DXP Survivor 2014 Part I

Welcome, players and audience members, to the St. Patrick???s Day Premiere of DXP Survivor 2014. The game will begin wit...

This topic was created in the Miscellaneous forum by StoicGoat on Monday, March 17, 2014 and has 614 replies.
You are on page out of 13 | Reverse Order
Posted by GetMisted
"Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"
"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

No matter the generality of the "Right to Liberty", it stands that the United Nations has proclaimed the "Right to Liberty" in its declaration of human rights.



And since you chose to quote the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" I find other parts of their language a conundrum as well.
For instance... the use of the word inalienable.
They say that all the rights they list are in fact "inalienable" yet the definition of inalienable would say different.
inalienable-Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
Which if adjective inalienable did in fact apply to all the rights listed it would make the entire declaration of human rights mute. Anyways, the contradiction is plenty of what they say are inalienable rights are actually just privileges you enjoy that are now protected by law but not necessarily anything you could say you had universally that couldn't be given or taken away from you.
And relooking at Dawny Dryer sheet list
The Downy Dryer Sheets
Liberty - to general to say whether it could or could not be inalienable
Life - life can always be taken.
Freedom from torture - You can't stop people from torturing you if they wanted to.
To be considered innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial - I'm pretty sure the Patriot act proves my point rather nicely/i>.
Freedom from discrimination - You can't stop people from discriminating you because you yourself cannot control human beings. Control of human beings is not an inalienable right and therefore neither is freedom from discrimination.
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by aquariuslove14

absolutely agree
Lets face it folks, Fair doesn't exist
So...it is okay to go out and kill then be deemed innocent and say the trial was fair because the evidence and witnesses were thrown out.
Even when the person is innocent they are still found guilty because of race/gender and what ever else bull-butter.



Can you elaborate on what you agree on? you go from agreeing on NYAA definition of Liberty to discussing fairness of a trial?
Clarification is needed on what your agreement stands for.

click to expand


I agree with his view on Liberty-???Liberty - Seems far too general to be called a right honestly. Liberty to what? Liberty as a right is like a politicians favorite friend, sounds nice to the ear but general enough to apply to anything. I can have the liberty to kill, the liberty to actually Discriminate, torture, and find anyone guilty before being proven guilty. I actually have the Liberty to contradict every right in the Downy Dryer Sheet list.??

I added what I said about fair trial because the right for Liberty allows people to Discriminate to either find you guilty or not guilty in what is supposed to be a fair trial.
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius

Yeah well the UN got Liberty wrong too.
And considering they are a "Governing" body... keeping things more general is always going to be in their favor because what they previously said or declared in writing can/is always going to be left to interpretation.


Show me an example of where The UN got the definition of "Liberty" wrong. Do so, and I am likely to agree with you.
And even if the UN is a "governing" body, it is still an organization that was created between independently operating sovereign states that have agreed upon that definition. So once again, define Liberty as it would be opposed to the definition that these countries have set up between them.


I never said they "DEFINED" Liberty incorrectly. They never define the word Liberty in the Declaration of Human Rights and assume its understood what the meaning of liberty is... but they use the general term liberty "Too Loosely" which was what I find fault with.


You've already stated that the UN "got it wrong", which also means that all nations who've agreed upon what "Liberty" means are wrong also.
There is no need to back pedal your arguement, as you have already informed us that they, the UN have not clearly defined the term and are able to generalized based on said definition.
As the Double D's have not offered any defintion of what "Liberty" is, yet you stand firm that it can't possibly be correct, I once again ask you, NYAA to state the clear definiton of what Liberty means and how it pertains to the goal of the sovereign states that form the UN.
Any point made by the Airheads in the matter of Liberty I motion shall not be considered without there offering of a clear definition and how the UN "got it wrong".
click to expand


Like I said in the previous quoted post...
the statement "The UN got Liberty wrong too" was in reference to their usage of the term Liberty.
I showing the parallel between your teams use of liberty and theirs. Had nothing to do with the definition of liberty to begin with. And like I al
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by aquariuslove14
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by aquariuslove14
Freedom of Education
Education is important, not only for the youth but as growing adults in continuing education. If it wasn??t for the freedom of education half of us wouldn??t even know human rights. smile
No one can hold me back from educating myself about my rights??_.



Before you go any further with "Freedom of Education", I ask that you first provide a definition of what you proclaim education to be.


"ducation in its general sense is a form of learning in which the knowledge, skills, and habits of a group of people are transferred from one generation to the next through teaching, training, or research." Education frequently takes place under the guidance of others, but may also be autodidactic.[1] Any experience that has a formative effect on the way one thinks, feels, or acts may be considered educational
The importance of education to the development of intellectual freedom is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26:
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages . . . .
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial, or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.



In the bolded section above, based on the definition of "Education" one is safe to assume that one can be educated by Mom, Dad, Grandpa, Grandma, and all other family members alike.
With that being said, I ask.. Who or what entity can hinder ones right to Education other than the family itself?


click to expand


Yes your family can educate you however they can not hinder you from outside education out of the home or family circle. It is important that everyone has the right to walk into a library pick up a book and research about what ever they so please (if they wa
details
Actually, most all are rights actually can't really be taken or given.
Freedom of Thought - Will and always be yours. NO one can control what you think. The only thing they can do to stop you from observing your universal right to freely think as you please is killing which I by the way never said is an inalienable and is neither on our list BUT the right to live is Dawny Dryers right and obviously we have no control over others who wish to cause us harm. However, while alive we will always have our mind. Even asleep in a coma your mind is yours to keep.
The Right to Free Will - Is also not contradicted by inalienable because no one can ever take your free will from you. The law may say MURDER IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH but no one can actually stop you from killing someone if you chose too. Even if you were incarcerated they never took your mind or you choice to affect the environment you find yourself in. You choice with how to handle and react to any situation can only be snuffed out through death.
The right to assemble - Goes along with the the right to free will and therefore cannot truly be stopped as long as human beings are willing to stand up against oppression. People only have power because you give it to them. NOT because they actually have it over you.
The right to education - Since no one has control of your mind ... then they have no control of what you put in your mind or how you choose to learn and synthesize knowledge. You can educate yourself on just about anything just by merely observing it. Laws can forbid books.... people will still be educated and learn... they did at the dawn of time and they can today.
The right to freedom of slavery - Well this one could be iffy but... it would be very difficult to stop someone from killing themselves outside tying them down to a bed so they cannot move. But if someone is shackled or bound how can they serve you as slave? If every time you try to release someone to try and make them "serve" you as a slave and they choose to exercise there inalienable right of free will to take their life there is not much you can do to stop them now is there.
details
Posted by GetMisted
@Aqualove
"I added what I said about fair trial because the right for Liberty allows people to Discriminate to either find you guilty or not guilty in what is supposed to be a fair trial. "
Liberty has still not been define by the Airheads, so the counter had no basis to conclude.


Why is our teams burden of proof of the definition of Liberty? I never said anyone defined or that a stated definition of Liberty was wrong. I said the usage is too general and improperly used.
details
Please excuse my horrendous typos ^.^
details
Posted by GetMisted
Which if adjective inalienable did in fact apply to all the rights listed it would make the entire declaration of human rights mute. Anyways, the contradiction is plenty of what they say are inalienable rights are actually just privileges you enjoy that are now protected by law but not necessarily anything you could say you had universally that couldn't be given or taken away from you."
Now stop back pedeling


I'm not back pedaling. I merely somehow left out one word which I'm sure if you read half of my posts I tend to do from time to time.
just add practically here:
"if the adjective inalienable did in fact apply to all the rights listed it would practically make the entire declaration of human rights mute."
I'm not sure why your using what I've already said against me.... It doesn't even contradict what I've said outside of one statement that had a "single" word left out?
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Please excuse my horrendous typos ^.^


Yeah, mine too. I'm calling it a night. We'll do this again tomorrow smile
click to expand


smileyea me too. (calling it a morning that is) 4am here
details
Why would I have to define a term that your team is supposed to define supposedly?
Why am I having to do your teams work?
Furthermore, its not your teams job to define words to their liking that are already defined in the English language.
How can I be shooting ahead when I'm merely responding to what was claimed by your team in plain English.
I don't need your team to define a word for me that is common knowledge.
Liberty is a general term for freedom.
details
Anyways my morning class is canceled and my other class doesn't start till 6 PM and doesn't get out till 8:45 PM or 9:00 PM.
Sad
Long boring ass class. For which I have even finished the assignment ahead of time by accident.
details
Sorry guys internet has been on and off haven't been able to get on much. Go Airheads!!!!
In relation to using United Nations as an example? Is that really the angle we're approaching? I kid you not if we're going by the UDHR then honestly there wouldn't be a debate would there? I'm certain all 10 listed from both teams are all covered... Defend all your want in accordance to it because we can honestly say hey they cover our chose rights too.
On that note, bringing in nations agreed term to liberty or any future references, I'm sorry to say but the UN isn't perfect! Here's a genuine debate that covers quite a a bit.
Give me a bit and I'll do a quick write up.
details
So let's look at Liberty. As Nacho plainly put it the word means exactly that:
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views.
The idea has always been good on paper because it sounds good but fundamentally something that cannot be enforced because people have the liberty to do whatever they wish because liberty by nature means exactly that. So however great it sounds it will inevitably conflict with any other rights that you list. A vigilante given his natural human right to liberty may think necessary to take a life which does indeed conflict with your second selected right which is life.
Right to Life.
Again here I see another vague point pulled out of the UDHR. Let's use reason for a second here because we are born into this world, all of us, so to me it's never a right to life... can you imagine if they changed this and wrote down "Right to Life: Except people named Aquasnoz". I understand given certain situations such as self-defense or capital punishment (another debate perhaps) that right is revoked but aside from being detailed by the UN realistically speaking how is it different from just living our lives? If lawful execution, self-defense and abortion can be in some eyes 'justified' then humans as whole simply do not have that right because it cannot be regulated.
Freedom from torture
This I actually agree with but again are all very action oriented like the previous two. Work place bullying, government oppression or even some world events today can be viewed as violating our freedom from torture. Take point again Liberties may be the cause of this whether acted upon as an individual or as a collective. Indeed it is a very basic human right but one that is not easily enforced.
Innocent until Proven Guilty
Along the same lines of Freedom from torture I think it's another very basic right for all. I don't think I need to point out unfair trials and loopholes in our justice system because they exist. For these basic rights you are pointing out it requires a universal governing body: totalitarianism not affected by corruption.
details
Freedom from Discrimination
I'm actually convinced humans are incapable of this. We're on DXP after all and we see it everyday. Whether in small cases or over the top... discrimination exists. Not to pull in more debate topics but Religion itself can be used as basis for discrimination. However ideal all your rights sound on paper they seem to cause the most human rights issues due to conflict. Basic rights as in, you'd think they'd work but they simply don't.
_____________________________________
This is where (and I kid you not I was not here at all or even online while my team chose the rights) I believe our selected rights are 'more' essential and superior as it not only cultivates the mind but it would not conflict on an 'action-oriented' basis.
Freedom of Thought
This is my version of Liberty but without the actual 'action'. We are all free to our philosophies and live accordingly, the thought does not interact with authorities such as our government or another person because it does not involve freedom of speech or freedom of expression. In this sense it's very specific, non-intrusive or wouldn't create conflict. It is also thanks to the internet that much of the world wide censorship and that wall between 'us' started to disappear which allowed the free flow of thought, powerful stuff.
Peaceably assemble and to petition
This one would be favourable in the modern world. Occupy Wall Street is a great example which I won't go into detail about. In a way I want to relate this to freedom of speech, will and thought but this one is very specific. We recently had one here in Austrlia where the government failed to uphold its intergrity, to me this is an essential human right as we are addressing very pressing issues peacefully as stated.
Freedom from Slavery
Unlike UN's or even a general definition of discrimination and torture there's no other way to define slavery. I'm relating this to the unjust ownership of another person such as human trafficking and exploitation. Even in the modern world there's no other way to define slavery. In a sense it might touch up on aspects of right to life but where I see ours as more essential is because we're being specific.
details
Free Will
Now again I want to relate this back to Liberty as it's often the most discussed issue and where we run into issues of black and white. "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors". Without being too broad like liberty the keyword is 'choice' and that by far is the most essential human right; our right to choose after informed opinions or lack of, and face the consequences. Liberty can be viewed as totalitarian (my own rule) vs Free will which is one's own choices that does not supersede the rule at hand.
Education
Along with Freedom of thought and free will, education would complete what I would call the most essential of human rights. It might be challenging the age old system including the UDHR which was drafted decades ago but neither the drafts or the philosophies attached to them would be possible without thought, will, and education.
That's why my friends Airheads rights are far superior to the ones outlined by the Downy Dryer Sheets. We're not bringing age old merits of being human, ones that have incited wars and inequality but progressive thinking and rights that won't violate or incapable of violating others if practiced correctly.
details
@GetMisted:
We are merely asking you to clarify what entails your "Liberty" but you can't because it's THAT broad of a term. Just citing UDHR isn't helping our cause because it also helps ours. There's no argument here you just refuse to stay away from the fact UDHR said Liberty. By that logic as I said before it strengthens our rights as much as yours.
details
*Helping your cause
Where's mah spellchecker and shiz!
details
Fortunately we do not need to abide to your request but the longer you want to keep at this single instance is another post wasted at strengthening your post. But I do like being a broken record player: UDHR strengthens our rights as much as yours - Human rights aren't selective to your cause. The points are well and listed GetMisted, I suggest you GetStarted.
details
rc="https://storage.googleapis.com/dxpnet-themes/e/smile.png" width="32" height="32" class="e" alt="smile" />
Posted by GetMisted
@NYAA, Snoz, ans Stillwater
NYAA was first to present that "Liberty" is to general of a right. I did not actually define what "Liberty" is but did state that according to the UN, Liberty falls within the universal rights of humans as do all of the 5 rights that the Airheads have chosen.
I point this out not because the definition makes a difference to "me", but because NYAA states the the UN "Got it wrong". Not only would this include Liberty, but also every right that the Airheads have chosen.
This is NYAA arguement, not mine as I have not presented a case as to why any right is more important, only that they are declaired basic human rights by the UN.
NYAA has taken a non arguement made by me and formulated it in a way that deems all human rights unimportant according to the UNs wording, including the 5 they have chosen.
I say that, to say this. If they want to let that arguement stand, they will no longer be able to use anything from the Universal decleration of human rights to support their future arguements without providing evidence against their own.


I already addressed this here on page 10 I believe.
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by GetMisted
Which if adjective inalienable did in fact apply to all the rights listed it would make the entire declaration of human rights mute. Anyways, the contradiction is plenty of what they say are inalienable rights are actually just privileges you enjoy that are now protected by law but not necessarily anything you could say you had universally that couldn't be given or taken away from you."
Now stop back pedeling


I'm not back pedaling. I merely somehow left out one word which I'm sure if you read half of my posts I tend to do from time to time.
just add practically here:
"if the adjective inalienable did in fact apply to all the rights listed it would practically make the entire declaration of human rights mute."
I'm not sure why your using what I've already said against me.... It doesn't even contradict what I've said outside of one statement that had a "single" word left out?
click to expand

details
excuse me it was page 8
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
The Downy Dryer Sheets
Liberty - Seems far too general to be called a right honestly. Liberty to what? Liberty as a right is like a politicians favorite friend, sounds nice to the ear but general enough to apply to anything. I can have the liberty to kill, the liberty to actually Discriminate, torture, and find anyone guilty before being proven guilty. I actually have the Liberty to contradict every right in the Downy Dryer Sheet list.

Life
Freedom from torture
To be considered innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial
Freedom from discrimination


NYAA has taken a non arguement made by me and formulated it in a way that deems all human rights unimportant according to the UNs wording, including the 5 they have chosen.
click to expand


-Your team clearly made the argument for Liberty as a right first not me.
-You not me... continues to bring up Liberty.
-You brought up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and once again NOT ME
Honestly, I could argue all day why Liberty is too broad not sure why you can't?
And, I mean if throwing out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drops the whole thing for you please by all means do it. I don't need it for my rights. No human can give them to me or take them away. I don't need the UN to tell me what my rights as a human our. I know what they are. StoicGoat said we have the freedom to pursue any avenues we wish and I'm exercising the privilege to do so and I'm exercising my human right to ignore your demands for me to conform to your way of thinking.
Thank you


details
Posted by StoicGoat
I have received a PM requesting clarification. There is no need to raise any issue pertaining to law in the course of this debate. The teams are welcome to do so if they feel it will aid their respective causes, but I assure you, the citing of legal precedents and the like is completely unnecessary.

details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
The Downy Dryer Sheets
Liberty - Seems far too general to be called a right honestly. Liberty to what? Liberty as a right is like a politicians favorite friend, sounds nice to the ear but general enough to apply to anything. I can have the liberty to kill, the liberty to actually Discriminate, torture, and find anyone guilty before being proven guilty. I actually have the Liberty to contradict every right in the Downy Dryer Sheet list.

Life
Freedom from torture
To be considered innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial
Freedom from discrimination


click to expand


@NYAA, Snoz, ans Stillwater
NYAA was first to present that "Liberty" is to general of a right. I did not actually define what "Liberty" is but did state that according to the UN, Liberty falls within the universal rights of humans as do all of the 5 rights that the Airheads have chosen.
I point this out not because the definition makes a difference to "me", but because NYAA states the the UN "Got it wrong". Not only would this include Liberty, but also every right that the Airheads have chosen.
This is NYAA arguement, not mine as I have not presented a case as to why any right is more important, only that they are declaired basic human rights by the UN.
NYAA has taken a non arguement made by me and formulated it in a way that deems all human rights unimportant according to the UNs wording, including the 5 they have chosen.
I say that, to say this. If they want to let that arguement stand, they will no longer be able to use anything from the Universal decleration of human rights to support their future arguements without providing evidence against their own.

Since you like to use what people say that has nothing to do with the topic at I hand I figure I'll just point something out to you.
If you the definition of liberty didn't matter to you then why have you constantly said that I need to define it for you. A word mind you that I'm sure you are well acquainted with. However, I don't really care because it really has nothing to do with the topic. Just pointing out that this type of argument is circular and actually does nothing to further the discussion. It doesn't even disprove anything. I
details
Posted by GetMisted
"And, I mean if throwing out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drops the whole thing for you please by all means do it. I don't need it for my rights. No human can give them to me or take them away. I don't need the UN to tell me what my rights as a human our. I know what they are. StoicGoat said we have the freedom to pursue any avenues we wish and I'm exercising the privilege to do so and I'm exercising my human right to ignore your demands for me to conform to your way of thinking."
I have the Right to Kill as I please.
Agree or disagree?


I agree.
You have the right to free will and if you choose to kill then by all means you can do so.
Does it mean it's right to do it.
But no one can control the choices you make or the actions you take.
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by StoicGoat
I have received a PM requesting clarification. There is no need to raise any issue pertaining to law in the course of this debate. The teams are welcome to do so if they feel it will aid their respective causes, but I assure you, the citing of legal precedents and the like is completely unnecessary.




They are not laws. They are Rights. We use laws to uphold our rights.
click to expand


Laws Uphold privileges..
Rights however cannot be taken from you or me and neither can they be given... they simply are.
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by GetMisted
"And, I mean if throwing out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drops the whole thing for you please by all means do it. I don't need it for my rights. No human can give them to me or take them away. I don't need the UN to tell me what my rights as a human our. I know what they are. StoicGoat said we have the freedom to pursue any avenues we wish and I'm exercising the privilege to do so and I'm exercising my human right to ignore your demands for me to conform to your way of thinking."
I have the Right to Kill as I please.
Agree or disagree?


I agree.
You have the right to free will and if you choose to kill then by all means you can do so.
Does it mean it's right to do it.
But no one can control the choices you make or the actions you take.


It's not right because killing me would not allow me to live.
I do have the Right to Life, correct? That means the Right to Life supersedes the Right to free will, correct?

click to expand


I never said you have the right to life.
Your team said you have the right to life not mine

The Airheads
Freedom of thought
To peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Freedom from slavery
Free will
Education
The Downy Dryer Sheets
Liberty
Life
Freedom from torture
To be considered innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial
Freedom from discrimination

details
GetMisted asked you about your team's right to free will and if you agree it's less important than the right to life.
Do you? In the context he provided.
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by StoicGoat
I have received a PM requesting clarification. There is no need to raise any issue pertaining to law in the course of this debate. The teams are welcome to do so if they feel it will aid their respective causes, but I assure you, the citing of legal precedents and the like is completely unnecessary.




They are not laws. They are Rights. We use laws to uphold our rights.


Laws Uphold privileges..
Rights however cannot be taken from you or me and neither can they be given... they simply are.


Rights can be taken away from you if convicted.
click to expand


They can throw you in jail... doesn't mean they control your mind.
You are free to think, observe, and learn from anything in your environment in jail just like you would anywhere else. People exercise they're free will in jail and kill each other everyday.
details
In that case Right to Life is shadowed by Freedom of will. If you're going at it from the angle at which one's superior. We do not choose to live or die when it's not within our own will.
If Rights can be taken away if convicted then where's our liberty? Do I not have the liberty to do as I please? This is why it's such a broad term. To kill out of will is a choice knowing the consequences to kill out of will makes yourself accountable and no one else. How is that a better, more ethical and moral human right to possess than just plain liberty.
details
*How is that not better
details
Posted by Damnata
GetMisted asked you about your team's right to free will and if you agree it's less important than the right to life.
Do you? In the context he provided.


That's not what she asked me.
details
Posted by GetMisted
I know that NYAA. We are to debate which right is most important aren't we?
If I have the right to life, you can't kill me based on the right to free will. The Right to life holds free will in check, unless you you take your own life.


You said you had that right not me.
So the right to life doesn't really matter to me.
details
Sorry it's just silly, if a guy points a gun at you are you really going to yell "Hey buddy... I have my right to life so you can't kill me".
No it doesn't work like that.
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by StoicGoat
I have received a PM requesting clarification. There is no need to raise any issue pertaining to law in the course of this debate. The teams are welcome to do so if they feel it will aid their respective causes, but I assure you, the citing of legal precedents and the like is completely unnecessary.




They are not laws. They are Rights. We use laws to uphold our rights.


Laws Uphold privileges..
Rights however cannot be taken from you or me and neither can they be given... they simply are.


Rights can be taken away from you if convicted.


They can throw you in jail... doesn't mean they control your mind.
You are free to think, observe, and learn from anything in your environment in jail just like you would anywhere else. People exercise they're free will in jail and kill each other everyday.


You do not have the right to education while incarcerated. And if your will is to be educated while in solitary confinment, you now longer have free will either.
click to expand


Solitary confinement is ONE TYPE of incarceration. Plenty of people have access to libraries in jail but since when does one need a library to learn?
I could, by mere observation, learn what the guard watch patterns are and use that information to my benefit to know when I can attempt to dig a whole out of my confinement. I could learn what happens to your eyes after years of confinement in darkness. I could learn any number of things that I can perceive with the senses this body has given me. Like I said people learned long before there were books and they can still learn today with or without a book.
details
We have not yet defined any of our rights because NYAA dismissed the doctrine so it's useless to do this because at this point there is no debate ..if all 10 rights = jack shit, according to your argument on the definition of liberty, as stated by the doctrine and not by my team.
So to bring it up again:
Posted by GetMisted

Before you argue which rights are more important, find me a non UDHR doctrine that lists your 5 rights as basic human rights.


snoz, I want to discuss your right of free will but we need to get some clarification going Big Grin. I want to discuss everything but so far NYAA is arguing there is actually no right, defined by any doctrine.
details
no BASIC right, so you fuckers don't jump at me over semantics.
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by GetMisted
I know that NYAA. We are to debate which right is most important aren't we?
If I have the right to life, you can't kill me based on the right to free will. The Right to life holds free will in check, unless you you take your own life.


You said you had that right not me.
So the right to life doesn't really matter to me.


For the last time..
In order to say that you have a right, you must define what makes it a right.
Is it a right because you say it's a right? If that's the case, I say all of your rights are not really rights. You just made them up.
Find me a doctrine that lists the 5 rights you claim as basic human rights. Without using he UDHR!
click to expand


I said the right to free will is a right BECAUSE I for as long as I live have to choice to exercise it as I see fit. I never have to agree to anything anyone tells me to do even bound to a chair no one can actually take it from me. Go inside my jail room and where I supposedly have no free will and I'll show you free will. You merely confined my free will to environment that is my new world and I'm free to exert my will on it as I see fit.
And yes I defined it.
You've even quoted me defining it.
details
fined it. You've even quoted me defining it.
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by StoicGoat
I have received a PM requesting clarification. There is no need to raise any issue pertaining to law in the course of this debate. The teams are welcome to do so if they feel it will aid their respective causes, but I assure you, the citing of legal precedents and the like is completely unnecessary.




They are not laws. They are Rights. We use laws to uphold our rights.


Laws Uphold privileges..
Rights however cannot be taken from you or me and neither can they be given... they simply are.
click to expand

details
Posted by GetMisted

For the last time..
In order to say that you have a right, you must define what makes it a right.
Is it a right because you say it's a right? If that's the case, I say all of your rights are not really rights. You just made them up.
Find me a doctrine that lists the 5 rights you claim as basic human rights. Without using he UDHR!


You are still so focused on UDHR as a right that's enforced by law. I sincerely urge you to rethink what human rights are. Humans as a whole did not decide in 1948 that we miraculously gained human rights.
The debate simply isn't happening because you guys refuse to actually debate anything that has nothing to do with UDHR.
details
Posted by Damnata
snoz, I want to discuss your right of free will but we need to get some clarification going Big Grin. I want to discuss everything but so far NYAA is arguing there is actually no right, defined by any doctrine.


Don't jump on the bandwagon with GetMisted. Nacho never said there are no rights. This is fabrication and misdirection which IS infact disabling the pleasure of this debate.
details
I want to debate, I need to understand what NYAA is talking about first.
I read all the posts, read his three times. He is still drifting on a tangent here.
I can join him on a tangent of my own but we're going nowhere since we still can't agree on the basic human rights.
details
snoz I am not jumping on anyone's bandwagon..I wasn't here when they talked..I would've asked what the beluga asked, which is why I brought his quote up.
details
Posted by Damnata
I want to debate, I need to understand what NYAA is talking about first.
I read all the posts, read his three times. He is still drifting on a tangent here.
I can join him on a tangent of my own but we're going nowhere since we still can't agree on the basic human rights.


Were not supposed to agree... it's a debate?
We are arguing to different positions.
What tangent have I ever headed on?
I've been talking about human rights the entire time.
Your team has been discussing the UDHR as if I must uphold it.
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by aquasnoz
Posted by GetMisted

For the last time..
In order to say that you have a right, you must define what makes it a right.
Is it a right because you say it's a right? If that's the case, I say all of your rights are not really rights. You just made them up.
Find me a doctrine that lists the 5 rights you claim as basic human rights. Without using he UDHR!


You are still so focused on UDHR as a right that's enforced by law. I sincerely urge you to rethink what human rights are. Humans as a whole did not decide in 1948 that we miraculously gained human rights.
The debate simply isn't happening because you guys refuse to actually debate anything that has nothing to do with UDHR.


If you cannot define what makes a right, a right.. You have no arguement. You can make up anything and call it a right.
You know what? The is no such thing as free will. Prove me wrong.
click to expand


Okay lol... There is free will LOL
case closed ^.^
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by aquasnoz
Posted by GetMisted

For the last time..
In order to say that you have a right, you must define what makes it a right.
Is it a right because you say it's a right? If that's the case, I say all of your rights are not really rights. You just made them up.
Find me a doctrine that lists the 5 rights you claim as basic human rights. Without using he UDHR!


You are still so focused on UDHR as a right that's enforced by law. I sincerely urge you to rethink what human rights are. Humans as a whole did not decide in 1948 that we miraculously gained human rights.
The debate simply isn't happening because you guys refuse to actually debate anything that has nothing to do with UDHR.


If you cannot define what makes a right, a right.. You have no arguement. You can make up anything and call it a right.
You know what? The is no such thing as free will. Prove me wrong.
click to expand


I did define it... why I have to define a word in the English language is beyond me though.
I'm not quoting myself again you can simply scroll up.
~_~
details
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by Damnata
I want to debate, I need to understand what NYAA is talking about first.
I read all the posts, read his three times. He is still drifting on a tangent here.
I can join him on a tangent of my own but we're going nowhere since we still can't agree on the basic human rights.


Were not supposed to agree... it's a debate?
We are arguing to different positions.
What tangent have I ever headed on?
I've been talking about human rights the entire time.
Your team has been discussing the UDHR as if I must uphold it.
click to expand


Let's not get defensive.
We are just asking for clarification so we all define at least some part of the things we state by standards we all uphold.
Not talking law either...just a basis of understanding so we can do this shit more efficiently.
In a real life debate, you'd have to go to every term of every argument and bring up the universal meaning of it.
That's all I am trying to understand here, so I can construct my arguments efficiently.
If we don't adhere to something...anything then this will drift into:
"I am right"
"You are wrong"
"No, YOU are wrong"
ad infinitum
I NEED CLARITY GOD DAMN IT. lol, aries moon moment
details
NYAA, I am not implying you need to do anything in our favor or anything of that sort, but we are just inquiring. It's up to you if you choose to explain or not..it is your choice to do so.
Just so we don't all get sidetracked in here.
details
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Posted by GetMisted
Posted by aquasnoz
Posted by GetMisted

For the last time..
In order to say that you have a right, you must define what makes it a right.
Is it a right because you say it's a right? If that's the case, I say all of your rights are not really rights. You just made them up.
Find me a doctrine that lists the 5 rights you claim as basic human rights. Without using he UDHR!


You are still so focused on UDHR as a right that's enforced by law. I sincerely urge you to rethink what human rights are. Humans as a whole did not decide in 1948 that we miraculously gained human rights.
The debate simply isn't happening because you guys refuse to actually debate anything that has nothing to do with UDHR.


If you cannot define what makes a right, a right.. You have no arguement. You can make up anything and call it a right.
You know what? The is no such thing as free will. Prove me wrong.


Okay lol... There is free will LOL
case closed ^.^


Is Free will even a basic human right? Can you provide evidence that it actually is a right?
click to expand


This debate is an example of free will
And I've given plenty of examples I don't see why I need to repeat myself.
details
As I said before GetMisted. You might want to use your internet to the advantage Wikipedia is actually quite cool.
Now as I said, if we're going by doctrine our rights are still listed and by that route we can continue that debate it's not a hinderance. I'll echo the sentiment what if the Right to Life were ammended to say "Unless you're [insert race]"? Hypothetically if that were to happen then we must abide by the doctrine and accept that as a human right correct? Unless you've completely disregarded the points mentioned before the rights you suggested are basic yes but they are simply inferior due to conflicts.
Which leads me to point out the 'other' rights pointed out by Wikipedia. I'll say again did the notion of human rights not exist before UDHR was drafted? There were and doctrines too please don't let me embarrass your own case if you're so adamant about how rights MUST be on a doctrine for it to be a right. I can name a few other rights movements too that inspired the UN to draft such a doctrine, in fact I can think of a particular atrocity that sparked the drafting of it.
details
Posted by GetMisted
Show me a doctrine that includes your 5 rights.


No
details

Leave Your Feedback

We'd love to hear your thoughts! If you're not logged in, you can still share your feedback below. Your input helps us improve the experience for everyone. To post your own content or join the conversation, please log in or create an account.

Home Astrology Comments Forums Search

©1997-2025 dxpnet.com. All Rights Reserved.
Advertising Contact Terms of Use Privacy Policy