What "rights" do you think it would be useful to have?

Started by zarus tathra, February 09, 2014, 03:33:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

zarus tathra

I'm not here to debate whether or not rights exist. I'm here to discuss what rights should be guaranteed/protected.

For me, I think the converse of free speech is the right not to listen. It's the only way to really make sure that free speech isn't abused. It's also a good counter to the Marxist criticism that "free speech is a bourgeois prejudice." I absolutely believe that freedom of speech should be protected, and I also believe that the freedom of not listening should also be protected.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

AllPurposeAtheist

Ummm..There really isn't a need for the right to not listen. It's really tough to weed out day dreamers and as in the case of republicans, just plain stupid people.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

zarus tathra

Well Republicans and other authorities implicitly believe that everyone should listen to THEM. That everyone should obey THEIR laws and THEIR cultural paradigms, so they don't really respect other people's right to silence.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

Hydra009

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I'm not here to debate whether or not rights exist. I'm here to discuss what rights should be guaranteed/protected
Off the top of my head:  Freedom of Thought.  Speech.  Assembly.  Privacy.  Due process.  Equality under the law.  Autonomy.  Also, everything here is a good start.

barbarian

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I'm here to discuss what rights should be guaranteed/protected.

For me, I think the converse of free speech is the right not to listen.

I have always viewed this as a debate, why because if useful debates occur they are generally called discussions over said topic whether informal or formal. We still may not all agree on what should be protected as "rights."

I think that people should have the right to be able to word smith definitions of words to fit their topic as it would be very useful in many [s:33tecb24]debates[/s:33tecb24] discussions.

I have the right not to listen but let's discuss this. :rollin:

On a serious note though, I feel that people have the right to be heard whether the other party doesn't want to hear it. It doesn't mean they actually have to agree with it after hearing it.

AllPurposeAtheist

You don't have the right to ignore me! Anyone not reading this...off to the slammer!  :rollin:
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

VladK

The same rights that the US was founded on. I say that as a non-American.

I like the idea for one main reason: As I understand the American model, rights aren't considered to come from government, the government simply is supposed to uphold them. Period. It doesn't grant them, it doesn't take them away.

Obviously there were some flaws (most of them corrected *cough* slavery) but arguably they were a perversion of the founding principles that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights.

barbarian

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"You don't have the right to ignore me! Anyone not reading this...off to the slammer!  :rollin:

why do you have to bring in the ignore word. Let me pull my hammer and anvil out and see what I can do to [blink:2z1saiq1]slammer[/blink:2z1saiq1] out of this situation.

zarus tathra

The right to be heard? Do you realize how easily that could be abused?
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

barbarian

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The right to be heard? Do you realize how easily that could be abused?

Most likely no more abused than the right not having to listen, silly ain't it. Why is it that all I can think of is how people of power would invoke the right not to listen as a personal "right." It isn't like our elected officials give up there constitutional rights just because they are holding a position of power. Didn't Saddam Husein do that when he was in power, not listen to his own people? Well, I would like to continue this discussion but I think it feels too much like a debate. Unless... well

Besides actually you already have the right not to listen or listen to whatever you want no need to go further with it. It was the point I was making that you come up with some weird shit but then you call out and say that my idea is bad because it could be abused? Well shit so could yours just to make sure that we are squared off on this [s:32v8yhwl]debate[/s:32v8yhwl] discussion.

The Skeletal Atheist

Shelter. Even if it's just a fucking shack with a Franklin stove shelter should be a right. I would say food should be a right as well.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

AllPurposeAtheist

Everyone deserves the right to this, that and the other thing.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.


Jason78

I demand the right to fight for my right to party*.

*(right to party expressly implied.)
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

zarus tathra

Well elected officials are implicitly infringing on other people's rights not to listen to them, so to be fair they should be forced to listen. Doesn't mean that common citizens should be forced to listen to each other.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.