the truth of the consequent
to the truth of the antecedent. In the syllogism below,
P is the antecedent and Q is the consequent:
P implies Q
Q is true <-- Affirming the consequent
Therefore: P is true
BEGGING THE QUESTION (CIRCULAR REASONING)
Description: An argument that assumes as part of its
premises the very conclusion that is supposed to be
true. Another way of saying this is: Fallacy of
assuming at the onset of an argument the very point you
are trying to prove. The fallacy is also sometimes
referred to as "Circulus in Probando." This Fallacy is
also known by the Latin "PETITIO PRINCIPII".
BIFURCATION
Description: Also referred to as the "black and white"
fallacy, bifurcation is the presentation of a situation
or condition with only two alternatives, whereas in
fact other alternatives exist or can exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:21:15 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
If rights aren't supreme in all cases, then rights aren't supreme.
|
Of course they are.
The degree with which one enjoys those rights depends
on the amount of law and protection they get. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 19:05:06 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Rights are supreme.
A law that violates a right is unconstitutional.
|
Even rights which are "supreme" are not guaranteed to
be fulfilled 100%---only protected as to the
willingness of the society to apply the rule of law (
constitution) to achieve that goal.
You do not have an "absolute" right not to be killed
under ALL situations.
The state may do it for a specific set of reasons,
individuals may kill you under a specific set of
reasons, you may be killed by individuals or
corporations carelessness.
You do not have an absolute right to 'Freedom", or
"pursuit of happiness"---because there are limitations
on what, how and why you can attempt to achieve it.
This silly trolled argument is nothing more than an
excercise in not allowing a troll to push some
sillyiness without getting called on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 4, 10:06 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
You made a claim about liberalism, and
continue to repeat it - all without evidence.
The name of the ideology is largely irrelevant. In a majority of my
posts, I use the 'term' followed by (?) to indicate that it is my
presumptive opinion.
Since you can't support your use of liberal and conservative, even
with quotes, how about stop using those terms.
The core issue remains unchallenged:
I've challenged that in another post.
|
Could you be more specific? I read and write a lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
137 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
