XCR Forum banner
41 - 46 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,091 Posts
FWIW, I also find the term 'positive rights' confusing, and try to avoid using it.
That's fine....though I do wonder what's confusing about claiming to have a right to something someone else must provide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,113 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·
When you use the terms 'positive' and 'negative' with regard to various rights, most of the average people I've talked to take those terms as value judgements. Someone who is anti-gun, for example, thinks of a 'negative right' as something like the second amendment rights, but thinks of a 'positive right' as something like the first amendment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,091 Posts
When you use the terms 'positive' and 'negative' with regard to various rights, most of the average people I've talked to take those terms as value judgements. Someone who is anti-gun, for example, thinks of a 'negative right' as something like the second amendment rights, but thinks of a 'positive right' as something like the first amendment.
And I get that....but once it's explained, I'm not sure why there's confusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
And slavery will still exist for the woman who does not wish to allow her body to be the incubator for a child she does not want.
99% of the time it's a voluntary act with a well known consequence. Equating that to slavery is beyond a stretch. I'm not aware of any slaves volunteering for the job.
Here's a segment from yesterday's Matt Walsh show explaining the parallels between the arguments of slave owners and abortion proponents.

Respectfully, the term "positive rights" was not coined by socialists or the left. It's a libertarian concept that in no way endorses socialism. It's not a bastardization at all...it explains why the things the left calls 'rights' cannot be (right to an education, right to a house, right to employment, healthcare, etc). It accurately explains how another person could be "enslaved" by making the claim that one has a right to that which they cannot provide for themselves.
I looked and can't find an absolute origin. Please point out who created it if you know. Regardless, those who promote the concept are on the left. I don't at all see how the term explains itself. It's a double misnomer. It's neither positive nor representative of rights. Involuntary servitude would be a more accurate term. I don't think that it's wise or strategic to use the terms of the left. They constantly create euphemisms to make their positions more palatable. When it comes to abortion, the vogue euphemism is "access to healthcare". After all, who could be against that? When someone creates a euphemism, they're trying to deflect the truth. That tells me they know most people won't agree with the reality of their position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,091 Posts
99% of the time it's a voluntary act with a well known consequence. Equating that to slavery is beyond a stretch. I'm not aware of any slaves volunteering for the job.
Here's a segment from yesterday's Matt Walsh show explaining the parallels between the arguments of slave owners and abortion proponents.


I looked and can't find an absolute origin. Please point out who created it if you know. Regardless, those who promote the concept are on the left. I don't at all see how the term explains itself. It's a double misnomer. It's neither positive nor representative of rights. Involuntary servitude would be a more accurate term. I don't think that it's wise or strategic to use the terms of the left. They constantly create euphemisms to make their positions more palatable. When it comes to abortion, the vogue euphemism is "access to healthcare". After all, who could be against that? When someone creates a euphemism, they're trying to deflect the truth. That tells me they know most people won't agree with the reality of their position.
Again, we disagree. It's not a stretch.
Maybe a definition will help:

slave

slāv
noun
  1. One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude.
  2. One who is subservient to or controlled by another.
  3. One who is subject to or controlled by a specified influence.

2 and 3 definitely fit the case of a woman who doesn't want to be an incubator for a baby....regardless of what caused it to be there. 1 fits exactly what you just said, 'involuntary servitude'...and it's in the definition of what constitutes a slave.

Haven't watched the video, but will try to this evening.

I honestly don't know 'who' created the concept, but I can say with certainty it's not well known outside of libertarian circles....that said, where it originated doesn't give it any more or less legitimacy. No one here has argued that you should have a right to that which you can't provide yourself. That's fairly self-evident.

I never claimed the term explained itself....I said, once it's been explained, I'm not sure where the confusion lies.

Positive/Negative rights are not used to discuss abortion specifically...they are relative terms to any claimed or supposed right.
 
41 - 46 of 46 Posts
Top