If i told you that there is no such thing as a GUARANTEED human right, would you agree with me? If you don't, could you name a guaranteed human right that is given to you at birth and can't be taken away?

Comments

• Wonderful!

  • Report
  

  by Jewel on January 5th, 2008

• She was my first heroine!

  • Report
  

  by gone on January 5th, 2008

• Very Good!...excellent answer and very truee.
  .
  answer definitely deserves points....so i guess i will give you some...lol

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• Great.

  • Report
  

  by Will on January 6th, 2008

• So, babies don't have rights? Better tell that to the anti-abortionists! No doubt Helen Keller is the toast of child-abusers everywhere!

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on January 6th, 2008

• freeluncher ~ excuse me? Do you even know who Helen Keller was or what she accomplished? Your out of the ballpark comment came with a down rating. Care to backup your comment with something intelligent?

  • Report
  

  by gone on January 6th, 2008

• I do not know or care who Helen Keller is, Madea. I just happen to disagree with her quoted comment, is that a crime? I fundamentally disagree that rights only belong to the strong. They belong to everyone or they belong to noone. The logical conclusion of her remark is that small children have no rights. I think that is nonsense. No offence meant.

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on January 6th, 2008

• freeluncher....rights belong to nobody except those willing to defend them

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

• @freeluncher ~ Helen Keller became deaf and blind as an infant in the 19th century. Her parent's were advised to institutionalize her, which was the practice at that time. Instead, they found her a teacher after she had become basically a feral child. She and her teacher (2 women well over 100 years ago) were instrumental in creating schools (and rights!) for deaf and blind children. You took your own slant on the above quote, but it was leagues from what Keller meant.

  • Report
  

  by gone on January 6th, 2008

• Ok Common Sense, but do you not accept that this means that the weak, meaning children, the old, invalids etc etc have no rights? I cannot believe that is what you all mean.
  
  Madea, thank you for enlightening me on who Helen Keller is. I still don't agree. Feral or near feral children are nor known for thier wisdom I'd have thought.
  
  Sleep well.

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on January 6th, 2008

• no, i am merely stating that there are no rights guaranteed to you when you are born that can't be taken away

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

• Thanks Common Sense for your input. You've named yourself well!

  • Report
  

  by gone on January 6th, 2008

• thank you verry much madea for the compliment.
  .
  given your answer to the question, i would say you are very knowledgable as well

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

Comments

• well, name one right that someone can't take away....

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• My point was that violating them does not take them away. No one can take any of your legitimate rights.

  • Report
  

  by tomsims on January 5th, 2008

• well you have the right to life...that can be taken away by a murderer or a freak accident or several other things.
  .
  the UN says you have the right to freedom....yet that could end with someone kidnapping you while you are on a vaccation and forcing you to be their slave.
  .
  there are more examples...but both of these are examples where your right was completely taken away.
  .
  i believe that you don't have ANY rights except for those that you are willing to to fight for, defend, and uphold.

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• Your life can be taken away, but not your right to life. That is the distinction I am making. The same is true of your freedom. Taking away the benefits of your rights does not diminish your actual right in the least.

  • Report
  

  by tomsims on January 5th, 2008

• Further, I would say that those rights are not given by governments or decrees nor by those who defend them. rights simply are and it is tragic when they are violated - but the rights remain. Their existence and persistence haven absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances that surround them or whether or not they are honored, defended, or protected.

  • Report
  

  by tomsims on January 5th, 2008

• well, working off your premice, nothing could eliminate your rights....however, i am saying that the right to freedom doesn't even exist within you if you aren't willing to defend it.
  .
  here, take this example...you are free in the country of France...one day, someone starts walking towards you and says i am going to kidnap you and send you to africa to be sold as a slave....if you do nothing to stop him, or prevent your capture and you just peacefully go with him, your right to freedom never existed

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• It did exist; you just didn't defend it and therefore, cannot benefit from it. Human rights are endowed by ones Creator and only secured by law and force according to the Declaration of Independence. They exist in the absence of their actualization in circumstances. Furthermore, if I am truly free within, nothing outside can take away my essential freedom. You can even kill me, but you cannot take away the essence of my life. I do understand the parameters of your argument and the paradigm from which you are working. Within that paradigm, you are accurate and consistent in your presentation. I was merely attempting to make mine clear and not to negate yours.

  • Report
  

  by tomsims on January 6th, 2008

• oh yea...i agree with you here......i don't negate your belief that your rights can't be taken away (using your definition)
  .
  we both use a separate standard for what can take away a right..
  .
  so, we are both right in our respective "definitions"

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 7th, 2008

• Indeed we are. Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by tomsims on January 15th, 2008

Comments

• Thats what I was saying.

  • Report
  

  by Valarie robbing the Deaf on January 5th, 2008

• oh yeah, now I see!

  • Report
  

  by Scamperator on January 5th, 2008

• Take off that tin foil hat, and we'll see!

  • Report
  

  by Midgardsormr on January 5th, 2008

• no..not really....a person could put you on drugs, and control you and your mind....or killing you would end those thoughts all together

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• Are you sure? My thoughts may not exist any longer in your world but they will still exist in mine.

  • Report
  

  by Valarie robbing the Deaf on January 5th, 2008

• yes i am sure...there are drugs that are powerful enough to stop all thought within your brain....that is, you won't be recieving any intelligent signals from it..you would be a vegetable.
  .
  and then there is always the possibility of subliminal control...this is where people tell you the same thing every day...and although you may not agree with it, the way in wich they say it and the circumstances cause that thought to become your own....an example of this would be a soldier captured by the enemy is sent to a detention camp and every day for 2 years they tell him nobody cares about you and that you are going to die...well, after a few months, that thought becomes your own thought

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• I don't agree, My thoughts are always mine.. they may be able to be stopped but they existed and nobody can takeaway that.

  • Report
  

  by Valarie robbing the Deaf on January 5th, 2008

• no....you thoughts completely stop on the drugs i am referring to...
  .
  then you have a simpler form of mind control and that is your personal decision to take drugs...you take the drugs, and you loose control of your own mind.
  .
  and then there is the possiblilty of becoming a vegetable...in possibly a car crash...you go into a coma and have zero thoughs going through your mind.

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• I thoughts are above my mind and body.

  • Report
  

  by Valarie robbing the Deaf on January 5th, 2008

• what do you mean??
  .
  without the proper signals being sent through your brain, ideas don't exist.

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• I have my ideas, they already exist..they already are out there. You can kill me but my ideas still exist..They don't stop exisiting because I'm not thinking about them currently. My body can stop, but I've already thought ideas, just cause I dont think anymore doesn't mean the thoughts don't exist. They are just not currently striving within me, they strive else where.

  • Report
  

  by Valarie robbing the Deaf on January 5th, 2008

• oh, you are talking about IDEAS...you are referring to something like if you went to a school and spoke to the children about an issue...you would voice your ideas....well, once your ideas are out of your mind and mouth, they are no longer your ideas..only ideas within your mind are yours....
  .
  after your opinions are out in public, the ideas that are out in public aren't yours anymore..they are each other individuals personal idea and the modifications they made to that idea...for instance, if your idea was the sky was blue..in your mind would be a picture of blue...but in the persons mind you told it to, they have their own idea now of what the sky's color is..they might believe it to be light blue and they would have their own personal image

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• They are part of everybody, my ideas were part of me. No matter what I live on, My ideas are what matters.. No me.. what I carry on.

  • Report
  

  by Valarie robbing the Deaf on January 5th, 2008

• your ideas aren't yours anymore like i said...although it might have been your idea that got a bunch of people thinking, once someone else has it in their head, it ceases to be your idea...
  .
  it is like a string of different colors,,,your color is green, once you go onto the next color, it ceases to be your color.
  .
  things from your life will carry on weather it be the children you raised or the kindness you gave to an elderly person in your apartment...but these are not things that are yours after it leaves you

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• It's not mine, But it was something that was once part of me, even if te idea lives in other people its still there.

  • Report
  

  by Valarie robbing the Deaf on January 5th, 2008

• exactly....so even though YOUR THOUGHTS (which is what this whole discussion is about) are gone and eliminated, some form of them carries on..
  .
  .so, your "right" to thought can be taken away, but seeing as how you had already shared your ideas, they sort of live on./....which is sometimes a very important thing

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

• I still agree with Valerie. Just because something can be "Taken away" dosent mean that it is NOT GUARANTEED to me. If common sense made sense than my CURRENT mind set and current thoughts could be snatched right out of my head. Thats not goint to happen, therefore, My thoughts ARE guaranteed to me. common sense will tell you that you cant enter into my brain and find out what I had for breakfast 3 days ago. I OWN those Thoughts!

  • Report
  

  by Scamperator on January 7th, 2008

• you missed some of the point scamperator.....first of all, my point was it is possible that someone could for some reason come into your house, bash you over the head and rob your place....however, the bash he gave you put you into a vegetative coma.....in a vegatative coma, you have NO thoughts because your brain isn't making necissary connections...your mind is a litteral void....no thought at all, airgo, taking it away...
  .
  and i guess i should have mentioned this earlier, but what we aren't debating thought....that is a natural process in your body and therefor isn't considered a right (just like dying isn't a right because it is a natural part of the life cycle....it would be like saying you have the right to pump blood through your body...it isn't a right, but a natural processs....freedom of speech, freedom, and the right of free thought are RIGHTS)
  .
  so what we are actually debating here is the right to freedom of thought, or the lack of it.

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 7th, 2008

• so i am saying your freedom of thought could be taken away

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 7th, 2008

• Sorry, as a human, I have the right to Think...EVEN if you bash me over the head, I STILL HAVE the RIGHT to THINK, even though I may not be ABLE to. You can take my ability, but you cannot take my right.
  With this logic I also have the RIGHT to laugh, cry, sneeze, hate, love, speak, etc. The ability to do these things may be taken, but they will ALWAYS be my RIGHT.

  • Report
  

  by Scamperator on January 7th, 2008

• scamper, you are using the same definitions as tompsins (one answer above yours)......if you want to use a similar definition like his, then you could say none of your rights could ever be taken away.....which both him and i agreed are simply different definitions of what could take away a right....if you wish to use a similar definition as his, then both of us are right within our respective "definitions." Under my definition, if your ability to carry out that right has been halted, than you no long have that right until the ability to carry it out comes back...your definition is similar to mine except that you believe the right remains even when you can't exercise the right...do you agree with what i have said in this paragraph?
  .
  as for your other examples.....sneezing isn't a right because it is a natural process....the others have to do with emotion and speech...so those would fall under the right to freedom of speech and freedom of emotion.

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 8th, 2008

• Yes! I agree. Maybe you should be more specific in your next one huh!

  • Report
  

  by Scamperator on January 8th, 2008

• well, that is the problem with a dialog like this is, we were working of completely different definitions and neither one of us knew it until this last post....it has more to do with being on a computer and only being able to read words instead of talking to the person face-to-face.
  .
  both of us were plenty specific we were just in the dark for a while...lol
  .
  anyway, it was a pleasure.

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 8th, 2008

Comments

• lol...if you call that a human right, than i am not looking forward to getting that one

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• I can see it being a 'right' if I tilt my head and squint. That's why I posed it as a question. It might be a 'right' from this weird perspective, I think. Maybe.
  I mean, we consider the pursuit of happiness, love, survival and such things as inalienable rights, and yet the only thing that is certain in life is death. Therefore, we have a right to it. For anyone to deprive us of that would be wrong in more ways than one. Not to mention, we don't know how to do that, so forget that tiny bit of reason.
  .
  I am not feeling well today. Does it show?

  • Report
  

  by Jewel on January 5th, 2008

• well..i don't think death counts as a human right because that is like your heart beating...it is a natural process....yes people could mess with it, but it is simply a natural part of the process of our bodies..
  .
  i wouldn't classify it as a right......
  .
  but hey...i did get a good laugh out of the answer

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• Thanks.
  But, if we have a right to life, ... ?
  I will think about it while I drift off to dream land!

  • Report
  

  by Jewel on January 5th, 2008

• hope you have a good sleep.
  .
  the right to life can be taken away by a murderer or simply a freek accident

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• True, but does this disqualify it as a 'right'?
  
  I am thinking too much and sleep is not happening! Sorry.

  • Report
  

  by Jewel on January 5th, 2008

• i think that the exact definition of "life" doesn't count as a right....however, using the UN definition (whatever thats worth...lol)....their definition deals more with what life encompassas and not just the physical act of being alive...so by definition, your right that "life" isn't a right...but by using the UN definition it could be a right, and it is a right that could be taken away

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• not really....life can be taken away by a murderer or simply a freek accident

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• Well, there's gotta be some people that are gonna live forever... or not. :):)

  • Report
  

  by AnonymousGirl on January 5th, 2008

• lol!

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• Other than that, though, I don't think I have a choice but to agree with you unless I can be proven otherwise.

  • Report
  

  by AnonymousGirl on January 5th, 2008

• thanks...glad to know i have an ally on the issue

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• You're welcome. :)

  • Report
  

  by AnonymousGirl on January 5th, 2008

Comments

• none of the rights there you mentioned are guaranteed to you...oh sure in theory you are allowed those rights at birth, but all of those rights could be taken away in some form or another

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• That is why I pointed out that the word "guaranteed" was a condition that couldn't be fulfilled, and that "guaranteed rights" is an idealist term.

  • Report
  

  by FreeRadical Jetpacking for Nelson on January 5th, 2008

• well, this question kind of arose out of many people on the cite talking about basic human rights that are guarantted to everyone...so that is where it stemmed from

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

Comments

• Not necessarily....physician assisted suicide is against the law, you do not have a right to die!!!

  • Report
  

  by We miss our girl! on January 5th, 2008

• But who's going to arrest you if you hang yourself in your home? That's not about your right to die... it's about HIS right to assist your dying

  • Report
  

  by Atillion on January 5th, 2008

• not really...people could save you before you kill yourself and then you would be locked up in a phsychiatric ward and you woudln't even be able to kill yourself.
  .
  but i do believe what you mentioned comes the closest.

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• No, because you could live out the rest of your days in that straightjacket and padded cell, and you're still going to die. You just have to wait a little longer for it.

  • Report
  

  by Atillion on January 5th, 2008

• well, there was another person who said death, and i will say the same thing as i did to him as you...tell me if you dissagree or agree..
  .
  well..i don't think death counts as a human right because that is like your heart beating...it is a natural process....yes people could mess with it, but it is simply a natural part of the process of our bodies..
  .
  i wouldn't classify it as a right......

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• That makes perfect sense, and it kinda goes along with my comment, too. If you attempt to die on purpose, and it doesn't work, whomever finds you fights like hell to keep you alive whether you want them to or not. But everyone is going to die sometime, it's just how things work. We have a right to assembly, and the cops will stand around and make sure everyone is calm and protected, but if you try to die, a cop won't stand there and guard you while you finish...he's going to stop you! I don't know if I've explained my point clearly or not, but I tried!!

  • Report
  

  by We miss our girl! on January 5th, 2008

• Then it all boils down to how we define a "right," and we come to a standstill.
  
  It has made for a fun debate ^_^ Thanks for the great exchange of opinion! You deserve my +3 for provoking thought. I'll be sure to find you and pay it. Cheers!

  • Report
  

  by Atillion on January 5th, 2008

• glad we agree...thanks for your answer on the question by the way

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• You have no say in the matter of death.

  • Report
  

  by Will on January 6th, 2008

• I'm bored.

  • Report
  

  by Atillion on January 6th, 2008

• go to the political issues atillion...those get really heated and they are more interesting

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

• Oh dear lord ^_^

  • Report
  

  by Atillion on January 6th, 2008

• lol!

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

Comments

• excellent point

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• you bring up a good point.
  .
  i am not really arguing with you here i am just puttin in my 2 cents.
  .
  self determination isn't given to you at brith, it is something you must develop over your lifetime and it is up to you weather or not you decide to develop it...so it isn't guaranteed
  .
  the third paragraph you wrote is really true in a spiritual sense and i am glad you had the guts to put it on AB even with the athiests that are on here.
  .
  i believe your last paragraph is completely accurate..thanks for your answer

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

Comments

• no....you aren't born with integrity of character....that is something you must develop over the span of your lifetime....when you are born you have absolutely no character what so ever

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• Your response has no "common sense", so to speak. Integrity is not a "character trait" to be developed. It is a quality, a state of being. Just as under our legal system one is acknowledged as innocent until proven guilty, so with integrity one has it a priori until it is willfully forfeit. Does one have to "develop" the quality of "not guilty"? Either you are and have been in the state of "not guilty", or else you have performed some action that has changed that original state. Integrity is no different.
  
  I would also challenge your statement that one is born without character; an absolutely blank slate, so to speak. You would find it very difficult to find any current research in the field of psychology that would support that outdated hypothesis any longer. Please see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/personalityandindividuality/personalitytype.shtml

  • Report
  

  by RavensShadow on January 7th, 2008

• so you are telling me, that when you are born, you instantly have the integrity of character.???
  .
  no....when you are born, your "integrity of character" is like a blank slate...as you grow up, that slate can either be written with true integrity and goodness or it can be writtin on with a lack of it (murdurers are a great example.)
  .
  integrity is something that you must personally develop....this is why some will defend their freinds when they are threatend and others will run home in fear.
  .
  integrity isn't given to you at birth therefor it isn't a right guaranteed to you at birth (which was what part of my question was)

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 7th, 2008

• Sorry, I stand by my answer. Integrity is an initial state, not a development. Even in the world of physics, loss of integrity (entropy) occurs only downstream from an initial state of organization (integrity). Under your hypothesis a person is born with nothing and then somehow "develops" integrity. At what point would that occur? Is there a magic number of thoughts required before a person is said to have developed integrity? Is there a requisite number of actions a person takes, and upon reaching this theoretical number he goes from a state of not having integrity to suddenly having it? Who determines what that number of thoughts or actions is, and who judges when it has been met? Your position is simply not supported; not in the world of psychology, biology/genetics, nor of physics. Integrity is an initial state. To postulate it as a development would be to turn the Second Law of Thermodynamics on its head.

  • Report
  

  by RavensShadow on January 7th, 2008

• lol...just to let you know you posted this as an answer...lol.
  .
  and if that is your opinion...fine with me....
  .
  but for your questions in your post...no, under my theory, a person is born with all the neccissary tools to build character (it would be like giving a writer a pen and a pad of paper)...it is up to them how they develop it..
  .
  and there is no magic number to develop integrity..you develop it throughout your life, and continue to today.....
  .
  my theory isn't supported in your eyes because you aren't understanding me....integrity has nothing to do with physics...integrity of character is something you develop that is mental...
  .
  side note....do you know what integrity of character is even?

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 8th, 2008

• I understand you offer your opinion without supporting facts other than your opinion. I’ve cited three distinct disciplines that support my statements. Have you looked up even one of these to see what they say or how they apply? “Don’t bother me with the facts because my mind is already made up,” eh? That’s fine, but what a waste of a good question when your mind is already closed on the matter. Were you one of my students your grade prospects for the semester would be bleak, indeed. To answer your question, the word “integrity” derives from the Latin “integer”, meaning “a whole number” or “a whole unit”, emphasis on “whole”, not aggregate of parts. Look up the etymology for yourself. Quoting Lawrence Hinman of the San Diego University Dept. of Philosophy, “Integrity is, first of all, about being one, about being whole.” It appears you may add Philosophy to the disciplines of Law, Genetics/Biology, and Physics I have already referenced which support my position.

  • Report
  

  by RavensShadow on January 9th, 2008

• ravenshadow, if all you are going to do with your comments is put words in MY mouth, then i don't need to be here for this conversation....you could do fine just talking to yourself because you can put words in your post for me...way to go.
  .
  goodbye.

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 10th, 2008

• I put no words in your mouth. If you're referring to my "Don't confuse me with the facts" statement, that is called "hyperbole", and is a standard technique of both public speaking and debate. You apparently have little or no experience with either of these. And you have STILL not addressed even a single point I've raised or source I have cited. So now you get mad and want to take your toys and leave. Why did you bother to post a question in the first place? In the future keep in mind that if you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you didn't want to get. I will concede one point; providing you with food for thought, supported by facts in multiple disciplines that you will neither consider nor check on for yourself is an utter waste of time.

  • Report
  

  by RavensShadow on January 10th, 2008

• hey you....yes you dummy...if i didn't want your answer or like it i would have freakin downrated it...but i didn't.....if you get emotional like this in all of your entries, god i hope i never have to discuss politics with you.
  .
  I will ask any damn question i want to and if i don't like your answer i will let you know, but seeing as how i never said or thought that about your answer, that would exclude this wouldn't it?
  .
  grow the hell up..the discussion was over about 3 posts ago....get the hell over it....you have your damn view and i have mine....be at freakin peace...

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 10th, 2008

• Ad hominem attacks and name calling...the last ditch tactic of those attempting to defend an indefensible position. If you can't assail the argument then attack the person. I suppose this means we can't be friends anymore. The best part is your statement that you can ask any question you want to. What gives you the idea you have the right to ask any question you want to? Aren't absolute rights the very thing you set out to dispute when you asked your first question? And haven't you been insisting all along in this and other parts of this thread, that there is no such thing? Now you use the very concept you argued against as a self-justification. What exquisite, poetic irony, don't you think? Well, we may not be friends anymore, son, I want to thank you. When I read your latest response this morning it put a great, big smile on my face that hasn't gone away all day! You made my weekend. Feel free to call me a few more names any time.

  • Report
  

  by RavensShadow on January 11th, 2008

• how about "blind"?
  ,
  i dont think you get it.....you continue to try to prove your point and yet you are oblivious to everything around you....there is no discussion here.....
  .
  i have got to unsubscribe from comments because you seem unable to grasp the concept of a dead discussion.
  .
  bye.

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 12th, 2008

• RavenShadow, you are right on every point here! This guy calles himself common sense but its what he is lacking the most!

  • Report
  

  by Scamperator on January 12th, 2008

• Scamperator, it's too bad because his initial question was an interesting one, and worth exploring. Yet it serves little purpose to pose a question, at least for the one who poses it, if your mind is already closed on the matter and you are unwilling to even consider the answers you receive. I'd really rather hoped he would come back to me with a few well-reasoned points suggesting why my response to him was not right, and showing support for why his initial position (or some other) was more correct and likely to be true. He is perfectly correct in his assertion that we all have the right to hold any opinion we choose, regardless of whether it is supported or unsupported by anything. But I find greater satisfaction in aligning my personal views with the facts rather than shutting my eyes and insisting my views are right just because they are mine. For all I know he is right and I am wrong, but if that is the case he provided me with no compelling reasons to believe that is the case.

  • Report
  

  by RavensShadow on January 12th, 2008

Comments

• LOL!!! the old "the only two things that are guaranteed in life are death and taxes."
  .
  not totally true for the question but definitely any law abiding citizen has to do....pts

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

Comments

• but none of them are guaranteed...please list one right that is guaranteed

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 5th, 2008

• Since I'm a social contract sort of thinker (Think Hobbes, Locke and The Founding Fathers of the US), to simplify I will say life, liberty and propery.

  • Report
  

  by scubaduba on January 5th, 2008

• all of those can be taken away though by either a person, or even a government,,, or simply an accident

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

• Just because you have a right, doesn't mean it can't be taken away or violated, that doesn't make it not a right.

  • Report
  

  by scubaduba on January 6th, 2008

• re-read my question...it is about guaranteed rights from birth...wich there are none of

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

Comments

• freedom isn't a guaranteed right...someone could kidnap you, send you to a different country and force you into slave labour

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 6th, 2008

• is not your freedom to comply. can you not choose to disobey. your freedom to choose for your self can not be taken away, your choice depends on your will to follow through. if I am forced into slave labour I would choose death.

  • Report
  

  by john rambo on January 8th, 2008

• then you do truely have the right to freedom....but it isn't guaranteed.
  .
  let me put it this way....if someone locked you in a room...you were chained to the wall, and you were force-fed...you could hate it all you want, but you would have no freedom to do anyting about it (this is just an example)

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on January 8th, 2008

Comments

• where is this coming from?
  .
  is this supposed to be a comment?.....i think you accidently posted it as an answer

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on February 4th, 2008