Why not remove the federal court's juridiction over the 2nd Amendment?

[ogibillm]

You are trying to use the violations and the denials of rights in one part of the world to argue against the existence or to deny rights here in the U.S.

In doing so, you make yourself look like a fool.

If you are attacked physically by someone. . . would you not have a RIGHT to defend yourself?

If you think not? You are an even bigger idiot than you have already led me to believe you are.

I don't think he is arguing against the existence of, or trying to deny rights here

However what he is arguing seems badly phrased.

Let me try to rephrase it then...

you don't have rights you can't exercise. what we consider 'human rights' are a relatively new construct.

but we do not have intrinsic rights. we only have those rights which we can exercise. how else can we demonstrate that a right exists if we are unable to use it?

take the example of a slave. you may feel he as a right to freedom; a right to be viewed as other than property. however if nobody else recognizes that right, if he is unable to exercise it, he will remain a slave. if enough people agree that he should have the right to be free hencyclopedia may find himself able to exercise that right.

finally, look at how our view of human rights have changed. is it a right not to be whipped in the public square? is it a right for women to be able to hold and own property? is it a right for people to have control over their reproductive systems? is it a right to have a voice in your government?

these are relatively new 'rights.' if we have intrinsic rights where we're thise rights in the recent past?

Those rights were there - they simply were not protected and rights can be violated. We have come in modern times to recognize that those rights exist and have always existed even if we did not realize that they were there before. It is the natural state of man.

you are essentially arguing that because we did not know about the atom 2000 years ago - it did not exist.

an atomic is a physical object. it exists outside of our collective consciousness. rights are social constructs. they do not exist if we do not recognize them.

With your argument, there is no reason that anyone should complain about the atrocities that occur in North Korea - those people there are not having their rights violated because they do not have any such rights. The NK government can do as it pleases without any moral or real world repercussions because, after all, the people there do not have any rights that are not recognized by their government.

we can believe they should rights their governmentioned does not. the extent to which we believe that dictates how we deal.with their government. but that doesn't matter to the guy in North Korea who is arrested and thrown in jail because someone thinks he said something bad about the government. that man has no right to a trial, no right to be free, and no right to speak his mind. he can't exercise them, therefore for him they don't exist.

Of course, this is exactly how governments viewed people's rights before the US based itself on the radical idea that rights were NOT constructs of the government but rather intrinsic to life and that one of the core purposes of government was to secure those rights. Secure them - NOT create them.

and that doesn't change that rights are a social construct and do not exist I'd you cannot exercise them.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. Clearly you reject the basic foundation of this nation. What is scary is that I do not think you or those that adhere to the same ideas of rights that you are truly understand the ramifications of such.

yes, you fundamentally don't understand that rights are social constructs and not objects that exis the outside of social.agreements

what ramifications do you think that has?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I don't think he is arguing against the existence of, or trying to deny rights here

However what he is arguing seems badly phrased.

Let me try to rephrase it then...

you don't have rights you can't exercise. what we consider 'human rights' are a relatively new construct.

but we do not have intrinsic rights. we only have those rights which we can exercise. how else can we demonstrate that a right exists if we are unable to use it?

take the example of a slave. you may feel he as a right to freedom; a right to be viewed as other than property. however if nobody else recognizes that right, if he is unable to exercise it, he will remain a slave. if enough people agree that he should have the right to be free hencyclopedia may find himself able to exercise that right.

finally, look at how our view of human rights have changed. is it a right not to be whipped in the public square? is it a right for women to be able to hold and own property? is it a right for people to have control over their reproductive systems? is it a right to have a voice in your government?

these are relatively new 'rights.' if we have intrinsic rights where we're thise rights in the recent past?

Those rights were there - they simply were not protected and rights can be violated. We have come in modern times to recognize that those rights exist and have always existed even if we did not realize that they were there before. It is the natural state of man.

you are essentially arguing that because we did not know about the atom 2000 years ago - it did not exist.

an atomic is a physical object. it exists outside of our collective consciousness. rights are social constructs. they do not exist if we do not recognize them.

With your argument, there is no reason that anyone should complain about the atrocities that occur in North Korea - those people there are not having their rights violated because they do not have any such rights. The NK government can do as it pleases without any moral or real world repercussions because, after all, the people there do not have any rights that are not recognized by their government.

we can believe they should rights their governmentioned does not. the extent to which we believe that dictates how we deal.with their government. but that doesn't matter to the guy in North Korea who is arrested and thrown in jail because someone thinks he said something bad about the government. that man has no right to a trial, no right to be free, and no right to speak his mind. he can't exercise them, therefore for him they don't exist.

Of course, this is exactly how governments viewed people's rights before the US based itself on the radical idea that rights were NOT constructs of the government but rather intrinsic to life and that one of the core purposes of government was to secure those rights. Secure them - NOT create them.

and that doesn't change that rights are a social construct and do not exist I'd you cannot exercise them.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. Clearly you reject the basic foundation of this nation. What is scary is that I do not think you or those that adhere to the same ideas of rights that you are truly understand the ramifications of such.

yes, you fundamentally don't understand that rights are social constructs and not objects that exis the outside of social.agreements

what ramifications do you think that has?

A lot of things are 'social constructs'. It is just inevitable that as individuals group with other individuals that they form many social constructs. They are often found in language to describe ideas that already existed. We use the word eat to tell others about an act but the word didn't exist because communicating to others wasn't necessary when you are by yourself. The word is a social construct because it has a common meaning that is understood by all. It didn't exist before but that doesn't mean the act of eating didn't exit before either. The social construct didn't create the act of eating in itself and the same can be said about rights. The right to eat has its own meaning to all and is found in language but certainly the right to eat existed before you joined into the group? If not, then you couldn't actually eat before that.

 

[ogibillm]

Let me try to rephrase it then...

you don't have rights you can't exercise. what we consider 'human rights' are a relatively new construct.

but we do not have intrinsic rights. we only have those rights which we can exercise. how else can we demonstrate that a right exists if we are unable to use it?

take the example of a slave. you may feel he as a right to freedom; a right to be viewed as other than property. however if nobody else recognizes that right, if he is unable to exercise it, he will remain a slave. if enough people agree that he should have the right to be free hencyclopedia may find himself able to exercise that right.

finally, look at how our view of human rights have changed. is it a right not to be whipped in the public square? is it a right for women to be able to hold and own property? is it a right for people to have control over their reproductive systems? is it a right to have a voice in your government?

these are relatively new 'rights.' if we have intrinsic rights where we're thise rights in the recent past?

Those rights were there - they simply were not protected and rights can be violated. We have come in modern times to recognize that those rights exist and have always existed even if we did not realize that they were there before. It is the natural state of man.

you are essentially arguing that because we did not know about the atom 2000 years ago - it did not exist.

an atomic is a physical object. it exists outside of our collective consciousness. rights are social constructs. they do not exist if we do not recognize them.

With your argument, there is no reason that anyone should complain about the atrocities that occur in North Korea - those people there are not having their rights violated because they do not have any such rights. The NK government can do as it pleases without any moral or real world repercussions because, after all, the people there do not have any rights that are not recognized by their government.

we can believe they should rights their governmentioned does not. the extent to which we believe that dictates how we deal.with their government. but that doesn't matter to the guy in North Korea who is arrested and thrown in jail because someone thinks he said something bad about the government. that man has no right to a trial, no right to be free, and no right to speak his mind. he can't exercise them, therefore for him they don't exist.

Of course, this is exactly how governments viewed people's rights before the US based itself on the radical idea that rights were NOT constructs of the government but rather intrinsic to life and that one of the core purposes of government was to secure those rights. Secure them - NOT create them.

and that doesn't change that rights are a social construct and do not exist I'd you cannot exercise them.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. Clearly you reject the basic foundation of this nation. What is scary is that I do not think you or those that adhere to the same ideas of rights that you are truly understand the ramifications of such.

yes, you fundamentally don't understand that rights are social constructs and not objects that exis the outside of social.agreements

what ramifications do you think that has?

A lot of things are 'social constructs'. It is just inevitable that as individuals group with other individuals that they form many social constructs. They are often found in language to describe ideas that already existed. We use the word eat to tell others about an act but the word didn't exist because communicating to others wasn't necessary when you are by yourself. The word is a social construct because it has a common meaning that is understood by all. It didn't exist before but that doesn't mean the act of eating didn't exit before either. The social construct didn't create the act of eating in itself and the same can be said about rights. The right to eat has its own meaning to all and is found in language but certainly the right to eat existed before you joined into the group? If not, then you couldn't actually eat before that.

oh good god. this is the worst argument yet.

language is a product of society, yes. the verb 'eat' exists because eating is an action that everyone partakes in. but the right to eat? that only exists if we decide it does. someone may have the right to eat if they can provide sufficient service to their society. someone may have the right to eat if the rest of society has decided that everyone has the right to eat and shares accordingly. but if the rest of society does not believe that someone has a right to eat... then that person does not have the right to eat.

let me ask you, if i claim i have an intrinsic right to everything you own, does that right exist or not?

 

[FA_Q2]

True of false: The judicial power extends to all cases and controversies arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States.

True but the next sentence says with exceptions and regulations that congress can create.

So....does the judicial power extend to all cases and controversies arising under the constitution, or not?

I said they do but with whatever exceptions congress decides to create. I also believe that says 'judicial power' not necessarily the supreme court of the united States.

Considering that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter and that they are the ones that decide what cases they hear and do not here when they are brought to them, congress removing them from the picture is irrelevant - the SCOTUS would hear the case and rule that such is unconstitutional.

WE THE PEOPLE are the FINAL arbiter

Yes we are and we have the ability to change the constitution if we feel that it requires it.

I see exactly zero chance of we the people doing so in response to the SCOTUS striking laws that preclude judicial review from the SCOTUS itself.

 

[FA_Q2]

Those rights were there - they simply were not protected and rights can be violated. We have come in modern times to recognize that those rights exist and have always existed even if we did not realize that they were there before. It is the natural state of man.

you are essentially arguing that because we did not know about the atom 2000 years ago - it did not exist.

an atomic is a physical object. it exists outside of our collective consciousness. rights are social constructs. they do not exist if we do not recognize them.

With your argument, there is no reason that anyone should complain about the atrocities that occur in North Korea - those people there are not having their rights violated because they do not have any such rights. The NK government can do as it pleases without any moral or real world repercussions because, after all, the people there do not have any rights that are not recognized by their government.

we can believe they should rights their governmentioned does not. the extent to which we believe that dictates how we deal.with their government. but that doesn't matter to the guy in North Korea who is arrested and thrown in jail because someone thinks he said something bad about the government. that man has no right to a trial, no right to be free, and no right to speak his mind. he can't exercise them, therefore for him they don't exist.

Of course, this is exactly how governments viewed people's rights before the US based itself on the radical idea that rights were NOT constructs of the government but rather intrinsic to life and that one of the core purposes of government was to secure those rights. Secure them - NOT create them.

and that doesn't change that rights are a social construct and do not exist I'd you cannot exercise them.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. Clearly you reject the basic foundation of this nation. What is scary is that I do not think you or those that adhere to the same ideas of rights that you are truly understand the ramifications of such.

yes, you fundamentally don't understand that rights are social constructs and not objects that exis the outside of social.agreements

what ramifications do you think that has?

A lot of things are 'social constructs'. It is just inevitable that as individuals group with other individuals that they form many social constructs. They are often found in language to describe ideas that already existed. We use the word eat to tell others about an act but the word didn't exist because communicating to others wasn't necessary when you are by yourself. The word is a social construct because it has a common meaning that is understood by all. It didn't exist before but that doesn't mean the act of eating didn't exit before either. The social construct didn't create the act of eating in itself and the same can be said about rights. The right to eat has its own meaning to all and is found in language but certainly the right to eat existed before you joined into the group? If not, then you couldn't actually eat before that.

oh good god. this is the worst argument yet.

language is a product of society, yes. the verb 'eat' exists because eating is an action that everyone partakes in. but the right to eat? that only exists if we decide it does. someone may have the right to eat if they can provide sufficient service to their society. someone may have the right to eat if the rest of society has decided that everyone has the right to eat and shares accordingly. but if the rest of society does not believe that someone has a right to eat... then that person does not have the right to eat.

let me ask you, if i claim i have an intrinsic right to everything you own, does that right exist or not?

Nope. Nor would that right exist if you decided to codify in the constitution because rights are inherent.
Of course, by YOUR definition of right you actually do have a right to all his possessions after you declared it so as long as you had a bigger gun/army/crew or whatever use of force that you have to make it so.

 

[ogibillm]

an atomic is a physical object. it exists outside of our collective consciousness. rights are social constructs. they do not exist if we do not recognize them.
we can believe they should rights their governmentioned does not. the extent to which we believe that dictates how we deal.with their government. but that doesn't matter to the guy in North Korea who is arrested and thrown in jail because someone thinks he said something bad about the government. that man has no right to a trial, no right to be free, and no right to speak his mind. he can't exercise them, therefore for him they don't exist.
and that doesn't change that rights are a social construct and do not exist I'd you cannot exercise them.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. Clearly you reject the basic foundation of this nation. What is scary is that I do not think you or those that adhere to the same ideas of rights that you are truly understand the ramifications of such.

yes, you fundamentally don't understand that rights are social constructs and not objects that exis the outside of social.agreements

what ramifications do you think that has?

A lot of things are 'social constructs'. It is just inevitable that as individuals group with other individuals that they form many social constructs. They are often found in language to describe ideas that already existed. We use the word eat to tell others about an act but the word didn't exist because communicating to others wasn't necessary when you are by yourself. The word is a social construct because it has a common meaning that is understood by all. It didn't exist before but that doesn't mean the act of eating didn't exit before either. The social construct didn't create the act of eating in itself and the same can be said about rights. The right to eat has its own meaning to all and is found in language but certainly the right to eat existed before you joined into the group? If not, then you couldn't actually eat before that.

oh good god. this is the worst argument yet.

language is a product of society, yes. the verb 'eat' exists because eating is an action that everyone partakes in. but the right to eat? that only exists if we decide it does. someone may have the right to eat if they can provide sufficient service to their society. someone may have the right to eat if the rest of society has decided that everyone has the right to eat and shares accordingly. but if the rest of society does not believe that someone has a right to eat... then that person does not have the right to eat.

let me ask you, if i claim i have an intrinsic right to everything you own, does that right exist or not?

Nope. Nor would that right exist if you decided to codify in the constitution because rights are inherent.
Of course, by YOUR definition of right you actually do have a right to all his possessions after you declared it so as long as you had a bigger gun/army/crew or whatever use of force that you have to make it so.

ok. well I say that my right to his stuff is inherent. it exists and always will exist. why doesn't that work?

 

[FA_Q2]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. Clearly you reject the basic foundation of this nation. What is scary is that I do not think you or those that adhere to the same ideas of rights that you are truly understand the ramifications of such.

yes, you fundamentally don't understand that rights are social constructs and not objects that exis the outside of social.agreements

what ramifications do you think that has?

A lot of things are 'social constructs'. It is just inevitable that as individuals group with other individuals that they form many social constructs. They are often found in language to describe ideas that already existed. We use the word eat to tell others about an act but the word didn't exist because communicating to others wasn't necessary when you are by yourself. The word is a social construct because it has a common meaning that is understood by all. It didn't exist before but that doesn't mean the act of eating didn't exit before either. The social construct didn't create the act of eating in itself and the same can be said about rights. The right to eat has its own meaning to all and is found in language but certainly the right to eat existed before you joined into the group? If not, then you couldn't actually eat before that.

oh good god. this is the worst argument yet.

language is a product of society, yes. the verb 'eat' exists because eating is an action that everyone partakes in. but the right to eat? that only exists if we decide it does. someone may have the right to eat if they can provide sufficient service to their society. someone may have the right to eat if the rest of society has decided that everyone has the right to eat and shares accordingly. but if the rest of society does not believe that someone has a right to eat... then that person does not have the right to eat.

let me ask you, if i claim i have an intrinsic right to everything you own, does that right exist or not?

Nope. Nor would that right exist if you decided to codify in the constitution because rights are inherent.
Of course, by YOUR definition of right you actually do have a right to all his possessions after you declared it so as long as you had a bigger gun/army/crew or whatever use of force that you have to make it so.

ok. well I say that my right to his stuff is inherent. it exists and always will exist. why doesn't that work?

Under your definition of rights it does. Under the concepts that we base our government on it does not.

The fact that you can take his stuff does not relate to the right to it unless you can explain why - in the context of man's natural state - you retain said right. Your example is meaningless as ability does not equal rights. They are 2 different concepts.

 

[ogibillm]

yes, you fundamentally don't understand that rights are social constructs and not objects that exis the outside of social.agreements

what ramifications do you think that has?

A lot of things are 'social constructs'. It is just inevitable that as individuals group with other individuals that they form many social constructs. They are often found in language to describe ideas that already existed. We use the word eat to tell others about an act but the word didn't exist because communicating to others wasn't necessary when you are by yourself. The word is a social construct because it has a common meaning that is understood by all. It didn't exist before but that doesn't mean the act of eating didn't exit before either. The social construct didn't create the act of eating in itself and the same can be said about rights. The right to eat has its own meaning to all and is found in language but certainly the right to eat existed before you joined into the group? If not, then you couldn't actually eat before that.

oh good god. this is the worst argument yet.

language is a product of society, yes. the verb 'eat' exists because eating is an action that everyone partakes in. but the right to eat? that only exists if we decide it does. someone may have the right to eat if they can provide sufficient service to their society. someone may have the right to eat if the rest of society has decided that everyone has the right to eat and shares accordingly. but if the rest of society does not believe that someone has a right to eat... then that person does not have the right to eat.

let me ask you, if i claim i have an intrinsic right to everything you own, does that right exist or not?

Nope. Nor would that right exist if you decided to codify in the constitution because rights are inherent.
Of course, by YOUR definition of right you actually do have a right to all his possessions after you declared it so as long as you had a bigger gun/army/crew or whatever use of force that you have to make it so.

ok. well I say that my right to his stuff is inherent. it exists and always will exist. why doesn't that work?

Under your definition of rights it does. Under the concepts that we base our government on it does not.

The fact that you can take his stuff does not relate to the right to it unless you can explain why - in the context of man's natural state - you retain said right. Your example is meaningless as ability does not equal rights. They are 2 different concepts.

well I say it's our natural.state to be communal creatures sharing everything, so I have a right to his stuff.