Thread

1. frogperson · 1790205477 · focus · HN ↗

   Rights must be demanded and defended constanrly, otherwise some tin pot dictator will take them without much of a fight.

   Do you what your rights or not?

   1. AndrewKemendo · 1790206304 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. skinfaxi · 1790206702 · focus · HN ↗

         People can take your life from you, do you not have the right to live?

         1. AndrewKemendo · 1790207019 · focus · HN ↗

            No you don’t, thousands of people are murdered everyday

            There is nothing and nobody guaranteeing your life

            1. mthoms · 1790207371 · focus · HN ↗

               That's not what a "right" is.
            2. AlotOfReading · 1790208092 · focus · HN ↗

               There's perfectly legitimate ways to argue against the existence of natural rights (see Bentham), but this strawman ain't it.

               1. AndrewKemendo · 1790209336 · focus · HN ↗

                  At least someone’s done some research on the topic

                  My guess is that the crowd here needs to go and actually do a little bit more philosophical reading maybe start with deleuze

                  1. lovich · 1790211053 · focus · HN ↗

                     You’re being ridiculous if you’re down to the level of saying you don’t have a right to life because there’s no guarantee.

                     In that case there’s no rights to anything, you just don’t believe in them, and you can stop being coy about by only calling out individual instances people refer to as a right

                     1. AndrewKemendo · 1790212402 · focus · HN ↗

                        Correct, the idea of “natural rights” left any serious philosophical defense in the 1970s. I mean bentham’s rotten head amd straw body is the the only body still in philosophy taking “natural rights”

                        Might as well be discussing luminiferous ether

                        1. lovich · 1790212915 · focus · HN ↗

                           Cool then don’t be coy about your beliefs on rights and just open up with that instead.

                           And ah I recognize your name now, I have always found your writings a tad off to put it mildly.

                           1. AndrewKemendo · 1790219564 · focus · HN ↗

                              I’ve been debating on the internet under my real name for…30 years? It got boring 20 years ago now the fun part is figuring out what bait makes people make the argument, so I don’t have to.

                              The most effective way to get a correct answer on the Internet is to get people to disagree with you because they want to prove how smart they are

                              It’s also the one way left seemingly that people learn.

                              They’ll see something they disagree with run off to Google or Wikipedia or now one of the chat applications, do a bunch of research (in which case they learn a bunch of stuff) and then they come back and they “prove me wrong.”

                              If I actually get ppl to go out and learn something that’s a win. There’s probably somebody who read this thread who never heard of Jeremy Bentham and went and looked them up, that is an unambiguous success.

                              :)

                              1. lovich · 1790222668 · focus · HN ↗

                                 > It got boring 20 years ago now the fun part is figuring out what bait makes people make the argument, so I don’t have to

                                 I say this from a glass house. You are an asshole.

                                 1. AndrewKemendo · 1790267648 · focus · HN ↗

                                    Ha, at least we’re self aware
            3. maxerickson · 1790208660 · focus · HN ↗

               Do you really think this is an interesting line of interrogation?

               When we speak of rights, we speak of limits that should apply to our government and the actions of others, not of iron laws of the universe.

            4. onjectic · 1790208758 · focus · HN ↗

               Your original comment technically isn’t even wrong, it’s just the definition of “right” written in a backwards ass way. Unfortunately for you this latest comment proves that this was just an accident!
      2. onjectic · 1790207481 · focus · HN ↗

         The right to say useless crap on the internet seems to be in no immediate danger.

         1. AndrewKemendo · 1790209241 · focus · HN ↗

            That’s not a right either
      3. mock-possum · 1790208780 · focus · HN ↗

         If you frame it that way we have hardly any rights at all though - it would completely preclude rights like free speech, assembly, fair trial etc

         So what’s the use in using that framing? What good is it?

   2. deepfriedchokes · 1790212181 · focus · HN ↗

      Seems like it’s easier to lose our rights than defend them. It shouldn’t be.

      The way Trump has exercised power and ignored the law should be a real wake up for everyone. Imagine if we had a competent dictator? We’d be in real trouble.

      1. krapp · 1790216135 · focus · HN ↗

         > Imagine if we had a competent dictator? We’d be in real trouble.

         We just might. After a Democrat comes into office, gets blamed when the really bad consequences of Trump's policies manifest and gets run out on a rail, Republicans will sweep with a "return to traditional, serious business Conservatism" candidate who will really just be the next phase of Trumpism. I don't believe for a second that these people haven't been laying the groundwork for keeping the movement going after Trump.

         After all, half the country still believes in everything Trumpism represents, they just want a President to follow through.

         1. mercer · 1790251134 · focus · HN ↗

            I'm not looking forward to president Tucker Carlson :-/
   3. luigimariokart · 1790212983 · focus · HN ↗

      The thing is in America we had people who will 'use their guns to defend rights' and we had 'the other'.

      The propagandist currently in control of the government has the people who will use their guns to defend their rights (which are currently and successfully being swiftly taken away) under his thumb. And the other are patiently waiting their turn at the post to make as much money as possible under Gavin Newsom.

      Its more realistic to look at the situation as a leadership team during layoffs, except the layoffs are the American electorate.

      1. edmundsauto · 1790214970 · focus · HN ↗

         I was really curious and looked it up. Gun owners went for Trump 2:1 in 2024. I thought it would have been higher tbh.

         1. ikidd · 1790311470 · focus · HN ↗

            You don't have to be a redneck moron to enjoy the things you can do that require a gun. There's plenty of hunters and sports shooters that realize that the authoritarians will eventually restrict guns to keep themselves safe.
      2. MisterMower · 1790221012 · focus · HN ↗

         [dead]

      3. cyanydeez · 1790278722 · focus · HN ↗

         Mmmm, none of this is happening because of guns.

         Money, money is rights. Full stops.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.