Basis for outrage (should have been "Basis for the Argument")

[Mr. D]

Wait a minute... your definition stands up better under scrutiny... how/why? Because it is refutable? I KNOW it's refutable, I've spent my last several posts refuting it! So has Chubacabra! How does that fact make your position stronger?

By the way, does the Constitution or BoR give me the right to live?

~Dale

 

[3KillerBs]

Why exactly can't we fight for new rights, or for the re-institution of a right that was lost?

There is no such thing as a "new right". "Rights" that come and go with the flow of political tides are not rights at all, they are privileges -- perks for the in-crowd.

Rights can, however, be infringed upon and our right to keep and bear arms has been greatly infringed upon in the past years as people with the very same mindset you are displaying abused their power and treated rights as if they were mere political perks.

 

[RPCVYemen]

But this is NOT your basic assertion. Your basic assertion is "no rights exist that are not enumerated in the Constitution."

OK, I will amend my from "no rights exist that are not enumerated in the Constitution." to "if a right is not enumerated in the Constitution it does not exist" if that makes a difference. I don't see the difference between those two.

But I think you missing the point - we can test whether a right exists based in the definition that I propose.

1. Given right xxx, does it exist?
2. If xxx is enumerated in the Constitution, it does exists.
3. If xxx is not enumerated in the Constitution, it does not exist.

So what is your refutable test for whether not xxx is a Natural Right?

Mike

 

[elChupacabra!]

RPCVYemen -

But I think you missing the point - we can test whether a right exists based in the definition that I propose

Actually, I think YOU are missing the point - I will repeat myself:

Your [new] basic assertion is "if a right is not enumerated in the Constitution it does not exist."

This is as irrefutable an argument as mine, and, ergo, just as subject to belief or denial. It's an axiom. No axiom stands up to any scrutiny - they must all be chosen, believed. Yours just as mine.

You see, I reject your fundamental presupposition under which you propose rights may be defined or identified. As this fundamental presupposition is an axiom, you can offer no defense for it other than "I believe it to be true."

We are on a level playing field with our respective axioms, although you have yet to admit that.

You may only proceed to define the existence of rights as being contingent upon their presence in the Constitution once we acccept that the Constitution is the sole repository of rights. But we do not.

Along your lines, I may argue that rights only exist if they are present in the Bible. You will reject my argument, because you disagree that the Bible is the sole repository of rights.

Simply because ones argument is refutable doesn't mean it's acceptable or true, if you first reject the underlying axiom.

I reject your axiom, and you can provide no rebuttal, yet you continue to insist that your axiom is more fundamentally sound than mine.

 

[3KillerBs]

You're way too tied up in this "refutable" business.

One test of whether something is a right or a privilege is to ask if it is a fundamental part of the human condition applicable to all human beings in all countries at all times past and present. To ask if at any time in any place that something is denied the denial is unjust.

It is always unjust, everywhere, at all times past and present to deprive an innocent person of his life. It is always unjust, everywhere, at all times past and present, to deprive a person of his liberty by making him a slave or an indentured servant. It is always unjust, everywhere, at all times past and present to deprive an innocent person of his property. It is always unjust, everywhere, at all times past and present to prevent an innocent person from speaking to or writing about his beliefs for any willing audience. And so on -- the Founding Fathers did a pretty thorough job of enumerating these fundamental rights in the Declaration of Independence, in the Constitution, and in The Bill of Rights.

 

[elChupacabra!]

3KillerBs -

I agree with you completely.

Unfortunately, RPCVYemen does not accept that your definition of what constitutes a human right is correct. We will never convince him that we are correct... just as he will never convince us that HE is correct.

Perhaps seeing Yemen and Somalia firsthand might destroy someones beliefs in "natural rights." That is very sad... but I, like you, do not reject my beliefs just for the outrages I have witnessed, or even endured.

From Wikipedia:

The human rights situation in Yemen is poor. The government and its security forces, often considered to suffer from rampant corruption, have been responsible for torture, inhumane treatment and even extrajudicial executions. There are arbitrary arrests of citizens, especially in the south, as well as arbitrary searches of homes. Prolonged pretrial detention is a serious problem, and judicial corruption, inefficiency, and executive interference undermine due process. Freedom of speech, the press and religion are all restricted

Of course we don't have to mention the human rights situation in Somalia.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I've spent my last several posts refuting it! So has Chubacabra!

Actually, I haven't seen any you refuting anything - mostly you've claimed that we were off topic, and that eChubacabra's view is more popular.

By the way, does the Constitution or BoR give me the right to live?

Is is enumerated in the Constitution?

See how easy that is?

Now look at it from the Natural Right perspective. The fuzzy criteria proposed there is something like "Whatever happens in the natural world", right?

1. Every organism that has ever lived was at one point alive. Therefore the right to live is a natural right.
2. Every organism that has ever lived has died or will die. OK, so the right to live is not a natural right.

So by the same criteria - what happens in nature - I have shown that the "right to live" is a natural right and is not a natural right. Oops!

So does smallpox have the natural right to kill human beings?

Mike

 

[elChupacabra!]

RPCVYemen

I reject your axiom, and you can provide no rebuttal, yet you continue to insist that your axiom is more fundamentally sound than mine.

Have you no response?

 

[elChupacabra!]

RPCVYemen -

Now look at it from the Natural Right perspective. The fuzzy criteria proposed there is something like "Whatever happens in the natural world", right?

You here exhibit the Straw Man fallacy when you attack the concept of Natural Rights because I attempted to support it with an argument from nature. I was merely attempting to point to that innate belief, held by many (if not most) Americans, that makes the belief in Natural Rights seem acceptable as "truth."

We both know that's not the argument for Natural Rights.

Again, Natural Rights is an axiom, that you slander time and again, yet can provide no more concrete alternative for... only your own axiom, which we find as equally absurd as you find ours("we" being believers in Natural Rights).

 

[3KillerBs]

Unfortunately, RPCVYemen does not accept that your definition of what constitutes a human right is correct. We will never convince him that we are correct... just as he will never convince us that HE is correct.

I was hoping to achieve greater understanding by approaching the problem from the reverse angle.

The problem in Yemen, Somalia, and other such places of oppression and misery is not that rights do not exist in there. It is that rights are being violated there -- creating terrible injustice.

Injustice, the condition of having fundamental human rights violated, always creates misery. When its the government perpetuating the injustice it becomes obvious that the rights which are being violated exist independently of politics because if rights depended on politics then slavery, government confiscation of citizens' property, and genocide would not be unjust.

Since slavery, government confiscation of citizens' property, and genocide are universally held to be unjust (except by the predators with political power who do such things), there have to be fundamental and inalienable human rights which exist outside the jurisdiction of any political document.

 

[3KillerBs]

So does smallpox have the natural right to kill human beings?

That is a ridiculous question because smallpox is a virus, not a human being. Only human beings have human rights.

 

[jahwarrior]

ya'll shur do talk purty.

 

[elChupacabra!]

lol

 

[RPCVYemen]

You're way too tied up in this "refutable" business.

Actually, one of the benefits of reputability is that it can help us to see tautology - circular reasoning. Such as the follow tautology:

One test of whether something is a right or a privilege is to ask if it is a fundamental part of the human condition applicable to all human beings in all countries at all times past and present. To ask if at any time in any place that something is denied the denial is unjust.

OK, let's unroll this one:

1. A natural right is something that in all places in all times, it's denial causes injustice.
2. How do we determine if a denial of something causes injustice in all times and all places? Why injustice is the denial of natural rights.

OK, so you told me that anything whose denial causes injustice is a natural right. And you told me that injustice is that thing produced by the denial of natural rights. Do you understand that you have said nothing at all?

Now tautologies my in fact be true - but to return to the OP's topic, they don't stand scrutiny.

The following won't convince anyone - probably not even you

1. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right because its denial causes injustice.
2. The denial of the right to keep and bear arms causes injustice because it's a natural right.

Mike

 

[3KillerBs]

Actually, all this back and forth probably is relevant to the original question in a way because the antis are likewise coming from a completely different assumption about what constitutes a right and a similar confusion about the difference between a right and a privilege.

Perhaps the key to latch onto is the justice/injustice concept? Even small children quickly grasp the idea that some things are and are not fair.

If it can be agreed that it is unjust to kill an innocent person perhaps it can be worked forward from there to the point of it being unjust to deny an innocent person effective means of self-defense?

But at the moment, I have to go finish making dinner.

Anyone for a nice, hot bowl of vegetable beef soup on a chilly, windy, stormy day?

 

[elChupacabra!]

Yeah I'm out too everybody. Time to go home and load up some .223 Rem.

Reloading is nice and relaxing

I'll see yall later tonight, or tomorrow morning.

And 3KillerBs - That is an excellent argument, and a fantastic starting point for another argument.

I think what we really need to do is identify where our particular target begins their beliefs, then work from there forward towards RKBA.

Many believe that Natural Rights exist, at which point we can argue from that point to RKBA, as I've done above.

Some may believe that the Constitution is the sole repository of rights, from which point it's immediately observable that RKBA is preserved there... once you define "the people," "keep," "bear," and "shall not be infringed."

Some may believe neither... but have an innate sense of justice. We can appeal to that sense of justice towards RKBA.

It does no good to try to convince them that their starting point is invalid. You work with what you've got in each particular case.

 

[RPCVYemen]

That is a ridiculous question because smallpox is a virus, not a human being. Only human beings have human rights.

The question was about natural rights. Why did you feel compelled to change it to human rights?

Are you perhaps a little uncomfortable with where your justification of natural rights leads you?

Why did you change the question?

Mike

 

[elChupacabra!]

The real question is -

Why did YOU change the question?

Once again:

I reject your axiom, and you can provide no rebuttal, yet you continue to insist that your axiom is more fundamentally sound than mine.

Have you no response?

 

[RPCVYemen]

We both know that's not the argument for Natural Rights.

Wait - that's not fair.

I asked you why the right to self defense was a natural right, and you said precisely:

First, I think you mean "prove" rather than "disprove" in that last sentence... but it's empirically verifiable. No living thing, including yourself or myself, or a dog or worm or single-celled organism, when attacked, threatened, choked, punched, or stabbed refuses to seek to preserve its own existance.

Am I somehow twisting your words? If you were not claiming that the right self defense is a natural right because all organisms strive to defend themselves, what were you claiming?

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

I reject your axiom, and you can provide no rebuttal, yet you continue to insist that your axiom is more fundamentally sound than mine.

Just missed that post. It is quite clear that either the claim "Natural rights exist irrespective of the US Constitution" and "Rights exists if they are enumerated in the US Constitution" are equivalently sound.

But they differ remarkably in their refutability, and thus in their power to persuade - which is the OP's question.

Given the claim that the right to bear arms is a natural right, if someone does not already agree, then all you can do is stand toe-to-toe shouting "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" - no rational argument is possible. That pretty much sums up many of the pro-gun arguments I have seen on THR - and does about as much good.

Given the claim that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, if someone does not already agree, a rational argument about whether or not it is enumerated in the US Constitution is possible. Read the Heller briefs as proof that it's possible to have a rational discussion about this.

So we have two claims, either of which could be correct, but one stands more scrutiny than the other - it is more amenable to rational discussion with someone who does not accept it.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

Perhaps seeing Yemen and Somalia firsthand might destroy someones beliefs in "natural rights." That is very sad... but I, like you, do not reject my beliefs just for the outrages I have witnessed, or even endured.

In fact, it is precisely those experiences that made me look at the rights created by the Constitution with such awe!

I came back from 4 years overseas with a much, much deeper respect for our Constitution - particularly the Bill of Rights. I was in Mogadishu during the fall of Siad Barre - a brutal time. I had a lot more respect for how we get rid of Presidents after that experience.

Is your referral to my experiences in Yemen and Somalia some back handed ad hominem attack? That someone can't expect an American who has lived those places to be able to understand the argument for natural rights?

Mike

 

[elChupacabra!]

RPCVYemen -

Negative - you are STILL not answering the question.

Given the claim that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, if someone does not already agree, a rational argument about whether or not it is enumerated in the US Constitution is possible. Read the Heller briefs as proof that it's possible to have a rational discussion about this.

I refute that being a constitutional right is the basis for the RKBA. I challenge that, with no regard to its appearance anywhere in the Constitution, RKBA exists NEVERTHELESS.

This is, unfortunately, your very presupposition underlying the actual argument itself, which follows this formula:

1) Given - existence in the Constitution is evidence of a right
2) RKBA exists in the constitution
3) Therefore, RKBA is a right.

But I do not accept Premise 1 as a given.

Now we find ourselves once more in your "shouting match" where you say "Yes it is!" and I say "No it isn't!"

You must admit that, in either case, we must determine what our presupposition is. You conveniently skip your presupposition and head straight to your argument - assuming your presupposition is true. You beg the question, time and again, though your fallacy is pointed out directly, time and again.

I think you are as aware of the weakness of your argument as everyone else reading is.

 

[elChupacabra!]

RCPVYemen -

Is your referral to my experiences in Yemen and Somalia some back handed ad hominem attack?

Not at all... just an attempt at explaining the possible source of your beliefs. Without commenting on their validity, they are, most certainly, bizzare among Americans, especially those who would defend RKBA.

 

[elChupacabra!]

RPCVYemen -

If you were not claiming that the right self defense is a natural right because all organisms strive to defend themselves, what were you claiming?

No, I was claiming that the observable phenomenon of living things seeking their own self-preservation is evidence of the pre-existant Natural Right to self-defense.

Here, you apply an inverted causality to my argument in an attempt to make it appear absurd. But I never said that BECAUSE living things preserve themselves, a Natural Right exists. Instead, I suggested the inverse... that living things preserve themselves as evidence of the existence of Natural Rights.

Further, evidence can never prove causality, only suggest existence. Here, you commit the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy as you attempt to twist my argument.

 

[RPCVYemen]

You must admit that, in either case, we must determine what our presupposition is. You conveniently skip your presupposition and head straight to your argument - assuming your presupposition is true. You beg the question, time and again, though your fallacy is pointed out directly, time and again.

No, read it carefully. I assumed that each was true, and examined the potential for rational discourse - a proxy for the persuasive power - of each of them.

The key phrases are:

• Given the claim that the right to bear arms is a natural right, ...
• Given the claim that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, ...

Mike