- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
So you are saying that since something can and does get "taken away" it therefore can't be inalienable, Is that correct?
A right implies that something is due to someone on the basis of something. If I'm correct an inalienable right doesn't mean that something can't be taken away. But that only the one giving or the basis for the right has the proper authority to take the right away. So I don't see how your argument from silence demonstrates that inalienable rights don't exist, maybe you could explain that for me.
When the Founding Fathers wrote those words about the inalienable right to life I doubt they meant the right couldn't be taken away; since the document that contains those words was a basically a deceleration of war and offered justification to take life away from other humans. When they wrote those words they grounded those rights in a creator. In essence what they were saying is that the creator gives the right to life to us and only the creator has the right to revoke that right; there must be proper justification to take human life, it has to be on the creator's terms not ours. And the Deceleration of Independence was an attempt to properly justify their action of going to war to regain a right that had been unjustly taken from them. So I don't see how you get from that the idea that inalienable rights can't be taken away.
So the question I'm raising is not an issue of "can" inalienable rights be taken away and if so are there such things as inalienable rights. I'm asking that if there is not a transcendent, immutable giver of our right to life do I have such a right. Because if I haven't been given it how can I say I have it? Because if atheism is true and we are just a cosmic accident without a purpose then there is no difference between gassing cockroaches and gassing six million Jews. And our Founding Fathers understood this and that's why they grounded those inalienable rights in a transcendent, immutable creator.
So what I'm looking for is a good argument for how you would ground inalienable rights without a transcendent, immutable source, if it can be done. Not whether or not inalienable rights can be taken away.
OK we need some clarification on the point I'm making. I'm not making a religious or teleological argument. I'm not using the term sex to refer to gender. Nor I'm I trying to make some redefinition of what constitutes a sexual act. I'm strictly making a functional observation.
I'm looking at the function and asking; In a complementary design were you have two different parts that complement each other to perform a certain function can two parts that are the same function in the same way two different parts can? I can't see how they could. So what do you do when you want to perform the function but that parts you have don't work together, they aren't complementary, you find a substitute that does.
So I'm asking if it can't function with the same parts can we honestly say that it is functioning with the same (homo) parts? To be honest we would have to say that it is functioning but with a substitute. What we can't say is that it is functioning with the same parts because it can't function with the same (homo) parts. So no you can't get the function, sex, with the same (homo) parts. The function, sex for humans, requires by design two different parts that form a complementary role to accomplished the given function.
You err in assuming that I'm making a religious argument, I'm not. No where in this debate have I referenced my religion to support my observation. I'm just making an observation based on function. And I just don't see homosexuality able to function as claimed.
I'm assuming you don't live near an Indian reservation because if you did you would know first hand what socialism does to people. Those people have everything given to them and are they productive and industrious people, no they are a decimated people who live in squalor, struggle with alcoholism and all sorts of problems. All the free stuff didn't have the effect on them that you think it would. It had the opposite and a very opposite one at that.
Now I'm not trash talking Native Americans, I fell horrible about what is happening to them. What I'm trash talking is the system that put them there and keeps them there, the system that strips a man of his pride and dignity, destroys his motivation to work and kills his creativity. And that system is socialism, a system that says; you don't have to work for this to earn it, we will give it to. The promise of socialism is poison, a deadly poison. It promises you things that it has no power to give and leaves you in a worse state than before.
and the job would get you what, an opportunity to give your earnings away to pay for the other guy to have an opportunity? That's a vicious cycle that goes nowhere. Not everybody needs a degree, the world will always need janitors and that's okay.
Part of the error I see you making is that you think the benefits of a free market will remain in a market that is not free. That is just not the case. In a free market you're free to succeed and you're free to fail. It is the potential to succeed and succeed big time that motivates like nothing else because the sky is the limit. And yes some people will not shoot for the moon and that's okay. But in socialist economy everybody is just floating around in circles on their life rafts going nowhere until the pond dries up.
The point was that you don't have a "right" to an education like I don't have a right to the fifty dollars. The best things in life come to those who earn them and nothing worthwhile is easy. And if education is everything to you than go get it. But to some people it isn't and they will always do manual labor and that's okay.
What you are missing is that socialism removes motivation. If the playing field is leveled what is there to attain to? why teach, to what end? why "get it", to what end? Why work to "get ahead" if all I'm going to do when I get there is give it away to someone else so he can "get ahead" That kind of circular motion kills motivation and destroys creativity. A socialist society can't work on it's own accord because it has no driving force. And therefore it must be propped up by some other means, usually legal force. But that prop will eventually give as they always do.
And that's why sink or swim is a great motivator because sinking has a way of making you swim like hunger has a way of making you work. And minimum wage has a way of making you get an education. But if it's freely given there is no motivation, it's just there.
No, but that's not to say it couldn't happen. But I have yet to see a compelling argument against my religious belief. All the arguments I've seen against it commit at least two common informal fallacies: The Ad hominem and the Straw Man fallacy. It just seems to me that most people have forgotten that you must first show that a man is wrong before you can say that he is wrong.