The Cellar - View Single Post

piercehawkeye45 · 12-12-2007, 10:59 PM

Most of the examples you have given me are just proving that our disagreements have to do with wording. When it comes down to it, privilege and rights are just words that you can use to turn the argument your way. To me, there really isn't a difference between the two besides a label.

I'll try to organize my argument again.

As I mentioned before, most of disagreements are just arguing semantics coming from my bottom up approach and your top down approach.

Lets take the right/privilege to life in the United States. As most of us know, some states allow the practice of capital punishment. With this, would life be considered a right or privilege since the government has the ability to take a life from a person.

Your perspective: We have the right to life and the state is just violating that right in a certain case. The person still has a right to life but the state is violating that right. The person dies against his will.
My perspective: Our society agreed that in certain cases, we allow the state to take away our right of life. From that person's perspective, assuming he still wants to live, he has the right to life so he will defend himself but from the state's perspective he doesn't so they will kill him. The person dies against his will.

The outcome is the same in both of our perspectives, it is just that you go from bottom down and I go from top down and mine allows for perspective. The only thing I don't get from your perspective is what does the state think? Does the state think that he has a right to life and they are knowning violating it or something else?

Another example.

Your Perspective:We all have the right to bear arms but the people have decided that it will let the government violate our right.
My Perspective:We as a society decided that we do not have the right to own guns.

Once again, we have the same conclusion but you go top down and I go bottom up. My question from the last example applies here as well.

So I will try to sum it up:
Your Perspective: We will have rights that can never be taken away from us, but only violated when the people decide that they can be violated.
My Perspective We as people give ourselves rights and decide which ones we should have and to the extreme. I am generalizing here because society doesn't necessarily reflect the individual.

So the question is really do we create our own rights or are we born with them?

So that gets into my previous question, what would we be like without rights? If we have rights, then there must be some way we can imagine someone without rights.
Me: Rights are an abstract concept so we physically wouldn't be any different, just our laws would be different and we would feel the need to justify our actions with "because I can ethically".
You: ???

Now to the right versus privilege.

Your Perspective: A right is something that cannot be taken away from me and a privilege is something that can.
My Perspective: They are just labels created by humans. If society agrees that we can not take something away from me, it becomes a right. If we agree that something can be taken away from me it is a privilege.

Then the question comes up, who decides the difference between a right and privilege?
Your Perspective: ???
My Perspective: People decide.

Honestly, I do not understand how we decide what the difference between rights and privileges are? How do we know that the ability to bear arms isn't an unalienable right but a privilege? How do we know that the ability to marry isn't a privilege but an unalienable right? Who decides what is what?

Hopefully that answers your question.

12-12-2007, 10:59 PM	#213
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	Most of the examples you have given me are just proving that our disagreements have to do with wording. When it comes down to it, privilege and rights are just words that you can use to turn the argument your way. To me, there really isn't a difference between the two besides a label. I'll try to organize my argument again. As I mentioned before, most of disagreements are just arguing semantics coming from my bottom up approach and your top down approach. Lets take the right/privilege to life in the United States. As most of us know, some states allow the practice of capital punishment. With this, would life be considered a right or privilege since the government has the ability to take a life from a person. Your perspective: We have the right to life and the state is just violating that right in a certain case. The person still has a right to life but the state is violating that right. The person dies against his will. My perspective: Our society agreed that in certain cases, we allow the state to take away our right of life. From that person's perspective, assuming he still wants to live, he has the right to life so he will defend himself but from the state's perspective he doesn't so they will kill him. The person dies against his will. The outcome is the same in both of our perspectives, it is just that you go from bottom down and I go from top down and mine allows for perspective. The only thing I don't get from your perspective is what does the state think? Does the state think that he has a right to life and they are knowning violating it or something else? Another example. Your Perspective:We all have the right to bear arms but the people have decided that it will let the government violate our right. My Perspective:We as a society decided that we do not have the right to own guns. Once again, we have the same conclusion but you go top down and I go bottom up. My question from the last example applies here as well. So I will try to sum it up: Your Perspective: We will have rights that can never be taken away from us, but only violated when the people decide that they can be violated. My Perspective We as people give ourselves rights and decide which ones we should have and to the extreme. I am generalizing here because society doesn't necessarily reflect the individual. So the question is really do we create our own rights or are we born with them? So that gets into my previous question, what would we be like without rights? If we have rights, then there must be some way we can imagine someone without rights. Me: Rights are an abstract concept so we physically wouldn't be any different, just our laws would be different and we would feel the need to justify our actions with "because I can ethically". You: ??? Now to the right versus privilege. Your Perspective: A right is something that cannot be taken away from me and a privilege is something that can. My Perspective: They are just labels created by humans. If society agrees that we can not take something away from me, it becomes a right. If we agree that something can be taken away from me it is a privilege. Then the question comes up, who decides the difference between a right and privilege? Your Perspective: ??? My Perspective: People decide. Honestly, I do not understand how we decide what the difference between rights and privileges are? How do we know that the ability to bear arms isn't an unalienable right but a privilege? How do we know that the ability to marry isn't a privilege but an unalienable right? Who decides what is what? Hopefully that answers your question.