The Glade 4.0

You're twisting your words and mine. I agree that community has the right to define itself in ways that limit inclusiveness. That does not limit those who were excluded from defining their own rights within their own community.

Simple example of this would be the differences between countries. You exclude those who are not your citizens from certain rights, however that does not limit other countries from giving their own citizens the same right.

You have the right to determine your own right, but not the right to effect others from determining what their right is.

edit. to further expand my point. what you consider a right, might be totally absurd to someone else in another time or world, how then do you assess who is right and who is wrong?

I haven't twisted your words at all, I have simply extrapolated them to their logical ends.

What if they determine they have the same rights as you?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

if they determine they have the same right as you and it's in conflict of interest then you simply start a war. History has taught us this.

If you're talking about the simple idea of the right to exsist then most of the time these rights are not inconflict with one another.

btw, damn your fast reply, i was editing =P

Wars of conquest to deny others rights which you have determined are their rights to have if they want them doesn't seem to hold any moral high ground.

I would also posit that if "rights" have a conflict of interest with the "rights" of someone else than what atleast one of those parties are asserting aren't rights at all.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Rights are determined by the strong, I'm sorry that it's not very morally sugar and chocolate sounding but that is history and the nature order of the world (darwin's theory of evolution comes to mind.) At the very basic of rights is the right to survival, if you believe in absolute basic rights (the right to live) the fact that beef are yummy for the tummy is an infringement on animal rights. Which brings me to my next point...


Thats a good point, the question is who decides who is more right (teehee). When your right for survival (eating of steak) clashes with the cow's right for survival, what happends then?

I would posit that if a species doesn't have the right to consume that which it's own diet would prefer chemically, than it doesn't have the right to exist. But since cows aren't sapient they don't have rights, and your point is moot.

There is already a word for what you are describing as rights, and "rights" already has a specific meaning. The word you are looking for is privilege.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Well I rarely use real examples so I shall continue with my what ifs.

To me personally, right is a fine balance between ethics and law (both of which are man made). I am failing however to find the def which states that it is natural and inherent.

So while it may be a privilage to have rights that are only enjoyed by the community (or country of citizenship), the rights themselves are still defined by the community.

easy example. when the right for survival goes up against another's right to their own labour, who has more right?

You don't have a right to survival. You are being too broad.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

right to survival = right to exsist a concept in your previous post.

Right to life?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Well.....she IS a broad. That is supposing you used it as a noun. Of course that could be a demeaning term if she's feminist.

If you were using it as an adjective......then that's insulting! Most broads (n.) don't find it flattering when someone mentions their tush is spreading. i.e. As broad (adj) as a barn door.