French Report Calls for Ban on Veil

[Slargos]

Of course you didn't, grumbler.

Glad we cleared that up, then.  Be sure to let me know my writing exceeds your reading comprehension in the future, and I will be glad to again help you understand, Slargos

Don't worry, grumbler, I will let you know when you're being obtuse. 

[ulmont]

And when a government revokes rights, and the people fail to alter or abolish it, what happens to those rights?

The government cannot "revoke" unalienable rights.  That is why they are called that.  Governments don't create them, either.  The rights exist independent of government.

Meaning that, regardless of the existence of a remedy, the right exists although its practical value may be nil.  I fail to see why a useless right is considered a right for an individual, but not for a nation.

[grumbler]

Don't worry, grumbler, I will let you know when you're being obtuse. 

And I will let you know, Slargos when (if?) you stop being obtuse. 

[Slargos]

I think I'm making myself pretty clear. A right revoked by the government is gone. The remedies in place to guarantee it are gone. There is no moral continuum where rights exist in a limbo of precious morality.

This is called argument by assertion.  Can you support this assertion with evidence, or are you just gonna leave it a naked personal opinion?

An interesting question. Is it even possible to put into evidence the existence of rights?

The government cannot "revoke" unalienable rights.  That is why they are called that.  Governments don't create them, either.  The rights exist independent of government.

Now, such rights are not unlimited, as we well know.  One can lose the protection of one's right to life by committing a crime for which just law imposes a death penalty, for instance, and one's freedom of speech does not protect falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  These limits occur when one infringes upon another person's rights, though, not because one has violated some right of governments or states or whatever.

Then who created them?

I assume that you don't expect them to exist apart from humanity?

[Slargos]

Don't worry, grumbler, I will let you know when you're being obtuse. 

And I will let you know, Slargos when (if?) you stop being obtuse. 

Touché, old man. I'm glad to see you haven't lost touch with your inner pre-schooler. 

[grumbler]

Meaning that, regardless of the existence of a remedy, the right exists although its practical value may be nil. 

Correct.  There are many countries in which human rights have no practical value.

I fail to see why a useless right is considered a right for an individual, but not for a nation.

Because nations states don's have any rights at all, practical or not (or, at least, not rights in the sense that we use the term).  They have rights in the sense that you have the right to expect fast service at a fast food restaurant.

I would argue animals are much closer to having rights (in the meaningful sense) than states are.

[Slargos]

Meaning that, regardless of the existence of a remedy, the right exists although its practical value may be nil. 

Correct.  There are many countries in which human rights have no practical value.

I fail to see why a useless right is considered a right for an individual, but not for a nation.

Because nations states don's have any rights at all, practical or not (or, at least, not rights in the sense that we use the term).  They have rights in the sense that you have the right to expect fast service at a fast food restaurant.

I would argue animals are much closer to having rights (in the meaningful sense) than states are.

To use your own protestations, this is argument by assertion. I don't see you presenting any evidence that states states don't have rights.

[grumbler]

An interesting question. Is it even possible to put into evidence the existence of rights?

The subject of the sentence was 'assertion."  When one is asked to provide evidence to support an assertion about rights, that is not a call for evidence to support the existence of rights.  I thought that you understood the meaning of the word assertion, sorry.  You can look it up, and try again, without penalty.

Then who created them?

Interesting question.  Who creates inherent things: the creator of the things they are inherent in.  Who/what created mankind?

I assume that you don't expect them to exist apart from humanity?

Another interesting question.  I would expect that most would agree that self-aware beings have rights.  Some might argue that there are degrees of rights commensurate with the degree of self-awareness,  but my current thinking is that there is a threshold of self-awareness that makes one 'human" and rights are vested completely at that threshold.  So your assumption would be wrong.

[grumbler]

To use your own protestations, this is argument by assertion. I don't see you presenting any evidence that states states don't have rights.

But the asserter of the postulate must evidence it.  I say humans have rights.  My evidence is the Declaration of Independence (which states what they are and from whence they come) and numerous USSC rulings which reinforce the authority of those concepts.

One who wishes to assert that states have rights needs evidence.  So far, we have the casual mention of a single right for a state in the obsolete Treaty of Westphalia (which does not deal with the origins of such rights) and that's pretty much it.

If you want to make the assertion that states have more rights than, say, fire plugs, by all means be at it.  From whence does a state get its rights?  What authority references the validity of those rights?  What exactly are those rights (at least insofar as they have been enumerated) and where are they enumerated?

I assert that nothing has rights (in the sense we are suing the term: privileges that cannot be removed except under extreme circumstances) unless there is compelling evidence that such rights exist.  To argue the reverse, as you are doing (that everything has rights unless there is evidence that they lack it) is madness from both a  logical (evidencing a negative) and practical (makes the meaning of rights meaningless) standpoint.

Long story short:  I don't have to present evidence of a negative, because the burden of proof isn't on me.

[Slargos]

The subject of the sentence was 'assertion."  When one is asked to provide evidence to support an assertion about rights, that is not a call for evidence to support the existence of rights.  I thought that you understood the meaning of the word assertion, sorry.  You can look it up, and try again, without penalty.

"Misunderstanding" are we now? You're really pulling out all the grumblers here, aren't you? 

No, I can't give you any evidence to support my assertion, any more than I can give you any evidence that you exist other than as a figment of my imagination.

Interesting question.  Who creates inherent things: the creator of the things they are inherent in.  Who/what created mankind?

Argument by assertion. Can you display any evidence that rights are inherent?

Another interesting question.  I would expect that most would agree that self-aware beings have rights.  Some might argue that there are degrees of rights commensurate with the degree of self-awareness,  but my current thinking is that there is a threshold of self-awareness that makes one 'human" and rights are vested completely at that threshold.  So your assumption would be wrong.

It was mostly rhetorical at any rate. I would like to see the evidence you have to support the notion of inherent rights.

[ulmont]

So far, we have the casual mention of a single right for a state in the obsolete Treaty of Westphalia (which does not deal with the origins of such rights) and that's pretty much it.

You glossed over the writings of Thomas Jefferson several hundred years later, and the Treaty of Montevideo over a hundred years after that.

You're also applying a different standard with respect to the rights of humans (you asserted they come from their creator; to which I reply "show me that creator") and states.

[ulmont]

And hey, check this out:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZcdIsXrmcPwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA300&ots=5edWxwOXex&sig=wzWWg1jSNdCfLDDFg5TbH4ZstdY#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[Slargos]

But the asserter of the postulate must evidence it.  I say humans have rights.  My evidence is the Declaration of Independence (which states what they are and from whence they come) and numerous USSC rulings which reinforce the authority of those concepts.

One who wishes to assert that states have rights needs evidence.  So far, we have the casual mention of a single right for a state in the obsolete Treaty of Westphalia (which does not deal with the origins of such rights) and that's pretty much it.

If you want to make the assertion that states have more rights than, say, fire plugs, by all means be at it.  From whence does a state get its rights?  What authority references the validity of those rights?  What exactly are those rights (at least insofar as they have been enumerated) and where are they enumerated?

I assert that nothing has rights (in the sense we are suing the term: privileges that cannot be removed except under extreme circumstances) unless there is compelling evidence that such rights exist.  To argue the reverse, as you are doing (that everything has rights unless there is evidence that they lack it) is madness from both a  logical (evidencing a negative) and practical (makes the meaning of rights meaningless) standpoint.

Long story short:  I don't have to present evidence of a negative, because the burden of proof isn't on me.

I haven't argued that everything has rights. I have protested your notion that states cannot (and do not) have rights.

As for evidence on declarations of rights pertaining to societal structures rather than individuals, here is the UN declaration on the rights of "peoples"

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html

and on the rights of states

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r092.htm

C.  Rights and benefits
     5.   Every State has an equal right to conduct activities in the field of
international direct television broadcasting by satellite and to authorize
such activities by persons and entities under its jurisdiction.  All States
and peoples are entitled to and should enjoy the benefits from such
activities.  Access to the technology in this field should be available to all

States without discrimination on terms mutually agreed by all concerned.

[grumbler]

"Misunderstanding" are we now? You're really pulling out all the grumblers here, aren't you? 

Exactly.  You Slargos the question competely, and I grumbler to correct your misconceptions about sentence structure.

No, I can't give you any evidence to support my assertion, any more than I can give you any evidence that you exist other than as a figment of my imagination.

Okay, but you cannot have my point, which was precisely this:  yours is an unsupported assertion.  Dunno why you pretend to argue my point when you only come back to agree with it.

Argument by assertion. Can you display any evidence that rights are inherent?

Sure:

...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

It was mostly rhetorical at any rate. I would like to see the evidence you have to support the notion of inherent rights.

You have it.  I am astonished, frankly, that there is anyone with anything like a complete education in the Western world that doesn't understand the concept behind human rights.

[Slargos]

You have it.  I am astonished, frankly, that there is anyone with anything like a complete education in the Western world that doesn't understand the concept behind human rights.

I have evidence that Jefferson made the same claim that you do, I don't have evidence to support your claim.

Unless of course Jefferson has been deified in your ontology, which I grant is fully within the realm of the possible.