Your original construct (which is a bit hard to follow in traditional English) was.
1. Because XXXX leads to XXXX, I will not do ZZZZ even if required by law.
2. Because XXXX makes YYYY far easier, I will not do ZZZZ even if required by law.
I will go ahead with that version below:
1. Because registering what your religion is leads to a registry of religious affiliation, I will not register even if required by law.
2. Because registering what your religion is makes genocide of specific religions far easier, I will not register even if required by law.
The first person is objecting because perhaps they just want to be off the grid or not labeled. The second person is in fear of having their life taken from them.
You are correct about my original construct. I had a "not" missing. And nice example, BTW.
At any rate: I am/was not saying the two are identical. In fact I agreed with Zee-Duck that one is more extremist than the other. For the narrow consideration of people ignoring the law triggered by registration, the two are functional equal imo. Their reasoning, obviously, is different.
Fine. And thanks for the effort. So the idea of natural rights is a philosophical notion. Fine.
Of course. What else would it be?
But we agree that constitutional of rights (that is, those enumerated in the US Constitution) are not philosophical rights.
Correct, they would by definition be legal rights. The Constitution is a legal document that orders the government to protect certain rights of its citizens. If you notice, our Constitution does not grant any rights. It grants specific 'powers' to various parts of government. It does not specifically grant any rights anywhere. Read those words carefully, the only rights it discusses are those it orders the government to protect - to not violate, to preserve, to not infringe, etc. This is consistent with the idea that we already have certain rights. Those rights may or may not have been derived from the philosophy of natural rights. These certain rights must be discoverable, often called 'self-evident' which is probably why many different persons throughout history have independently come up with the same ideas.
Their existence, the claim of their existence is verifiable, discoverable, falsifiable, etc. And those rights are backed by a powerful entity backed by the majority of people.
Explain how they are 'falsifiable.' As I explained, falsifiability has to do with a scientific hypothesis, a claim that arises from logical induction. This has nothing to do with a legal document declaring something.
If there were indeed rights granted in our Constitution, they would not be discoverable either, these are laws, they are declarative, created, not deduced or induced. Of course there are no rights granted so your claims of these non-existent rights being verifiable, discoverable, and falsifiable is just wrong.
Your insistence of the idea of falsifiable and verifiable here are red herrings. Those terms do not apply to such declarations.
So some people think natural rights are above Constitutional rights. Fine. I simply disagree.
Natural rights are contrasted to legal rights. They are different animals. But once again, you conclude that the Constitution bestows rights when it does not. However, the rights it is ordered to protect are based on the concept of natural rights. Natural rights are 'above' legal in the way that a concept is 'above' an application of that concept.
The natural rights philosophy contends that rights are natural and inalienable. Government or other institutions cannot grant these rights, they can only defend them or take them away.
Thomas Paine in Rights of Man wrote:
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
This round started with me asking if the claim that these rights exist is an objective notion and if it is falsifiable. A simple "no" would have ended the discussion a long time ago.
Because 'no' isn't the answer. The answer is that falsifiable is a meaningless concept regarding a philosophy or law. Is slavery falsifiable? Meaningless. You are trying to apply words to where they don't fit which is why you aren't getting answers you want. You still don't seem to understand what falsifiable means and how to apply it, which is what I have been trying to demonstrate to you, yet here you are going back and assuming that your initial question asking about it would have garnered an answer that was coherent.
Continuing to ask these kinds of questions leads me and others to conclude you don't understand these concepts of logical induction, empiricism, logical deduction and conceptual.
You may as well be asking, 'what does blue taste like?'
Science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions.
~ Carl Sagan
Slickdeals is able to share the best deals because of the contributions of users like you! If you found a great deal,
please share it with others by posting in our forums.
Welcome to Slickdeals!
Save money here by finding the lowest and cheapest price, best deals and bargains, and hot coupons. We're all about
community driven bargain hunting with thousands of free discounts, promo codes, reviews and price comparisons.
Don't worry, we'll help you find your way. If you haven't already, check out this
that explains the features of our site.