Missouri Bill Would Put Teachers On Sex Offender Registry For Affirming Trans Kids' Identities

[Heyo]

Those statements seem in conflict to me. How are you defining "unalienable"?

As "can't [...] be taken away by a simple law". The caveat of "without due process of law" makes the right alienable.
Your right to live, if you live in the US, is only granted until a judge and jury takes it away from you. An unalienable right can't be taken away in such a manor.

 

[Unfettered]

As "can't [...] be taken away by a simple law". The caveat of "without due process of law" makes the right alienable.
Your right to live, if you live in the US, is only granted until a judge and jury takes it away from you. An unalienable right can't be taken away in such a manor.

I still don't know what definition of "unalienable" you're using as the basis for these statements and conclusions. You've detailed a bit what you understand is not an unalienable right, but that leaves some holes I can't fill without making assumptions.

What, then, does "unalienable" mean in your understanding, as it pertains to a right?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Where? And why don't about half of the States abide by it? And neither is the union.

I think it's more accurate to say Federation than union.

 

[Heyo]

I still don't know what definition of "unalienable" you're using as the basis for these statements and conclusions. You've detailed a bit what you understand is not an unalienable right, but that leaves some holes I can't fill without making assumptions.

What, then, does "unalienable" mean in your understanding, as it pertains to a right?

I have difficulties to understand your difficulty to understand. I think I was extremely clear. Maybe an example would help?
If the 5th Amendment would contain the phrase "No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property." Period, no caveats, no conditions, then it would be an unalienable right.

 

[Unfettered]

I have difficulties to understand your difficulty to understand. I think I was extremely clear. Maybe an example would help?
If the 5th Amendment would contain the phrase "No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property." Period, no caveats, no conditions, then it would be an unalienable right.

Thank you. So an unalienable right is a right that 1) may not be taken away—at all, under any circumstances—by someone not the right holder, and 2) may not be surrendered—at all, under any circumstances—by the right holder. Is that correct?

 

[Heyo]

Thank you. So an unalienable right is a right that 1) may not be taken away—at all, under any circumstances—by someone not the right holder, and 2) may not be surrendered—at all, under any circumstances—by the right holder. Is that correct?

The only instances that can take away an unalienable right are the elimination of the right from the highest right-giving entity (which would be the Constitution in case of the US (not the Declaration of Independence)) or the precedence of a higher or equal right of somebody else.
An unalienable right to life is incompatible with capital punishment but compatible with a right to self-defence.

 

[Unfettered]

The only instances that can take away an unalienable right are the elimination of the right from the highest right-giving entity (which would be the Constitution in case of the US (not the Declaration of Independence)) or the precedence of a higher or equal right of somebody else.
An unalienable right to life is incompatible with capital punishment but compatible with a right to self-defence.

The Declaration handily accounts for capital punishment; it's just not spelled out as succinctly as it is in the Constitution (5th Amendment).

I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly, with balance of the post there. There seem to be contradictory statements made.

 

[Heyo]

The Declaration handily accounts for capital punishment; it's just not spelled out as succinctly as it is in the Constitution (5th Amendment).

I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly, with balance of the post there. There seem to be contradictory statements made.

That's because you don't want to have a right to live. You're OK with your judiciary and executive being able to kill you with impunity. Civilized countries have all banned capital punishment, in many of them life is an unalienable right granted by the constitution. It is also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I would like that you also gain the right to life in the future.

 

[Unfettered]

That's because you don't want to have a right to live. You're OK with your judiciary and executive being able to kill you with impunity. Civilized countries have all banned capital punishment, in many of them life is an unalienable right granted by the constitution. It is also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I would like that you also gain the right to life in the future.

I don't know how to directly address your assertions about US capital punishment. It seems to me that you're addressing a totally different reality that what actually exists here.

To the other point, while I don't believe that capital punishment necessarily must consist of the taking of the life of the criminal, I would not want to live in a society in which there were no capital-level punishment for capital crimes. Any such a society does not honor life and does not provide justice.

So if nations that are subordinate to the UDHR have no capital-level punishment, without hesitation I choose to continue live in the US under the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, where capital punishment is administered to capital criminals; though as it is today, many states in the nation deal unjustly with their citizenry by not administering capital-level punishment for capital crimes.

Of course, a no-capital-punishment UDHR might work great in societies with contracted freedom.

What I lament is that the US has moved too far away from capital justice already. Please, no more!

 

[Heyo]

I don't know how to directly address your assertions about US capital punishment. It seems to me that you're addressing a totally different reality that what actually exists here.

To the other point, while I don't believe that capital punishment necessarily must consist of the taking of the life of the criminal, I would not want to live in a society in which there were no capital-level punishment for capital crimes. Any such a society does not honor life and does not provide justice.

So if nations that are subordinate to the UDHR have no capital-level punishment, without hesitation I choose to continue live in the US under the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, where capital punishment is administered to capital criminals; though as it is today, many states in the nation deal unjustly with their citizenry by not administering capital-level punishment for capital crimes.

Of course, a no-capital-punishment UDHR might work great in societies with contracted freedom.

What I lament is that the US has moved too far away from capital justice already. Please, no more!

You and your compatriots being vengeful and bloodthirsty is just a character flaw and codifying it is morally wrong, in my view, but morals are subjective.
What is objectively false is, when you claim that in the US exists an unalienable right to life. It is alienable in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is not enforceable.

 

[Unfettered]

You and your compatriots being vengeful and bloodthirsty is just a character flaw and codifying it is morally wrong, in my view, but morals are subjective.
What is objectively false is, when you claim that in the US exists an unalienable right to life. It is alienable in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is not enforceable.

Expecting government to respond appropriately to capital crimes doesn't make one "vengeful" and/or "bloodthirsty." How about we not make blind personal judgments and character evaluations here?

To the point, I do still make the claim, on the authority of common sense, that the US foundation law makes the most reasonable provision for unalienable human rights that can be made by any law. The UN's unalienable rights provision is unnatural and unreasonable, but admittedly better-suited, as I suggested, to the rights-contracted societies it serves. I further assert, on authority of the history I've observed unfold in this country in the fifty years of my life, that as the US has moved toward the unnatural and unreasonable in law, our society has grown more chaotic, more anarchist, more disconnected with reality, and more dangerous.