The Bill of Rights enumerates several rights. Have you ever asked yourself what a right is? What was your answer? Please post your definition of a right below.
Rights are an illusion. we don't have the right to go catch a fish or hunt an animal without paying a fee. We don't have the right to even gather an iceberg or piece of ice from the ocean without paying for it. We are forced to buy gmos and poison at the grocery store. People saved their rrsps for their retirement, a lifetime of saving money to have a decent way of life at your 2nd most vulnerable time in life , but since the economy is so bad, they are being taxed ferociously when they try to take them out. We don't have the right to smoke a perfectly harmless plant that does amazing things for your body, yet we are forced to be prescribed opioids so powerful that if a grown human touches something equivalent to two grains of sand worth.... they will die.
Rights? Rights only exist on paper. Right to vote? Yep, we have the right to vote on 1 of 3 hand picked candidates that all work for the same master. So realistically, you don't have the right to really truly vote for someone that you really want in. And I believe that with social media, block chain tech and organizational programs, we could easily get rid of government for good and do a much better job as a collective. The use of block chain tech could give everyone the right to a fair vote, with no way of breaking it.
My definition of a "right" is breaking away from the "left". The ability to say anything, do anything and be anything without restrictions. As long as you are not impeding someone else's rights and not hurting anyone.
So what is your definition of a "left?"
I am considering the word 'right' for what it is used as the inherent aspects of a person from onwself to oneself, as it could have been called oneself or any other term,
so to the answer of what it is left, I do not know, because I do not know what you mean by it, in the context I took it,
maybe the context I took it, it is not the context you have, so not talking about the same thing,
thank you
In other words, you are unable to define what a right is and you just came here to run your mouth.
if we are not talking about the same, maybe, another thing is that this place is for people to interact freely, so if you are not enjoyed with me, noone has asked you to interact with me,
and freedom of expression, speech and socialization are some of the rights as many which no other have right to inflict a negative way,
but again those that do so, as it could be interpreted by your expressions on me, suffer of what they do to others, and your comment could be understood as inflicting a negative effect on the person you address it, that could affect their performance and so the excercise of their rights of expression
as well there can be ways, we need to find, to comunciate for humanity, individualism, it is another iright in the context I am taking the word,
so in the same manner you address yourself towards me, you can say the same about you, and if you do not like it on yourself, I wonder why you do it on others
and the same freedom you have, so do I, so there is a' right', which by your words, you seem to act in a negative way against it,
and if you think someone can not define a right by your concept, can you give an understanding rather than a minus to the person,
usually people that act like that as your answer or comment towards me, or if it were me, show the things they have not in order by right
socialitation it is a right of the person, understood as for constructive direction, not the opposite, so you can excercise your right of not socializing with me,
your comments, are in the sense of getting the other person not to excercise its rights by inflicting a negative deteriorating action, instead of the addresser to excercise its rights of 'live and let live'
I have bloced you in the e-mail service,
I wish not to receive more from you, and if so I may dispose of it
goodbye
View More
Bobbie Knott
Thank your for your definition. Anyone else?
I view rights as "what is reasonable to die for"
people usually don't want to screw with that (try to take it away) because they don't like dying (and many are willing to for it)-- therefore it is a right
Thank you. Anyone else?
It's been over a week so that looks like all the responses I am going to get.
FOR THE RECORD:
A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's (conceptually thinking life form's) range of activity in a social environment.
The definition of a right has a corollary: A man (conceptually thinking life form) must never initiate the use of physical force, as an argument, in human interactions. (I added "as an argument" because a initiating a handshake is an initiation of physical force.)
The validation of rights is that rights are what is necessary for man to exercise his faculty of reason, which is his sole and most fundamental natural tool of survival. Initiating physical force, as a persuasive argument, interferes with and negates the process of reason.
This is what I understand by right:
"rights are inherent to the individual for the individual, and can not be transfered or given by another."
right is for the individual to excercise it or not, in what it confers to oneself, not on others:
right to existance, right to earth, tight to oneself
to do on oneself not on others,
that rights are impided by violen, usually related to the governments that follows a harmful system, so where there is violence, can not be clear view and progress for good,
rights can be called things that are not rights, but as the establishment does usually, to call things by what it is not, like calling peace violence acts, etc, ..
individuals or institutions which is the same as individuals, may abuse the rights of the person, by thinking that they have the power or right to to on others and not by freedom and non violence, those usually can not give what they do not have: freedom of choice, understanding and humnaity, those individuals imposing on others, lack of clarity and can not give what they have forbidden to themselves, again that is freedom, freedom of chjoice, freedom of doing with oneself, right to existance, right to earth, right to life and what it implies, meaning not using other ways to impide it,
Violence is blind and destructive which are the methods of governments, forces, financial system, ..
peace gorws and sees, and evolves, it is never destroyed, it always resurge because it is there, it does not matter how manty time the sword or any other, slaze it , they dye
if not see all the empires, who are the ones subsisting, the ones they externinate, or them, the onw winning is the one that they thought they exterminate, because what we do to others it is what we do to ourselves, or we have , so that one that exterminates it will exterminate itself, behing the appearences of destruction
what it is, it is and it will be, that is peace, non violence, freedom, hence humanity will subsist as it has always, and empires and forces dies as we know
freedom ov choice from oneself to oneself,
people is unhappy and done badly, perpetuating they suffer, till the negative reponses refrain and takes the pacific ones, to resolve and come out of the lack of humnaity we are inersed in, which the governments and other ddeshumnized people uses as they can not be well by doing so,
rights can not be to some and not to others, it has to be without exclusion, or it is not rights, as for humnity or human rights,
problems are solved by progress
no one has any right to inflict the suffer on another of not allowing the right of oneself to happen, by having a defence of right of each individual, not upon others, as governments, that could be helped or solved,
the secutity is a right of oneself, not by others on others to do their will on others, as government does, that is not security, it is abuse and harm
a right, can not be a right, if not comming from the person will onto himself or herself, in a non violence system
I am sorry to hear that citizen quasar it is blocked from the forum,
I did not like his ways
but we can not just ban each other, so easily
we can always describe a thing for people choice to look or not,
people not always can express the best, and we live in an environment that it is detriment to the performance of people
and it is for each individual to decide to comunicate with another, not by someone to all, in this case the forum,
when something is not so good, we could do more for it, than put it it down, as the one who has done it, so we are not much better, no?
it is just the luck, of having the chance of being better than others,
if we can be better, it is not to fan those than can not, we can protect ourselves, and offer with no imposition to the ones that may need it on free choice,
we are not going any further by banning others, that is not protection, there is a choice not excercise it by banning it or not, so acting on others, rather than excercising our choice of socialization, on ourselves without banning others rather than excercising our rinherent rights to ourselves of choice on us, not on others,
I am sad to hear someone is banned, that is not a human policy, a positive action and it is abstract violence,
any method that it is positive and not harmful,
we can not go around banning what we do not want on others, ban it on yourself, that is, you do not like the comments, do not take them, do not read them, and that it is peacful, no harm, and keep everyone;s rights on place
if you ban a person from the forum, then you are excercising a dictatorial policy as any, just do nto read it , and specify the tyoe of comments they are, that simple, cause no harm,
if not it is always of what the ones that know what it should be or not, impositing by force,
where is the frreedom in peace for all AMTv,
as you do ban others, so other will do and escalate to the point we are having,
we can not cry fro freedom and justice when we do not excercise it from the bottom, but what some people mean by it, it can be what they think, so not live and let live, not earth and rights for all and defence of oneself witout minus then?
no we are frree, for all and to help and protect us and all anf for each other and oneself..