let's not get into semantics unless it is a fundamental point in your counter argument

also i have to take a test in 5 minutes so i won't be able to respond for an hour and a half

In both cases, in its most basic form, it is the right to not have life taken away, that is people who kill you get punished.

Then my opinion is correct, you have the right to strive to live, but not the right to life itself

Well, semantics it is then.

```When i say you don't have a right to life, i don't mean that life is worthless or that you don't have a right to survive, only that you don't have a fundamental right to live regardless of anything else```

literally the first sentence

"regardless of anything else" ... if you remove context, rights are meaningless.

I do not follow your logic, i consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right

I consider rights to be principles of law.

gtg now sorry

I need to weigh in on that, and the semantics is important- a *right* is based on that hypothetical if you were in that uncultivated environ.

If freedom of speech were independent of laws, all countries would have freedom of speech. And we wouldn't have to wage the culture war.

Rights can be carved away by social mores (as enshrined in law) but they're inherent to the individual.

What does "Rights are inherent to the individual." even mean?

Natural.

And i don't think there is such thing as natural or inherent rights.

So it means what I think it means

In this case, I argue that even if they are, they are meaningless without enforcement, which is usually done via law.

Every declaration of right, IMO, means that they are confirming the rights they thought they already had. Never a document create rights on their own, the Bill of Rights doesn't just create rights to free speech out of nowhere, and the US constitution doesn't just create the right to have a US house of representatives. Meaning the rights they thought they had were being violated, and it was up to them to enforce those rights by laws, and in some cases by force.

@Goddess Tyche i apologize for getting your hopes up, i didn't expect an 80 question test, i'm exhausted

@Holo totally agree. It took me a long time to process, the fact someone would want to end the lives of others as well as their own. It redefines the logic to exist.

@TEABAG!!! pardon?

are you saying that you agree with me that people don't have a right to life but a right to use every available means to try and live?

Well the theory of the sucide bombers and the fact that they would want to end their lives and the lives of others. Then, should they receive the death sentence as their punishment? However , they must surely have a cause and that cause means they don't have the right to life because they are trying to kill people. So , when they survive, shouldn't they be rotting in jail because they want to die for their cause?

```However , they must surely have a cause and that cause means they don't have the right to life because they are trying to kill people.``` but i don't agree with this statement

They had a right to try and live, not life itself. The moment they attempted to end their own life, they willingly gave up their right to 'try' and live

@Holo but then the cause ends up with them dying. I don't think they should die; as suffering in life for eternity is: a better outcome for punishment. So, it takes away their want or need to "exit" , so easily. To be honest with you, I have no idea how - suicide is not seen as strange in certain cultures

solitary confinement until death, either that or public execution

<@477272900240670731> http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/ek/EK_Heuristic_2007.pdf

waterboard em with gasoline!

@Holo as phrased, you are correct. There is no right to life, or to just live.

Sorry @Goddess Tyche, but if you are talking about something like the US constitution, it doesn't protect the right to live. It protects the right to live *peacefully*.

Life, is a state of being, like death. All life eventually dies. Rights, at the end of the day, are claims humans make, but there is no way for a human to claim they should live in perpetuity. Well, no way to do it on their own at least.

to claim you have the right to stay alive is like saying you shouldn't ever die. That's an impossibility. The best you can hope for is to live without someone else trying to violently take all your stuff, a right to live *peacefully*.

@Lupinate not even that, you don't have a right to live peacefully either, what is peace? If you live in the woods and a tornado hits, dare say that that's not peaceful at all, but you are able to attempt to survive.

I think the constitution provides a right to 'live' such that nobody is allowed to inhibit that life directly

Peaceful doesn't really mean without risk, @Holo . It's tied more to the idea that, in order to have any shot at life, other people have to agree to not try to murder or assault me on a whim. It's a negative right in that sense, as it requires others to not act.

A tornado hitting you is a tragedy, but it's not mother nature attempting to wage a brief war against you, either. It's just weather.

Peace is simply a state of non-conflict (not at war) when it comes to them in terms of the "right to live" colloquially. Tornados and other natural disasters aren't orderly, and they don't promote states of calm, but they aren't really conflict scenarios, so to use those examples doesn't quite apply to the term from that perspective.

@Lupinate that also doesn’t cover it. I’d say racism isn’t covered by that right because you are depriving someone of the ability to generate income/purchase products that are necessary for life

The only thing that truly covers it IMO is saying ‘you have a right to survive best you can without direct interference from other people’

a right is not an infallable guarantee

@Holo well, strictly speaking preventing people from discrimination is a 1a violation. Right of association includes the right to disassociate from people, regardless of reasons.

I'm not quite sure why racism needs to be covered by a right to live peacefully either tbf.

Well my point is that i think people have a right to survive as best they can, if someone actively prevents that for whatever reason then Id say you’re infringing on that right

Racism was just an example as it was a common reason for denial of service