NationStates Jolt Archive

So ....

A recent topic in another forum has me thinking. Yes, dangerous, I know ... when I think, fires could be started and I could very well have a stroke ...

However, what do you think are the true "inalienable" rights?

What do you believe cannot be taken away from us, regardless of government, due process, and things of the like? That's right ... second guess the Founding Fathers of the United States ... or agree, if you like ...

My choices:

1] The right to representation.
2] The right to spiritual growth.
3] The right to self awareness.

Thoughts?

This could get very involved but I'll take a stab at it.

-The right to make unconcious decisions.
-The right to self-respect.
-The right to want.
And finally...
-The right to be a moron!

-The right to be a moron!

That's a right I excercise on a daily and ongoing basis.

Just ask Syniks. ;)

Strange, I thought more people would have replied already.Well, I'll have to fill in then:

-The right to be different.
-The right to tap dance.
-The right to sleep.

Strange, I thought more people would have replied already.

Well it's 12:40 am where I am ... I bet there's some folks sleepin'

Right of happiness.

Right of Id.

Right to respect
Right to property
Right to pursue prosperity

So ....

A recent topic in another forum has me thinking. Yes, dangerous, I know ... when I think, fires could be started and I could very well have a stroke ...

However, what do you think are the true "inalienable" rights?

What do you believe cannot be taken away from us, regardless of government, due process, and things of the like? That's right ... second guess the Founding Fathers of the United States ... or agree, if you like ...

My choices:

1] The right to representation.
2] The right to spiritual growth.
3] The right to self awareness.

Thoughts?

Freedom of thought. There is, as yet, no way to force a person to believe something.
The right to choice. Even when the man from the government kills everyone you've ever met, puts you in a damp black hole, and tortures you, you can still chose to fight or give in.

If you mean things that people are inalienably entitled to, but can be removed by force despite that entitlement (such as representation, or liberty)
Life
Liberty
Responsibility (the right to be responsible for one's actions, and the consequences)
*edit: I forgot property. Not entirely sure that the concept is flawless, but neither is it wholly flawed.

Let's see, first is the right to die, then there's the right to independent thought and self actualization, and maybe the right to hope. Ultimately I think you can force everything else out of someone, maybe their ability to think independently as well. So, hope and death then.

There is only one right that cannot be denied to a person: the right to die. Some, like the right to freedom of thought, are hard to remove, but it can be done (social conditioning, etc.).

Ultimately, all rights except the right to dies are granted by a higher power, and can be taken away as well.

Actually, with life support these days, the Right to Die is being challenged, as well. I don't care what your feelings were on the Terry Schaivo case, but that was definatly the government attempting to take away the Right to Die.

So, in the natural condition - without social conditioning by analysts and guys in white coats - are inalienable rights?

Lets see.

I can't think of any that can't be taken away. Rights are established by a higher power, either by Government or by God - although in ancient history, the two were the same.

The Right to Choose Your Government - The Right to Vote. Established by the Consitution (In the US, at least)
The Right to Die - Not Established in the US, but.... Mmmm.
The Right to having to deal with the fact that hot dogs come in packages of ten, while buns come in packages of eight - Established by Capitalism :D

The Right to a Temporary Existence.

Actually, with life support these days, the Right to Die is being challenged, as well. I don't care what your feelings were on the Terry Schaivo case, but that was definatly the government attempting to take away the Right to Die.

But the right to die can never truly be taken away. They can't keep you alive forever.


The Right to having to deal with the fact that hot dogs come in packages of ten, while buns come in packages of eight - Established by Capitalism :D


Damn Capitalists :)

The right to do your mom :eek:

However, what do you think are the true "inalienable" rights?
1) The right not to have your death brought forward by others against your will
2) The right not to have your life extended by others against your will

I've probably phrased at least one of those incorrectly, so don't be suprised if I come back and change it later...

hm. This is me, not my nation speaking.
I'm a locke whore, SO i'd say...

THe right to life
THe right to liberty
And the right to own property.

my "great dominator" persona would say-

"You are lower than an animal. you have no rights."

The right to free thought, free speech and free hotdogs (not neccessarily in that order).

Well I think what is important is the right to live(food, water, shelter) , and the right to improve oneself(education). Of course there is nothing wrong with these rights having a price on them, after all it would be impossible to have a system without people working to provide it.

The right to self-defense

The Right to Individual Self, self being defined as the Mind, the Body, and the Spirit.


No one can deprive you of your mind short of braining you with a club, it is yours and you are always free to do with it what you please.

People have been trying to control the body for centuries; no one can really claim to have done so. Anything short of killing a person fails to usurp that Right.

Slavery was largely an attempt to break a person’s spirit, even after years and years of abuse and degradation, the spirit of a slave (or the oppressed in general) truly can not be broken.

That, in my opinion, certainly counts as a "truly inalienable right." People can try to take it away, but have always failed anywhere short of killing the person.

But the right to die can never truly be taken away. They can't keep you alive forever.

Exactly. No one ever said the right to die when or how you choose to, simply the right to die, which no one is currently able to prevent.

The right to self-defense

Ooh ... damn ... knew I forgot one. Nod.

The right to equal opportunity (no discrimination because of race, sexual orientation.)
The right to free thought.
The right to defend yourself.
The right to free speech.
The right to eat half a cheesecake in one sitting.

With the last being as important as the others. :p

The right to equal opportunity (no discrimination because of race, sexual orientation.)
The right to free thought.
The right to defend yourself.
The right to free speech.
The right to eat half a cheesecake in one sitting.

With the last being as important as the others. :p

Now that's what I'm talking about!

The Right to Individual Self, self being defined as the Mind, the Body, and the Spirit.


No one can deprive you of your mind short of braining you with a club, it is yours and you are always free to do with it what you please.

People have been trying to control the body for centuries; no one can really claim to have done so. Anything short of killing a person fails to usurp that Right.

Slavery was largely an attempt to break a person’s spirit, even after years and years of abuse and degradation, the spirit of a slave (or the oppressed in general) truly can not be broken.

That, in my opinion, certainly counts as a "truly inalienable right." People can try to take it away, but have always failed anywhere short of killing the person.


Cultural conditioning, brainwashing etc.

Does an amish kid living in am isolated community have freedom of thought ?

So ....

A recent topic in another forum has me thinking. Yes, dangerous, I know ... when I think, fires could be started and I could very well have a stroke ...

However, what do you think are the true "inalienable" rights?

What do you believe cannot be taken away from us, regardless of government, due process, and things of the like? That's right ... second guess the Founding Fathers of the United States ... or agree, if you like ...

My choices:

1] The right to representation.
2] The right to spiritual growth.
3] The right to self awareness.

Thoughts?

1. Right to free speech, religion, press and information, right to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for grievences.

2. The right for citizens to bear arms and form militia groups.

You know what? All the 10 ammendment rights guarrenteed in the bill of rights.

Add:

The right to Privacy from organizations and government.
The right to live in healthy enviornments.

The right to do your mom :eek:
As in your own mom or the mom of whomever read that?

2] The right to spiritual growth.


Keruvalia, as a suporter of the Saudi Government's religious persecution and of the Muslim "Right not to be offended" in parts of SA, how exactly can you support the right to spiritual growth as being inalliable.

Keruvalia, as a suporter of the Saudi Government's religious persecution and of the Muslim "Right not to be offended" in parts of SA, how exactly can you support the right to spiritual growth as being inalliable.

A single post from a person who just joined. Fun! A puppet just for me.

Anyway, I don't necessarily support the Saudi government's religious persecution - though nobody has ever shown me proof that this persecution is any more than not allowing Bibles to come into the country even though many seem to like to claim Christians are being hung on the streets and gang raped or somesuch ... show me proof of it, then we'll talk.

I digress ... I may not agree with it, but it isn't my country. I have no say in what goes on there. I don't agree with a lot of the things governments in other countries do. Not much I can do about it, though. I'm too busy worrying about what my government is trying to do to my country.

On a side note: If you need a book or symbol to grow spiritually, 'tis a sad state of affairs within your soul.

Keruvalia, as a suporter of the Saudi Government's religious persecution and of the Muslim "Right not to be offended" in parts of SA, how exactly can you support the right to spiritual growth as being inalliable.

That wouldn't be Neo Cannen, would it?

On a side note: If you need a book or symbol to grow spiritually, 'tis a sad state of affairs within your soul.


Precisely the reason I cant stand any more "Koran in the toilet" stories. Is that the best they can do?

Anyway, I don't necessarily support the Saudi government's religious persecution - though nobody has ever shown me proof that this persecution is any more than not allowing Bibles to come into the country even though many seem to like to claim Christians are being hung on the streets and gang raped or somesuch ... show me proof of it, then we'll talk.

http://www.leaderu.com/common/saudiarabia.html

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm

http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/SaudiArabia.htm

http://www.earnedmedia.org/icc0602.htm

http://cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050609b.asp

http://cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.asp

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/radio4/today/listen/audiosearch.pl?ProgID=1016546844

Now do you want to talk?


I digress ... I may not agree with it, but it isn't my country. I have no say in what goes on there. I don't agree with a lot of the things governments in other countries do. Not much I can do about it, though. I'm too busy worrying about what my government is trying to do to my country.

Thats irrelevent, if you support spiritual growth, you cannot support any kind of religious persecution.


On a side note: If you need a book or symbol to grow spiritually, 'tis a sad state of affairs within your soul.

So would you be happy for all the prisoners at Camp X-Ray to have there Qu'ran's denied them?

Hello? Is anyone going to reply to this. What's the word? Bump? Is that what you say when you want to move a thread back up? (Someone tell me, a friend just gave me this place's link and clued me in about some of the locals)

Hello? Is anyone going to reply to this. What's the word? Bump? Is that what you say when you want to move a thread back up? (Someone tell me, a friend just gave me this place's link and clued me in about some of the locals)

ya. it's bump

First of all, I think I'll point out that this is, in fact, thread hijacking. However, I'll respond anyway.

http://www.leaderu.com/common/saudiarabia.html

Ooooh ... deporting non-citizen criminals. The US would *never* do such a thing.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm

Nothing there about ill treatment, just stating that it's the law. Again ... big deal. I can no more change the laws in Saudi Arabia then you can.

http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/SaudiArabia.htm

Arrested, detained, deported ... but still no proof of atrocities. And, even within this article itself, it says: " ... private worship by non-Muslims is permitted".

http://www.earnedmedia.org/icc0602.htm

A crackdown in response to atrocities committed against Muslims? Yeah ... that's a bad thing for a Muslim country to do. You piss on the Qur'an, you're offending ALL Muslims, not just the bad ones.

http://cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050609b.asp

CBN is not a valid source of anything .... even when it comes to things Christian.

http://cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.asp

See above. You're sourcing a political organisation hiding behind the guise of religious piety.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/radio4/today/listen/audiosearch.pl?ProgID=1016546844

I don't have the proper program to listen to or view a .pl file. Got a transcript?

Thats irrelevent, if you support spiritual growth, you cannot support any kind of religious persecution.

I support spiritual growth, but I also support representation, which you'd like to take away from the world's Muslims by crushing Saudi Arabia based on unproven allegations.


So would you be happy for all the prisoners at Camp X-Ray to have there Qu'ran's denied them?

No ... but I'd like to talk to them and remind them that it's not the book, but the message that is important.

Hello? Is anyone going to reply to this.

Patience, Neo. I went to the grocery store and then had to take the time to read the articles you posted.

Patience, Neo. I went to the grocery store and then had to take the time to read the articles you posted.

My names not Neo. Neo (If I think your saying who I think your saying) was the persona on here of the friend who introduced me to this, I think anyway.

My names not Neo. Neo (If I think your saying who I think your saying) was the persona on here of the friend who introduced me to this, I think anyway.

The point appears to be that he considers you a puppet

Ooooh ... deporting non-citizen criminals. The US would *never* do such a thing.

Two wrongs dont make a right.


Nothing there about ill treatment, just stating that it's the law. Again ... big deal. I can no more change the laws in Saudi Arabia then you can.

I've been told you support these laws. Exactly what gives the Saudi authorites the right to say who can practise what religion and where?


A crackdown in response to atrocities committed against Muslims? Yeah ... that's a bad thing for a Muslim country to do. You piss on the Qur'an, you're offending ALL Muslims, not just the bad ones.

So basicly your saying that Muslims can't differnciate between Christians as a whole and one or two American soldiers, who may or may not have even been Christians.


I don't have the proper program to listen to or view a .pl file. Got a transcript?

No, I'd recomend getting real player

My names not Neo. Neo (If I think your saying who I think your saying) was the persona on here of the friend who introduced me to this, I think anyway.

Well ... it is a tad suspicious. You create an account, make your first post in one of my threads, taking it completely off topic to point out something you - as a new user - would have no way of ever taking out of context and cite the exact same debunked sources your "friend" has used time and time again - but refuses to acknowledge their debunkation (no, that's not a word).

So, if you're not a puppet, great! Just do a search and you'll find this old argument has been had at least a dozen times already. No need to do it again. Always search before you post.

If you are a puppet ... well ... ok then.

The point appears to be that he considers you a puppet

Whats that supposed to mean?

Two wrongs dont make a right.

So you think Saudi Arabia should allow someone who breaks the law and isn't a citizen of Saudi Arabia to stay in Saudi Arabia rather than send them home to their own country?


I've been told you support these laws. Exactly what gives the Saudi authorites the right to say who can practise what religion and where?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with a monarchy. Kings can do what they like. If the people don't like it, they rebel. I cannot rebel against Saudi Arabia ... it's not my country.


So basicly your saying that Muslims can't differnciate between Christians as a whole and one or two American soldiers, who may or may not have even been Christians.

Any more than Americans can't generally differentiate between an Al Qaeda terrorist and the average, peaceful Muslim. Ignorance runs amuck in all societies.

No, I'd recomend getting real player

Oooh ... ugh ... I hate that thing.

Whats that supposed to mean?

Nice cover, Pinnochio.

and you'll find this old argument has been had at least a dozen times already. No need to do it again.

Of course, this is the overriding principle of this forum :rolleyes::rolleyes: :) ;) ;) :)

Well ... it is a tad suspicious. You create an account, make your first post in one of my threads, taking it completely off topic to point out something you - as a new user - would have no way of ever taking out of context and cite the exact same debunked sources your "friend" has used time and time again - but refuses to acknowledge their debunkation (no, that's not a word).


Look, I'm not sure but basicly "Neo" as you keep calling him (I'm not sure what his full persona is on here) is a friend of mine I think. He told me his name meant new something and Neo is latin or greek I think for new. We both go to the same church and college and he told me about this site, and a few people he had met and debated with on here. Now funnyly enough, because we are friends, it's logical to assume we share simmilar views. Wouldnt you agree?

because we are friends, it's logical to assume we share simmilar views. Wouldnt you agree?

No, not really. I have a lot of friends that it's more fun to aergue with. Only the weak surround themselves from the harsh realities of life with a screen of sycophants.