Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Current Topics
Gerrymandering
by perotista - 01/17/22 10:15 PM
Winning
by perotista - 01/17/22 08:21 PM
Texas hostages
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 08:08 PM
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 08:06 PM
The long and winding road to Dumbass
by chunkstyle - 01/17/22 05:28 PM
Round Table Winter 2021
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 12:00 AM
National Commission to Investigate the January 6
by pondering_it_all - 01/16/22 12:02 PM
Lindsey v. Mitch: Senate cage match
by logtroll - 01/15/22 05:11 AM
Don't look up
by jgw - 01/14/22 10:42 PM
Complexity Science
by Jeffery J. Haas - 01/12/22 06:34 PM
What's for dinner?
by pondering_it_all - 01/02/22 09:37 PM
RoundTable For Fall 2021
by Mellowicious - 01/02/22 04:21 AM
Divorce: American Style
by pdx rick - 12/31/21 01:56 AM
Gimme some of that good ol time religion
by pondering_it_all - 12/23/21 08:19 PM
F.D.A. Will Permanently Allow Abortion Pills by Mail
by Mellowicious - 12/22/21 09:03 PM
Joe Manchin thread
by perotista - 12/22/21 08:33 PM
A Fungus Amungus
by logtroll - 12/22/21 01:00 AM
Texas abortion law guy responds
by Mellowicious - 12/19/21 02:06 AM
Popular Topics(Views)
9,783,889 my own book page
4,858,416 We shall overcome
3,972,868 Campaign 2016
3,616,483 Trump's Trumpet
2,870,972 3 word story game
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,630
Likes: 28
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,630
Likes: 28
Ok.....I'm not going to involve myself in the Pearl Harbor example and all that....what constitutes an "assembly" and all that.
Those debates go a little "over me".
It's word parsing (to me) and aren't what I think of as brought up in the other thread.

Back in the feminism thread, "group" was used in the context of (for example) women's rights and men's rights. Do women (or men) as a group have rights?
Have I got this right?

Other group "rights" we often speak of are gay rights and African-American (and other minorities) rights (as Emma mentioned). Children's rights are another, even animal rights.
I'm sure there are many more.

To me, saying the individuals who come together (to demonstrate, march, assemble etc) to demand rights as a group are really just using numbers for strength to demand rights for the individuals of that group.
Therefore, yes, if you agree that individuals have certain inalienable rights (yes yes I know it is up for debate what "inalienable" actually is), then those folks gathering as a group do too.



"Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass...it's about learning how to dance in the rain."
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by issodhos
As to your charge that I present myself as the universal authority on rights, on the contrary, I have based my statements and opinion on the thinking of the ideas of many very smart men who pondered the issue of natural rights and man’s relationship to the state over the centuries. I have claimed no special insight,
Issodhos

Alright,
here is what I what I would base my opinion on...
this is a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Quote
Eighth, human rights are rights, but not necessarily in a strict sense. As rights they have several features. One is that they have rightholders — a person or agency having a particular right. Broadly, the rightholders of human rights are all people living today. More precisely, they are sometimes all people, sometimes all citizens of countries, sometimes all members of groups with particular vulnerabilities (women, children, racial and religious minorities, indigenous peoples), and sometimes all ethnic groups (as with rights against genocide.)
link


The submission of this link demonstrates that ...at the very least ... the issue we are discussing is an area of disagreement. And given that the issue is a matter of disagreement , it is not therefore resolved. And being an unresolved issue, one cannot conclusively say what is the fact of the matter.


Last edited by Ardy; 07/22/08 04:00 AM. Reason: Editied to conform to posting guidelines

"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Offline
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
OK, please address the topic of this thread and carry on personal issues by PM, please.

Phil Hoskins, moderator


Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by issodhos
But, that aside, the US government responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by carrying out what was, from the founding of the republic, recognized as a valid and basic function of any government instituted among men – securing and protecting its citizen’s pre-existing rights.
Issodhos

Exactly... you have discovered the answer to your question
Quote
However, I would be interested in an example of how a group would exercise a 'right' held by it. Do you have such an example?
Yours in curiosity,:-)
Issodhos

What you have not answered is how your own question would be answered in the context of the definition of rights that you propose. That is... how would individuals whose rights were violated at Pearl Harbor exercise their rights individual against the specific individuals that violated their rights?


"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by issodhos
[there is no right to happiness nor a right to the avoidance of the loss of a loved one

Interesting. So, if I understand correctly... I do have rights that may be violated through loss of property stolen from a hospital room, but no rights that could be violated in the loss of a child due to negligent medical practice in that same hospital room?


"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,031
R
member
Offline
member
R
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,031
Originally Posted by issodhos
...Anything greater than a single person would, I believe, constitute a group. How do you equate that with a right...

At its inception, Lebanon had an example of the application of so-called "group rights": The Maronite Christians had the "right" to supply the president, and the Sunni Muslims had the "right" to supply the Prime Minister. Similar notions of rights applied in the former state of Yugoslavia, where Orthodox Serbs, Roman Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosnians each had certain "rights" attached to being, respectively, Serb, Croat and Bosnian. In India, the Sudras - the "untouchables" - have the right to a certain minimum number of slots in the bureaucracy and in the universities. The recent USSC decision on the Second Amendment dealt with the notion of the right to keep and bear arms as something inherent to the individual and not, per the collectivist view, a right associated with a group called the militia.

These things, creatures granted by the state and taken away by the state, are just a bit to ephemeral to be dignified as "rights"; entitlements is really what they should be called.

Last edited by Ron G.; 07/22/08 05:27 PM.

Life should be led like a cavalry charge - Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,841
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,841
Quote
As to your charge that I present myself as the universal authority on rights, on the contrary, I have based my statements and opinion on the thinking of the ideas of many very smart men who pondered the issue of natural rights and man�s relationship to the state over the centuries.


HA! You based your statement on smart men who thought about men's relationships. No wonder your argument is so facetious...you didn't talk to any women! ROTFMOL

EmmaG


"I believe very deeply that compassion is the route not only for the evolution of the full human being, but for the very survival of the human race." The Dalai Lama
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by Ardy
Originally Posted by issodhos
As to your charge that I present myself as the universal authority on rights, on the contrary, I have based my statements and opinion on the thinking of the ideas of many very smart men who pondered the issue of natural rights and man’s relationship to the state over the centuries. I have claimed no special insight,
Issodhos

Alright,
here is what I what I would base my opinion on...
this is a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Quote
Eighth, human rights are rights, but not necessarily in a strict sense. As rights they have several features. One is that they have rightholders — a person or agency having a particular right. Broadly, the rightholders of human rights are all people living today. More precisely, they are sometimes all people, sometimes all citizens of countries, sometimes all members of groups with particular vulnerabilities (women, children, racial and religious minorities, indigenous peoples), and sometimes all ethnic groups (as with rights against genocide.)
link

Fine. If that shallow bit of politically correct bit of drivel works for you, then good on you.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by Ardy
Originally Posted by issodhos
But, that aside, the US government responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by carrying out what was, from the founding of the republic, recognized as a valid and basic function of any government instituted among men – securing and protecting its citizen’s pre-existing rights.
Issodhos

Exactly... you have discovered the answer to your question

Actually, no. A government function is not a 'group right'. It is simply a government function.
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by Ardy
Originally Posted by issodhos
[there is no right to happiness nor a right to the avoidance of the loss of a loved one

Interesting. So, if I understand correctly... I do have rights that may be violated through loss of property stolen from a hospital room, but no rights that could be violated in the loss of a child due to negligent medical practice in that same hospital room?

Was the child stolen? Was the "negligent medical practice" intentional? If not, your comparison fails. Do you assume that there is a right to avoiding the loss of the child? Or are you really asking if the parent has legal redress toward those who may have violated the child's right to life?
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 51 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
SuZQ2, KevFilthyANML, Risky, Gladys G. Jackson, Beach Baby
6,297 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums61
Topics17,274
Posts313,887
Members6,297
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.27 Page Time: 0.014s Queries: 36 (0.004s) Memory: 3.0347 MB (Peak: 3.2530 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2022-01-17 22:44:36 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS