(July 5, 2014 at 12:08 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 4, 2014 at 11:41 pm)Irrational Wrote: Right to medical service, free education, safety, be in control of one's body ...

I would submit that the right to believe what one wishes to (e.g. be in control of one's mind), and act according to one's conscience is equal to being in control of one's body.

The problem here is that many religious people are not in full control of their minds. We refer to them as "brainwashed". Also, if we are to go by conscience, that's also going to be troublesome as each person may feel differently about even supposedly trivial things in life. And there are people who will feel conscientiousness about everything ...

(July 5, 2014 at 12:30 am)Irrational Wrote:

(July 5, 2014 at 12:08 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I would submit that the right to believe what one wishes to (e.g. be in control of one's mind), and act according to one's conscience is equal to being in control of one's body.

The problem here is that many religious people are not in full control of their minds. We refer to them as "brainwashed". Also, if we are to go by conscience, that's also going to be troublesome as each person may feel differently about even supposedly trivial things in life. And there are people who will feel conscientiousness about everything ...

... and so if people make decisions we don't like, and we think they have done so for Irrational reasons, that justifies disenfranchising them from their rights?

Forgive me, but I want no part of that.

(July 5, 2014 at 12:35 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 5, 2014 at 12:30 am)Irrational Wrote: The problem here is that many religious people are not in full control of their minds. We refer to them as "brainwashed". Also, if we are to go by conscience, that's also going to be troublesome as each person may feel differently about even supposedly trivial things in life. And there are people who will feel conscientiousness about everything ...

... and so if people make decisions we don't like, and we think they have done so for Irrational reasons, that justifies disenfranchised them from their rights?

Forgive me, but I want no part of that.

If their rights are overriding other more important rights, then yeah.

End of debate.

(July 5, 2014 at 12:38 am)Irrational Wrote:

(July 5, 2014 at 12:35 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: ... and so if people make decisions we don't like, and we think they have done so for Irrational reasons, that justifies disenfranchised them from their rights?

Forgive me, but I want no part of that.

If their rights are overriding other more important rights, then yeah.

End of debate.

How might that occur? In my view, you've got a pretty high bar to cross before we get to enforcing thought crime.

"End of debate", my ass. You've only asserted that rights you value are more important than ones you clearly don't, and therefore those you don't value can be discarded.

Show your work. In what way are some rights more important than others? What basis are you using to determine that some people's right to live as their conscience informs them is less important than how your conscience informs you?

(July 5, 2014 at 12:47 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 5, 2014 at 12:38 am)Irrational Wrote: If their rights are overriding other more important rights, then yeah.

End of debate.

How might that occur? In my view, you've got a pretty high bar to cross before we get to enforcing thought crime.

"End of debate", my ass. You've only asserted that rights you value are more important than ones you clearly don't, and therefore those you don't value can be discarded.

Show your work. In what way are some rights more important than others? What basis are you using to determine that some people's right to live as their conscience informs them is less important than how your conscience informs you?

I don't value religious (or some other) rights if they get in the way of other rights that I consider with good reason to be of more value.

No thought crime enforcement intended. That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy.

If you think all types of rights are to be considered equal level, you think that isn't a dangerous thing to espouse? Yours is black and white thinking: it's either right or not. I find that more dangerous than what I believe in.

(July 5, 2014 at 12:55 am)Irrational Wrote:

(July 5, 2014 at 12:47 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: How might that occur? In my view, you've got a pretty high bar to cross before we get to enforcing thought crime.

"End of debate", my ass. You've only asserted that rights you value are more important than ones you clearly don't, and therefore those you don't value can be discarded.

Show your work. In what way are some rights more important than others? What basis are you using to determine that some people's right to live as their conscience informs them is less important than how your conscience informs you?

I don't value religious (or some other) rights if they get in the way of other rights that I consider with good reason to be of more value.

No thought crime enforcement intended. That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy.

If you think all types of rights are to be considered equal level, you think that isn't a dangerous thing to espouse? Yours is black and white thinking: it's either right or not. I find that more dangerous than what I believe in.

I believe I've asked how someone else's rights to live according to their conscience interferes with your rights. How might that occur? I'll grant as a given that one's right to swing one's fist ends at another's face. Please, let's have some examples where one person's exercise of right of conscience might interfere with another's rights.

No, I most certainly do not think all rights are equally important. I happen to place the inviolable nature of a person's body, mind, and conscience at the top of the hierarchy. I happen to also think that rights to medical care and education ought to exist as well - but not at the expense of the inviolable rights of body, mind and conscience.

Incidentally, the slippery slope is only fallacious when the slope is in fact, not slippery.

(July 5, 2014 at 1:06 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: No, I most certainly do not think all rights are equally important. I happen to place the inviolable nature of a person's body, mind, and conscience at the top of the hierarchy.

Great. So when there is a conflict in rights among those three, what kind of solution do you propose?

Alright, a couple examples.

A fundamentalist parent's conscience may compel him to make sure his child understands that evolution is a lie and that hell awaits those who don't believe in Jesus. In this regard, he has the right to go with his conscience to ensure that his child doesn't end up straying from the path of "good". But what about the child's right to not have his mind clouded with fear of hell (which may be argued to be abuse, by the way) and rejection of modern science? The parent might say "it's my right to teach my child what is necessary to ensure he be a Christian like me".

So there is a conflict of rights. Which right should you support? The right to go with one's conscience? Or the right to not be indoctrinated with religious thinking?

A non-religious example:

A father requests his children that, if he should ever end up having an incurable and chronically painful disease in the future, that he be allowed to undergo euthanasia.

Years later, it happens. The father is struck with such a disease. But neither the children nor the doctors in the area want to give what he asked for because of conscience. Even though the father desperately wants his life to end.

Which right to support now?

(July 5, 2014 at 12:10 am)Losty Wrote: More debating guys lol. I can't pick a side.

Clear evidence of thought at work, eh?

I'll toss a little suggestion out there. The rights we currently claim and recognize were conceptualized -and then put into words and form- in a time when this possible conflict was not only unrealized - but inconceivable. The people who made these statements and put forward these arguments (that, collectively - we now call "rights") could have had no idea what would happen when those arguments persuaded people with abilities that far exceeded their own. We ought to expect them to break at some point. They were always going to require revision.

(July 5, 2014 at 1:34 am)Irrational Wrote: But what about the child's right to not have his mind clouded with fear of hell (which may be argued to be abuse, by the way) and rejection of modern science?

There's no such right. You made up an outlandish "right" to condemn an exercise of conscience that you dislike.

(July 5, 2014 at 1:34 am)Irrational Wrote: A non-religious example:

A father requests his children that, if he should ever end up having an incurable and chronically painful disease in the future, that he be allowed to undergo euthanasia.

Years later, it happens. The father is struck with such a disease. But neither the children nor the doctors in the area want to give what he asked for because of conscience. Even though the father desperately wants his life to end.

Which right to support now?

I don't think you know what a right is. If the father has a right of euthanasia and living will, he does not have any right to force others to facilitate the exercise of his right (with possible exception of explicit duties on doctors).

You're making up absurd examples that involve made-up rights. If you can't come up with a legitimate example using actual rights, then I'd say you've lost this argument.

(July 5, 2014 at 2:18 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(July 5, 2014 at 1:34 am)Irrational Wrote: But what about the child's right to not have his mind clouded with fear of hell (which may be argued to be abuse, by the way) and rejection of modern science?

There's no such right. You made up an outlandish "right" to condemn an exercise of conscience that you dislike.

(July 5, 2014 at 1:34 am)Irrational Wrote: A non-religious example:

A father requests his children that, if he should ever end up having an incurable and chronically painful disease in the future, that he be allowed to undergo euthanasia.

Years later, it happens. The father is struck with such a disease. But neither the children nor the doctors in the area want to give what he asked for because of conscience. Even though the father desperately wants his life to end.

Which right to support now?

I don't think you know what a right is. If the father has a right of euthanasia and living will, he does not have any right to force others to facilitate the exercise of his right (with possible medical exceptions).

You're making up absurd examples that involve made-up rights. If you can't come up with a legitimate example using actual rights, then I'd say you've lost this argument.

Come up with an example yourself and let's judge. By the way, these are not absurd examples. Just because you haven't heard of them ever happening doesn't mean they could never happen.

By the way, what authority do you have regarding rights?