Define "rights".

[SMTA]

Then you should apologize for daring to introduce it in a lame effort to score cheap points and deflect from your inability to back up your own claims.

I used the term to describe a lack of ability in proving ones claims. You used it in the context of what you described as "PERSONAL AFFLICTIONS" in your post #666. It does not take Noah Webster to see what you were attempting to do - albeit rather poorly.

I beg your pardon. The inappropriate sexual reference was not be made by me in any way - it is here:

Oh I get it. Personal afflictions? You think it is a sexual reference because of your own personal afflictions? That is why you take such offense at the term!

You need a better dictionary.




As I use it here it refers to the complete lack of ability to have any power in proving your claims or accusations.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Haymarket!

 

[haymarket]

That's incorrect haymarket.

No. It was correct as I called it. Over and over and over again people in this discussion have claimed that simply because one wants something that is evidence of a natural right. And it is only evidence of a want.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

No, it was "grant me the premise, and then let's look at the resulting logic".

I'm sorry, but we could sit here for years looking at hypotheticals. Some of us choose a more reality-based approach, though.

 

[ecofarm]

As I use it here it refers to the complete lack of ability to have any power in proving your claims or accusations.

That's still a poor debate tactic, creepy sexual reference aside.

 

[haymarket]

I beg your pardon. The inappropriate sexual reference was not be made by me in any way - it is here:


You should be ashamed of yourself, Haymarket!

The post you just quoted from me was post 669.
Your post with this line was in 666 - before I posted.

If not, that I humbly suggest that self projection of personal afflictions towards others might be considered inappropriate by some folks here.

My post that you take such offense to was a reply to your own previous post where you introduced the idea of impotence being connected with what you labeled as a PERSONAL AFFLICTION. It was YOU who got down in the gutter.

IMPOTENCE as a PERSONAL AFFLICTION is certainly associated with sexual disfunction. IMPOTENCE as the inability to support your claims is not at all sexual.

Go look in the mirror to chastise about feeling shame.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm sorry, but we could sit here for years looking at hypotheticals. Some of us choose a more reality-based approach, though.

If a government creates rights, how are rights agreed upon in the absence of government?

 

[haymarket]

That's still a poor debate tactic, creepy sexual reference aside.

There is no creepy sexual reference in anything but in your own mind. Its a perfectly good and usable word which refers to the inability of you and others to prove their claims and allegations.

This reminds me of my first year teaching when I taught sixth graders in summer school and told them to line up "two abreast" and the boys would begin giggling and guffawing. Sixth graders - I guess it is to be expected given the immaturity level. Grown people here supposedly engaged in debate - quite another story altogether.

 

[SMTA]

The post you just quoted from me was post 670.
Your post with this line



My post that you take such offense to was a reply to your own previous post where you introduced the idea of impotence being connected with what you labeled as a PERSONAL AFFLICTION. It was YOU who got down in the gutter.

Go look in the mirror to chastise about feeling shame.

This is exactly what I was referring to in debater honesty - you must own your words.

In this case, for some odd reason, you made a sexual reference, and commented on it in writing.

Now, you are trying to blame me for the projection and reference that you made.

Own your words, be honest, and I guarantee that people will rush to debate with you.

 

[SMTA]

There is no creepy sexual reference in anything but in your own mind. Its a perfectly good and usable word which refers to the inability of you and others to prove their claims and allegations.

This reminds me of my first year teaching when I taught sixth graders in summer school and told them to line up "two abreast" and the boys would begin giggling and guffawing. Sixth graders - I guess it is to be expected given the immaturity level. Grown people here supposedly engaged in debate - quite another story altogether.

See!? Now you are doing the same with other posters here.

Remember that judicial notice reference that I made earlier?

Please consider some honest self evaluation.

 

[Mach]

Says...who? I'm not talking about legal rights. I'm not talking about the Enlightenment ideas that founders based those legal rights on. I'm saying what about actual rights says anything about that?

Because for a black slave, if they are dead, they cannot exercise free speech.
Similarly, if the white slaver owner were dead, they cannot exercise free speech.
And later they will also admit that the woman who is dead, cannot exercise free speech (that she too will have to fight for risking life...)

The requirement of being alive before other rights are relevant, is objectively true (in this context) for everyone. In that sense it is true for everyone equally. Extend this down the line to any right. It would even apply to other sentient species, for example.

I don't know if that's what johndylan1 thinks, but the universality of equality with regards to natural rights appears to be the case.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

If a government creates rights, how are rights agreed upon in the absence of government?

Who says they have to be agreed upon? Grant your own rights.

 

[Mach]

No. It was correct as I called it. Over and over and over again people in this discussion have claimed that simply because one wants something that is evidence of a natural right. And it is only evidence of a want.

I refuted what you wrote and you have not responded to the refutation. Are you impotent to do so?

Wanting food is not "just evidence of a want". That would be simple-minded, I really believe my 6 year old understands that wanting food is not simply a want, it s a factual, objective, scientific reality that it is a pre-requisite to life, which is in turn a pre-requisite to exercise *any other reasonable right*.

Can you actually engage in this philosophical discussion?

 

[ecofarm]

Who says they have to be agreed upon? Grant your own rights.

It's a social construct.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Rights are simply rules people make about what is allowed to people or owed to people.

Yes, regular "rights". But a "universal/inalienable/natural right" are not. It's an actual thing that exists, that can't be taken away.

For example, people universally prefer not to kill someone who doesn't deserve it. Thus people naturally tend to establish laws prohibiting murder, and they naturally tend to agree that people have a right to life.

Right, just made up moralistic ideas to structure a society. But made up, nonetheless.

The term natural rights simply refers to the sorts of rights people tend to naturally establish, such as the right to life, based upon common subjective preferences that appear to be part of human nature.

The Enlightenment thinkers used it that way, sure. I'm saying it's not accurate.

 

[haymarket]

This is exactly what I was referring to in debater honesty - you must own your words.

In this case, for some odd reason, you made a sexual reference, and commented on it in writing.

Now, you are trying to blame me for the projection and reference that you made.

Own your words, be honest, and I guarantee that people will rush to debate with you.

BNo. It was your own post 666 that introduced the sexual aspect of it.

If not, that I humbly suggest that self projection of personal afflictions towards others might be considered inappropriate by some folks here.

You see, IMPOTENCE as a PERSONAL AFFLICTION is obviously the sexual meaning of it. The inability to proves ones claims is not any sort of AFFLICTION but merely the lack of ability.

Up until that the discussion was clearly about IMPOTENCE as a lack of ability to prove ones claims.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Because for a black slave, if they are dead, they cannot exercise free speech.
Similarly, if the white slaver owner were dead, they cannot exercise free speech.
And later they will also admit that the woman who is dead, cannot exercise free speech (that she too will have to fight for risking life...)

The requirement of being alive before other rights are relevant, is objectively true (in this context) for everyone. In that sense it is true for everyone equally. Extend this down the line to any right. It would even apply to other sentient species, for example.

I don't know if that's what johndylan1 thinks, but the universality of equality with regards to natural rights appears to be the case.

And that's all made up. That's my point. That's not real. The right to think what you want, though, is. It actually exists.

 

[haymarket]

I refuted what you wrote and you have not responded to the refutation. Are you impotent to do so?

Wanting food is not "just evidence of a want". That would be simple-minded, I really believe my 6 year old understands that wanting food is not simply a want, it s a factual, objective, scientific reality that it is a pre-requisite to life, which is in turn a pre-requisite to exercise *any other reasonable right*.

Can you actually engage in this philosophical discussion?

Oh but I most certainly did deal with your supposed refutation right after you posted it.

I dealt with your premise and showed how it was incorrect. Your use of a FALSE PREMISE then dooms your entire argument. Everything you said after that is then useless and irrelevant because it was based on the false premise. That is the way these things work.

 

[Mach]

Who says they have to be agreed upon? Grant your own rights.

Rights come into context with more than one person, and their exercise of freedom overlaps one another. To maximize those freedoms, people amazingly enough come to an understanding on what the priorities and limits are, they "agree" on such things (or not, and just duke it out!).

"Grant your own rights" implies a lone individual with no one competing for freedoms, which would miss the point of the fact that we live with billions of other humans in relatively close proximity.

 

[Mach]

And that's all made up. That's my point. That's not real. The right to think what you want, though, is. It actually exists.

No idea what you mean.
That I must be alive to freely speak is a fact of reality. What do you mean when you write "that's not real"? The relationship between needing to be alive to speak you really are claiming is not real?

 

[Mach]

Oh but I most certainly did deal with your supposed refutation right after you posted it.

I dealt with your premise and showed how it was incorrect. Your use of a FALSE PREMISE then dooms your entire argument. Everything you said after that is then useless and irrelevant because it was based on the false premise. That is the way these things work.

The only post I see before the above, and after my post is this quoted:

No. It was correct as I called it. Over and over and over again people in this discussion have claimed that simply because one wants something that is evidence of a natural right. And it is only evidence of a want.

I don't think anyone here mistakes that for you dealing with anything. You simply reiterated that you believe you are correct.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

No idea what you mean.
That I must be alive to freely speak is a fact of reality. What do you mean when you write "that's not real"? The relationship between needing to be alive to speak you really are claiming is not real?

It's artificial. No one needs to respect or adhere to your "right" to life. It's just made up. They really can't do anything about you thinking what you want, though. They can stop you from thinking, period, by killing you. No one said the right to think (or think well, or whatever) was a right. Just the right to think what you want.

And of course dead things don't have rights, did that really need to be said. Does my TV remote have rights?

 

[SMTA]

BNo. It was your own post 666 that introduced the sexual aspect of it.



You see, IMPOTENCE as a PERSONAL AFFLICTION is obviously the sexual meaning of it. The inability to proves ones claims is not any sort of AFFLICTION but merely the lack of ability.

Up until that the discussion was clearly about IMPOTENCE as a lack of ability to prove ones claims.

I would politely suggest that you should not discuss personal afflictions in the incorrect forum.

Obviously, your references to sex indicate a personal involvement here, and while I feel bad for your problems, I am unable to help you to deal with your shortcomings.

I feel poorly that I innocently opened such a raw personal nerve with your performance.

 

[Green Man]

Yes, regular "rights". But a "universal/inalienable/natural right" are not. It's an actual thing that exists, that can't be taken away.

Rights don't exist in the physical world. They are rules established by people.

Right, just made up moralistic ideas to structure a society. But made up, nonetheless.

Yes, they are rules that are established by people. Natural law and natural rights simply refer to the sorts of rules that are consistent with human nature, such as the universal subjective preference not to kill someone who doesn't deserve it.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Rights don't exist in the physical world. They are rules established by people.

I agree. Except for that one.

Yes, they are rules that are established by people. Natural law and natural rights simply refer to the sorts of rules that are consistent with human nature, such as the universal subjective preference not to kill someone who doesn't deserve it.

Except for that one. A one that actually exists. All the others are meaningless in absolute terms.

 

[Green Man]

I agree. Except for that one.

Except for that one. A one that actually exists. All the others are meaningless in absolute terms.

Rights are man made rules about what is allowed or owed to people. None of them have existence in the physical world.