no same sex marriage in Maine - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Steerpike · #76 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Yes, my reply to you was entire satirical though. They don't despize us for this, and they won't.

Which is just utter nonsense.

As satire, it was strawman. Actually, I have seen the stated opinions of some in the international community on this issue on another site which belie your assumption. Some do despise the United States for this (i.e., voting on rights).

Tautog · #77 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steerpike

As satire, it was strawman. Actually, I have seen the stated opinions of some in the international community on this issue on another site which belie your assumption. Some do despise the United States for this (i.e., voting on rights).

If we don't "vote on rights", then who decides what is a right and what is not?

Traveler · #78 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

As satire, it was strawman. Actually, I have seen the stated opinions of some in the international community on this issue on another site which belie your assumption. Some do despise the United States for this (i.e., voting on rights).

Yeah, i'm not surprised. (I rail off at the UK for the complete opposite).

I'll try use sarcasm tags in posts with you from now on to make it clearer when i'm kidding about.

chassisman · #79 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefe

If you thought crabs were bad, just wait till you come down with a case of the lobsters!

As opposed to your Texas accent? You all sound like a bunch of hillbillys to me.

lol...

Pock the cah, Jefe.

Traveler · #80 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Between us, none of us seem to have a heavy Texan accent. (Me, you, Gnomie, Eric etc).

EagleTed · #81 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steerpike

This is a good start.

Yes. Property rights are key here.

Who has the right to property?

What, if anything, else comes into the picture here?

The right to own a grenade launcher with ammo?

Steerpike · #82 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tautog

If we don't "vote on rights", then who decides what is a right and what is not?

Excellent question.

Rights don't exist because we want them but because they are logically necessary. So we know that this thing we call rights is necessarily true.

If we look to John Locke, then we can see three inalienable rights - life, liberty, and property. There are two ways to approach this. The "God given" approach which of course fails due to logical fallacy and the rationalist approach which does not. Locke uses both approaches.

With these teleological rights, we are logically required in a social contract situtaion to add the right to justice which is the primary function of law.

It is not a question of "who decides?" but "is it supported by reason?"

Consider the right to a fair trial. Is it a question of someone voting that there is this right or is it part of the very concept of a fair trial?

If you want to understand more about rights, then study philosophy.

Tautog · #83 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Excellent question.

Rights don't exist because we want them but because they are logically necessary. So we know that this thing we call rights is necessarily true.

If we look to John Locke, then we can see three inalienable rights - life, liberty, and property. There are two ways to approach this. The "God given" approach which of course fails due to logical fallacy and the rationalist approach which does not. Locke uses both approaches.

With these teleological rights, we are logically required in a social contract situtaion to add the right to justice which is the primary function of law.

It is not a question of "who decides?" but "is it supported by reason?"

Consider the right to a fair trial. Is it a question of someone voting that there is this right or is it part of the very concept of a fair trial?

If you want to understand more about rights, then study philosophy.

I think the mistake you are making is your assumption that there is some sort of universal consensus of what is "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad", and "just" and "unjust", when in reality there is no consensus, only majority opinion - which is why voting (be it direct or through representatives) is necessary.

wiggidy · #84 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Excellent question.

Rights don't exist because we want them but because they are logically necessary. So we know that this thing we call rights is necessarily true.

If we look to John Locke, then we can see three inalienable rights - life, liberty, and property. There are two ways to approach this. The "God given" approach which of course fails due to logical fallacy and the rationalist approach which does not. Locke uses both approaches.

With these teleological rights, we are logically required in a social contract situtaion to add the right to justice which is the primary function of law.

It is not a question of "who decides?" but "is it supported by reason?"

Consider the right to a fair trial. Is it a question of someone voting that there is this right or is it part of the very concept of a fair trial?

If you want to understand more about rights, then study philosophy.

Only the misunderstanding of "God Given" rights does that (the left does it far more than the right). God given rights are rights that are beyond the power of the people to take away. Doesn't have anything to do with religious texts.

However, I'm sure I'll be flamed for this and our representatives will continue to misunderstand/misinterpret what it should mean to them.

Steerpike · #85 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tautog

I think the mistake you are making is your assumption that there is some sort of universal consensus of what is "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad", and "just" and "unjust", when in reality there is no consensus, only majority opinion - which is why voting (be it direct or through representatives) is necessary.

If rights had to be established by vote, then their could never be a right to vote.

Consensus doesn't determine truth. If you are genuinely interested in understanding rights, then you need a grasp of formal logic and philosophy.

Tautog · #86 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steerpike

If rights had to be established by vote, then their could never be a right to vote.

Consensus doesn't determine truth. If you are genuinely interested in understanding rights, then you need a grasp of formal logic and philosophy.

I agree consensus does not determine truth, because there is no such thing as objective truth, only subjective opinion. Who's logic and who's philosophy do I need to grasp? Is there an infallible logic and philosophy out there that applies to everyone and everything?

wiggidy · #87 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tautog

I agree consensus does not determine truth, because there is no such thing as objective truth, only subjective opinion. Who's logic and who's philosophy do I need to grasp? Is there an infallible logic and philosophy out there that applies to everyone and everything?

Yeah, mine, doesn't matter though, hardly anyone is listening.

redrover · #88 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

The demonstrates the problem with legislation by popular referendum. It reinforces tyranny of the majority. What if you had a vote in your community to ban the Muslim religion in your community? After all All the 9/11 attackers were Muslims.

Tautog · #89 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by redrover

The demonstrates the problem with legislation by popular referendum. It reinforces tyranny of the majority. What if you had a vote in your community to ban the Muslim religion in your community? After all All the 9/11 attackers were Muslims.

So what's a better alternative to popular referendum?