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

Racial discrimination is natural and evolutionarily beneficial, change my mind

@ETBrooD It only inflames tensions between groups of people, It accomplishes no good

@The Electric Lizard I suppose at one point in the distant past (perhaps with a distant human or hominid ancestor?) discrimination was beneficial because other groups were liable to outright harm you (you'd only be safe within your in-group)....but the world's relatively safe compared to back then, so it isn't as beneficial NOW.

@The Electric Lizard That's not a rebuttal to what I said

And it's not even an argument, you're just stating it as fact/opinion just like I did.

Discrimination in the sense of disenfranchising others by ingroup/outgroup is a logical extension of the more classical definition of discrimination (discernment of differences of things) applied to the gradient of genetics (ie, Hamilton's Rule on a macro scale)

Its benefit or detriment is contingent on the actual success of whatever strategy (inclusion or exclusion) is employed in a particular environment.

I read all of you and I am saying the Americans are wrong and, Trotsky is way out there.

Fresh is there!

@Fresh Would you agree that these types of discrimination can be covert and incovert?

They do not need to physically harm someone, but they can, intellectually and emotionionally cause harm, to an individual, if, they are a group?

Then as a group they could cause further fraudulent behaviour and perhaps go into a sexual trafficing phase if, they are not addressed?

I would agree with you it is to do with genetics as well as collective groups, because some people, stick to their ethnic groups are more collective than others. (asch and also collective trauma and collective identity, jefferys &co.) For example, you have people go through collective trauma and they then, cannot detatch themselves from that feeling and then socially exclude people because of those things.

The determinant of the group deepends on their collective behaviour in the first place. Thus, when it comes to defining right from wrong,a country has to hold on to the Laws so that people can make ethical decisions which would test their moral judgements.

I am not picking on one group. I am saying that several groups could be a problem, for example Antifa. This is a collective bunch of people who are allowed to, traumatise people, physically, emotionally and even go so far as in to indirectly cause harm, by doxxing people - for their thoughts. So their, group exsitence is to breakdown the morals, and the ethics of the individual, through a collective.

Would everyone agree or disagree that the laws around the world need to change? Due to the collective being able to incovertly discriminate all types of people.

@ETBrooD Let me put it to you as straight as a nail, would be nailed to make the foundation.

As a collective and this has happened for centuries, where a country thinks that it is better and is able to create acts of violence, with a collective. For example,Yugoslavian wars from 1991- 1997, (I mention this now because people still are stuck in the past, and it is time you got with program, that happened of what recently happened, whereby, the EU are sanctioning these countries.)

So, this is why people do not like socialists in Europe because Slobobadan Milsovech was an evil dude and went down for war crimes in 2000 for the geoncides of the following countries: Croatia, Bosnia and Albania all suffered from the plight of this man, who got the collective and did not think about the rights of the individual.

Yes, discrimination can of course be overt or covert, and the intensity of its consequences increases with more people in the ingroup. More to the point is that there should not be interference between people to form groups should they so choose; and neither should there be interference when a person or group discriminates in some (non-violent and generally legal) fashion against an individual

people discriminate on a multitude of things, race is only one

@ETBrooD So racial discrimination is not natural and evolutionarily beneficial, what you are talking about is 'profiling' which is a completely natural instinct humans have developed for survival.

Racial, situational, and class profiling is extremely beneficial in pretty much any situation where information is limited

I cannot think of an example off the top of my head where two animals from the same 'race', that is to say the same genus, i believe, actively discriminate against each other for no other reason than dislike

When i say that i mean, if two types of sneks fight, that is probably racial discrimination as snakes probably don't meet each other often, however with higher levels like say, cats, or dogs might come into contact with differing 'races' of dogs/cats and therefore have some sort of impression of them either from personal or peers that would justify their discrimination

Our quick mode of thinking - the one that we use intuitively, which includes instinct - exists for superficial profiling of people.
Racial discrimination is linked to whether a person prefers the quick mode or the slow mode of thinking. It's easier to just discriminate against people with a less familiar skin color rather than taking the time to reconsider.
Also, when you reconsider your initial judgement of a person, you have to justify it, which can be painful. "Did I really think these thoughts? That's not nice." The less pain-tolerant a person is, or the less a person uses slow thinking, the more likely they are to stick to their initial judgement, so they won't have to question themselves.

We don't voluntarily change our thoughts and behaviors unless the easier path that we used to take becomes too burdensome. Only then do we look for an alternate path, i.e. in this case questioning our prejudices towards foreign-looking people.
Furthermore, if we have added incentive to apply our existing prejudices, then we are even less likely to find an alternate path. Such incentive could be a personal bad experience.

What stands behind all this is evolutionary: we've evolved to walk the easier path (whatever we perceive as easier).

Irrational behavior is included in this, we're not inherently rational creatures, we're just capable of rational behavior. Whether we choose to behave more irrational or more rational depends on many factors, and among those factors is the above mentioned quick thinking mode. The more we use that one, the more irrational we behave. Thus racial discrimination is a logical outcome of our evolution. We have evolved to discriminate racially.

I'm aware racial discrimination may just be a byproduct of one of our evolved traits and not a direct purpose of it, but one could argue that for many other things as well, so I think it's a valid argument.