Education a right ?

[G.T.]

That question doesn't pre-suppose a creator any more than 'were dogs meant to be free'. Whether your presuppose a creator or not, the question can still be valid. And since humans have held humans as slaves from practically the beginning of their time on this planet, I'd have to say that humans were not meant to be free; but have generally evolved to the point that they recognize that freedom is the best condition in which to exist.

Umm, yea you're basically wrong. What would "meant" imply? Meant in the question implies Humans having a purpose, i.e. not here by random chance, i.e. a creator.

You can interpret it that way if you wish; but that doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct.

And I agree with that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you actually this stupid? Where is slavery limited to black people?

In pre-emancipation America. The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America. The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,

but not if you're black.

And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.

In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.

Actually they did.
Please post any evidence that Blacks did not have inalienable rights as whites did.

How about the evidence that if you were a black person born in South Carolina in, say, 1820, the child of slaves, you would not have the unalienable right of LIBERTY, as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which as I recall are the explicitly stated unalienable rights in the D of I.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As an aside, the new Iraqi Constitution proclaims healthcare to be a RIGHT.

Would that be an unalienable right? A natural right? A phoney un-American right that no foreigner has any business calling a right because only Americans can decide what are and aren't rights?

eh??

So? Emigrate to Iraq then. They can put whatever they want in their Constitution. It's their country. Drop us a postcard when you get there, why don't you? I'm sure we'll all be waiting on tenterhooks to see how you've adjusted to your new country.

Aha, the white flag of well just leave then!!!! A classic internet capitulation.

So you agree that there are no God-given rights. That all rights are arbitrary based on who's in charge.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Frankly I'm astounded that anyone would not want education to be a right.

That's likely because you haven't followed that line of thought out to it's worst case scenario, no matter how improbable.

If Education and Healthcare are "rights"... then they MUST be provided. What that means.. is that if all else fails, then citizens themselves, must be conscripted in order to provide it. Say for example, that no matter what we do, we can't provide enough supply to meet demand. Not enough citizens choose education or healthcare as a career. We can't pay enough. We can't import enough. What then???

Yeah. It's an unlikely case that we'd ever see a situation like that. But in exploring it out to the most bizarre conclusion, one can see the moral implications. In the worst case scenario, the government must conscript free citizens and FORCE them to provide these services to others.

Education is a right in New York State. I've already posted it. The NYS constitution says it must be provided. I'm guessing it's a right in every other state as well.

Case closed.

 

[DE3]

Yes, I see it is an inalienable right....one that is not writen down, or forbidden by the constitution.

There are more inalienable rights than one could ever imagine or numerate....we are not limited to the 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

AND just because it is one of our rights, does NOT MEAN that the government HAS TO provide it for us, they just do not have the power given to them, to PREVENT us or to stop us...from becoming educated.

I whole-heartedly agree.

The question is does the nation pay for that right? And thankfully we have had leaders smart enough to recognize the vital national interest in doing so.

 

[The Rabbi]

When you ask "were humans meant to be free" your question is flawed. It presupposes a creator. And while personally I'm OK with that, it won't stack up logically.
The better question is, "are people free?" And the answer is no. Slavery was a feature of every society up until Europe post Middle Ages and the U.S. in 1865. It remained a feature of societies in many other places and exists to this day. It is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people. That doesn't make for a "right to enslave" however.

C'mon, Rabbi. Hang in there, bud. I'm asking you for better thinking than what we can expect of G.T., with his Lions and Antelopes and food chain and whatnot.

What is the natural consequence of thrusting human beings into bondage? What is their natural response to that particular stimuli? What will they invariable do?

The key is predictability, behaving in a way that's natural to humans. If there wasn't a natural, predictable, human response to slavery... then it wouldn't be WRONG to enslave people. It would be nothing more outside the norm than eating, sleeping, and shitting.

So now rights are based on what people naturally do?
For starters there is no "natural" response to slavery. Actually the "natural" response if there is one would be to sit there and take it. BEcause historically that is what slaves have done.
But since you mention it, does that mean that there is a natural right to take a dump? Will you include that in the Rights Of Man? A satisfying bowel movement?

 

[The Rabbi]

In pre-emancipation America. The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America. The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,

but not if you're black.

And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.

In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.

Actually they did.
Please post any evidence that Blacks did not have inalienable rights as whites did.

How about the evidence that if you were a black person born in South Carolina in, say, 1820, the child of slaves, you would not have the unalienable right of LIBERTY, as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which as I recall are the explicitly stated unalienable rights in the D of I.

How about answering the question, fucktard? Slaves obviously lacked liberty. That is a tautology.
But your claim was that only whites enjoyed rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness. I am challenging you for proof of that statement. And you are failing.

 

[Murf76]

You keep adding new elements into your theory because it has errors. Here, you added "predictable." The human response obviously wasn't "Natural" because slavery occured to begin with, dimwit. It was the Civilized that deemed it inappropriate.

You casually dismiss evidence and attempt to smear, but that doesn't work in adult world. Humans were savages. Cannibals. Murderers. Slave Owners. Rapists. If these unalienable rights were granted by God or Nature, what happened to the first part of human history where, you know, they didn't fucking exist?

Your assumption is that people are naturally evil. But that's not true. Sure, a dog will bite if frightened or provoked... but that doesn't mean that all dogs bite. The provocation for abhorrent human behavior is more complex, more nuanced. We are capable of both good and evil. Greed is as natural to us as compassion. But there is nearly always purpose outside the bounds of instinctive behavior to explain it. If one man chooses to enslave another, he has a complex purpose for doing so. And, from your point of view... it's not even wrong, because the man he enslaved has no right to be free, save what some arbitrary association of men deem prudent. By your math, slavery can be right on Tuesday and wrong on Thursday, depending upon who's in charge.

What I'm saying, is that it is a purposeful set of circumstances that causes enslavement of human beings, no matter that it is historically commonplace; that without a purpose for the action, it will not naturally occur. People might be enslaved for the sake of avarice, utility, hostility, revenge... but not just because it's as natural as taking a daily shit. It requires effort and forethought that we will not naturally engage in without some reward.

But the outcome of being enslaved is naturally predictable. Your dog doesn't mind that you're his master. He's a dog. He's just happy you're sharing your food with him. Not so a human being, who is naturally disinclined to cooperate with enslavement and will, with small exception, strive for freedom. He will sacrifice nearly anything for it, forgo his comfort for it, simply to fulfill the yearning to be his own man.

Historically, one people will often enslave another to serve some socio-economic goal...but the enslaved will invariably struggle for freedom. This too is history.
One behavior is purposeful. The other is latent, a simple part of being human.

 

[Murf76]

Frankly I'm astounded that anyone would not want education to be a right.

That's likely because you haven't followed that line of thought out to it's worst case scenario, no matter how improbable.

If Education and Healthcare are "rights"... then they MUST be provided. What that means.. is that if all else fails, then citizens themselves, must be conscripted in order to provide it. Say for example, that no matter what we do, we can't provide enough supply to meet demand. Not enough citizens choose education or healthcare as a career. We can't pay enough. We can't import enough. What then???

Yeah. It's an unlikely case that we'd ever see a situation like that. But in exploring it out to the most bizarre conclusion, one can see the moral implications. In the worst case scenario, the government must conscript free citizens and FORCE them to provide these services to others.

Education is a right in New York State. I've already posted it. The NYS constitution says it must be provided. I'm guessing it's a right in every other state as well.

Case closed.

You do understand don't you... that in "the worst case scenario" above, you're supporting the conscription of citizens. In effect, you'd be MAKING slaves.

 

[slackjawed]

That's likely because you haven't followed that line of thought out to it's worst case scenario, no matter how improbable.

If Education and Healthcare are "rights"... then they MUST be provided. What that means.. is that if all else fails, then citizens themselves, must be conscripted in order to provide it. Say for example, that no matter what we do, we can't provide enough supply to meet demand. Not enough citizens choose education or healthcare as a career. We can't pay enough. We can't import enough. What then???

Yeah. It's an unlikely case that we'd ever see a situation like that. But in exploring it out to the most bizarre conclusion, one can see the moral implications. In the worst case scenario, the government must conscript free citizens and FORCE them to provide these services to others.

Education is a right in New York State. I've already posted it. The NYS constitution says it must be provided. I'm guessing it's a right in every other state as well.

Case closed.

You do understand don't you... that in "the worst case scenario" above, you're supporting the conscription of citizens. In effect, you'd be MAKING slaves.

In the Arizona state constitution, public education is defined as a "responsibility" and further states that if public education is offered in any community, it must be open to all citizens without regard to race, creed or color. In another portion of the constitution, english is declared to be the 'official' language in all dealings of the state government including public education.
Our state defines education as a "responsibility", and further states that it will be conducted in english.
So, your guess about it being a "right" in every other state is wrong.

 

[Murf76]

So now rights are based on what people naturally do?
For starters there is no "natural" response to slavery. Actually the "natural" response if there is one would be to sit there and take it. BEcause historically that is what slaves have done.
But since you mention it, does that mean that there is a natural right to take a dump? Will you include that in the Rights Of Man? A satisfying bowel movement?

No. Historically, slaves have sought freedom from bondage. Sometimes, it has taken a long time to accomplish, but they eventually get there.

 

[Contumacious]

EDUCATION isn't a right...its a responsibility though.

Each generation is RESPONSIBLE for teaching the next.

This debate couldn't exist if we could agree on the meaning of the world "Right".

Sadly we cannot.

Some of you think rights are something that comes from GOD.

Some of us think that rights are something that exist only as a manifestation of society.

Do any of us have the right to exist?

Perhaps...but is that right unalienable?

Of course not.

Anyone of us can deny anyone every RIGHT most of us think we have.

Dead people have no rights.

Basically what I meant by my post. Rights (per our Documents) given by a creator? Because "Men" said so?.....doesn't fly with me.

And I take that you are a ............dog?

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's likely because you haven't followed that line of thought out to it's worst case scenario, no matter how improbable.

If Education and Healthcare are "rights"... then they MUST be provided. What that means.. is that if all else fails, then citizens themselves, must be conscripted in order to provide it. Say for example, that no matter what we do, we can't provide enough supply to meet demand. Not enough citizens choose education or healthcare as a career. We can't pay enough. We can't import enough. What then???

Yeah. It's an unlikely case that we'd ever see a situation like that. But in exploring it out to the most bizarre conclusion, one can see the moral implications. In the worst case scenario, the government must conscript free citizens and FORCE them to provide these services to others.

Education is a right in New York State. I've already posted it. The NYS constitution says it must be provided. I'm guessing it's a right in every other state as well.

Case closed.

You do understand don't you... that in "the worst case scenario" above, you're supporting the conscription of citizens. In effect, you'd be MAKING slaves.

I didn't outline a worst case scenario. I stated a simple fact. Children in NYS possess the right to an education.

 

[The Rabbi]

So now rights are based on what people naturally do?
For starters there is no "natural" response to slavery. Actually the "natural" response if there is one would be to sit there and take it. BEcause historically that is what slaves have done.
But since you mention it, does that mean that there is a natural right to take a dump? Will you include that in the Rights Of Man? A satisfying bowel movement?

No. Historically, slaves have sought freedom from bondage. Sometimes, it has taken a long time to accomplish, but they eventually get there.

No. Historically slaves have not sought that. There have been perhaps a dozen slave uprisings in history. Slavery ended here because of the Civil War, not because of anything slaves did. This is similar to virtually every other time and place where slavery was abolished. It did not come about because of anything slaves did.

 

[The Rabbi]

Education is a right in New York State. I've already posted it. The NYS constitution says it must be provided. I'm guessing it's a right in every other state as well.

Case closed.

You do understand don't you... that in "the worst case scenario" above, you're supporting the conscription of citizens. In effect, you'd be MAKING slaves.

I didn't outline a worst case scenario. I stated a simple fact. Children in NYS possess the right to an education.

But only because state law says so. In NJ it may not be so. So there is no natural right to education. Unless you want to say that people are more human in NYS than in NJ. Which might be the case, I dunno.
Are you planning on supporting your claim that only white males had rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness prior to the Civil War? Or should I just mark that down as diarrhea of the keyboard on your part?

 

[manifold]

I have to agree with Ribeye on this one.

Yeah I know, I'm pretty surprised too. *shrug*

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I mean, even the Legal definition is flawed. Take a look: a body of law or a specific principle of law that is held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law

If it were derived from Nature, it would be Survival of the Fittest. It is not, it's derived from a species becoming Sentient and Civilized.

Whether you realize it or not it IS survival of the fittest. You cannot legislate out genetic instinct that's present in every single living organism. It can only change through evolution. Where some lack the instinct for "survival", aka the weaker members of the species, the law now affords them an "equal footing" in civilized society.

Education isn't a right in our country but it's a necessity in order to function as a productive member of society. Should it be a right? No. It isn't a right now and it would make no difference if it was. Your still going to have the strong and the weak in the species.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yes no?

The right to education is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but it is outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the United States is a party to. Thus, the United States has declared to the world that :

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[xsited1]

Yes no?

I can't believe that there are people in America that believe education is a right. But Obama, Pelosi and Reid are running the country now, so I don't guess I should be too surprised.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yes no?

I can't believe that there are people in America that believe education is a right.

I can't believe there are people that don't. What's wrong with you people?