I know literally nothing about philosophy so go easy on me.
One of the issues I have when debating politics is when people start arguing as to why I shouldn't have the rights I would like. "Your free speech need to be restricted because X, or your right to move should be restricted because Y". Now, whether or not there are arguments that are 'correct' is besides the point for my own question below, but my issue is this: if someone can construct a nice-sounding argument that posits my freedom/rights should be restricted in an unnecessary manner, I will have been mislead. How is it possible to discern the "correct" arguments from the "incorrect" arguments? Why should I believe anyone who argues I should lose X freedoms/rights when they could be misleading me or trying to convince me for nefarious ends?
>>1412987
I will post an argument for you plain and simple: you do not have rights.
You have privileges. Rights cannot be taken. One can be stopped from talking. A reporter can be stopped from reporting. A weapon can be taken.
Your only true "right" by this definition are your thoughts. You may think whatever you wish.
>>1412987
As for the "correct" and "incorrect" when it comes to morality that is too subjective to provide an objective answer assuming you mean "correct" to refer to what is "right/good".
If you mean factually correct then you should only consider what can be objectively proven. E.g. "is it wrong to tell lies?"
No idea, but we can all agree lies are misleading.
>>1412987
You are asking about sophistry, the art of being believable or convincing.
Yes, is powerful. So you need to learn and educate yourself in logic and debating tactics, rhetoric and philosophy and politics to become less susceptible to these things.
>>1413070
In the American context, "Rights" are things we, the citizens, acknowledge as being natural and inalienable. They are a fundamental part of being human. The government is legally barred from making legislation that would take away or infringe upon these rights ("Congress shall make no law...", "The right of the people to... shall not be infringed") and if the government DOES try to make legislation that would hamper our rights, we shoot them and replace them with people who are a bit more intelligent.
A privilege is, of course, something the government or institutions can take away or give freely. Federal roads, social security, and the government not breaking up media conglomerates/oligopolies are various privileges awarded to certain groups/entities. There is no saying the government has to keep giving those privileges out however.
So, OP, I don't know what country you're from, but you should probably look into just what your rights and privileges are. But if someone says that the government can "Take away your right" to something, then you can stop them right there and correct them because they literally do not know what they're talking about.
>>1413097
>I'll just shoot the government!
If that is what you believe, anon;however, I must ask if you really think one can simply shoot a government official, and all will be well even if one is part of a larger mob. I should direct you to the rest of the world such as Egypt, Syria, N. Korea, China, Columbia, Mexico, etc. there are many places which contradict the idea that one can simply shoot the government.
