Define "rights".

[haymarket]

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

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

Now you speak for the masses. I previously correctly identified post after post as dealing with WANTS. What can I do beyond that to show that is what they are? Perhaps the Yale Logic Club will accept a donation of a case of Red Bull and they can provide me with a load of self serving BS which says essentially the same thing using fancy letters and symbols?

 

[haymarket]

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.

It was you in your post 666 which made it sexual.

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

Then you should not have first done so.

All of my posts using the word IMPOTENT used it in the context of inability to prove ones allegations or charges. You changed all that.
One then must wonder why you would do that in the first place?

You do understand that; your post 666 came before my post 669..... don't you?

 

[SMTA]

It was you in your post 666 which made it sexual. One then must wonder why you would do that in the first place?

The nyou should not have mentioned them first.

Not at all - please don't blame me for your sexual thinking.

You really need to take ownership of your own words, and thoughts - it would make you a more honest and revered poster here.

 

[haymarket]

Not at all - please don't blame me for your sexual thinking.

You really need to take ownership of your own words, and thoughts - it would make you a more honest and revered poster here.

There was nothing sexual at all in my posts. YOU were the one who introduced it in 666

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

You do understand that the number 666 precedes (that means comes before) 669........ don't you? :doh:roll:

Up until then the use of the word IMPOTENT was restricted to the definition meaning powerless or unable to do something - in your case to support your claims and allegations.

 

[Mach]

No one needs to respect or adhere to your "right" to life.

Who claimed they did?

It's just made up.

You could claim that about all of science, it's a pointless claim. Why not just claim mathematics has no value since it's just "made up" by humans? Pointless absurdity.

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

Which is why right to life is considered a natural right. If right to life generally was up to government or someone else, any other right is to a degree irrelevant, because they can remove your life, and by extension, all your other rights. If you're not free to own property, likewise, your freedom to drive a car would be irrelevant because you could never purchase one in the first place. Freedom to own property comes before freedom to use that property...you do understand that there is a relationship between these "wants" that can be described with more nuance than simple "it's all wants!"?

Fortunately knowledge doesn't have to be understood by everyone, for everyone to benefit from it.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

It's a social construct.

So your claim about it being scientific is a lie?

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.

I'm not sure how agreeing to not do things maximizes freedoms. I've never understood that point. Doing whatever you'd like would maximize freedoms.

And no, I do not think it's necessary to "compete" for freedoms.

 

[Mach]

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

And these "people" you refer to, are they in this physical world? Where are these rights hidden precisely, in the divine? Perhaps in an alternate dimension? Please elaborate.

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.

Yet science is just a list of rules established by people. Rules that correspond to reality. Similar to what you wrote, "rules that are consistent with human nature". "established by people" is NOT consistent with your later claim that they are "established by people....[and are consistent with human nature]", which gives it an entirely different meaning.

 

[SMTA]

There was nothing sexual at all in my posts. YOU were the one who introduced it in 666



You do understand that the number 666 precedes (that means comes before) 669........ don't you? :doh:roll:

Up until then the use of the word IMPOTENT was restricted to the definition meaning powerless or unable to do something - in your case to support your claims and allegations.

Therein lies the critical issue - taking ownership for your own words.

Don't blame me for the fact that you brought foreword the sexual issues.

Sadly, you continue to avoid personal responsibility and personal accountability.

I politely suggest that once you face your personal demons and take ownership of your words, your status as a master debater will improve.

Until then, I fear your status will involve snickers and laughing from others rife for the entertainment value.

I pray that you will make the right decision.

 

[haymarket]

Therein lies the critical issue - taking ownership for your own words.

Don't blame me for the fact that you brought foreword the sexual issues.

As IT WAS YOU who did so in YOUR OWN POST 666, the responsibility is all yours. You do understand that the number 666 precedes (that means comes before) 669........ don't you?

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

Previous to YOU doing that in YOUR post, the only discussion of the word IMPOTENT was regarding the inability of you and others to prove their claims or allegations.

I politely suggest that once you face your personal demons and take ownership of your words, your status as a master debater will improve.

Until then, I fear your status will involve snickers and laughing from others rife for the entertainment value.

No doubt the under 13 crowd enjoys your lame attempts at humor and salutes you . :roll:

 

[OldWorldOrder]

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

No, the right to think what you want actually is real. That's what I'm telling you. So when someone asks what "rights" they have outside of positive law, the answer is that: you have the right to think what you want. That's all.

 

[Mach]

So your claim about it being scientific is a lie?
I'm not sure how agreeing to not do things maximizes freedoms. I've never understood that point. Doing whatever you'd like would maximize freedoms.

Not writing for him, but in general:
1. Being a social construct doesn't preclude it from being science, based on science, etc.
2. Agreeing not to do certain things can maximize freedoms, see game theory for a mathematical description.
3. Understanding #2 above answers your question on competition as well.

You likely use it every day, maybe you just don't see that's what we're talking about.
If you exercise the freedom to threaten someone's life, by your reasoning that maximizes your freedoms.
When they take it seriously and kill you first, how's that maximization of freedoms working for you? Strangely enough, agreeing not to kill each other (or largely one or the other), has the tendency to results in maximized freedoms. Almost all society rules and laws revolve in some way around this concept.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Who claimed they did?

Hopefully no one.

You could claim that about all of science, it's a pointless claim. Why not just claim mathematics has no value since it's just "made up" by humans? Pointless absurdity.

Er...no you can't.

Which is why right to life is considered a natural right. If right to life generally was up to government or someone else, any other right is to a degree irrelevant, because they can remove your life, and by extension, all your other rights. If you're not free to own property, likewise, your freedom to drive a car would be irrelevant because you could never purchase one in the first place. Freedom to own property comes before freedom to use that property...you do understand that there is a relationship between these "wants" that can be described with more nuance than simple "it's all wants!"?

Yeah, just subjectivity. Nothing concrete.

Fortunately knowledge doesn't have to be understood by everyone, for everyone to benefit from it.

Sure.

 

[Green Man]

And these "people" you refer to, are they in this physical world? Where are these rights hidden precisely, in the divine? Perhaps in an alternate dimension? Please elaborate.

Rights are societal rules governing what people are allowed or what people are owed. Rules are knowledge and have no physical existence.

Yet science is just a list of rules established by people. Rules that correspond to reality. Similar to what you wrote, "rules that are consistent with human nature". "established by people" is NOT consistent with your later claim that they are "established by people....[and are consistent with human nature]", which gives it an entirely different meaning.

I agree. Science is simply knowledge of how the world works. Science has no physical reality.

 

[SMTA]

As IT WAS YOU who did so in YOUR OWN POST 666, the responsibility is all yours. You do understand that the number 666 precedes (that means comes before) 669........ don't you?



Previous to YOU doing that in YOUR post, the only discussion of the word IMPOTENT was regarding the inability of you and others to prove their claims or allegations.



No doubt the under 13 crowd enjoys your lame attempts at humor and salutes you . :roll:

Saying the same thing over and over still will not make it true - you should know this from your tenure here.

Repetition never supersedes accuracy and truth.

I continue my prayers for you to do the right thing.

 

[Mach]

Yeah, just subjectivity.

The fact that if someone takes your life, that you cannot vote or exercise free speech, you believe is subjective? Really?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Not writing for him, but in general:
1. Being a social construct doesn't preclude it from being science, based on science, etc.
2. Agreeing not to do certain things can maximize freedoms, see game theory for a mathematical description.
3. Understanding #2 above answers your question on competition as well.

You likely use it every day, maybe you just don't see that's what we're talking about.
If you exercise the freedom to threaten someone's life, by your reasoning that maximizes your freedoms.
When they take it seriously and kill you first, how's that maximization of freedoms working for you? Strangely enough, agreeing not to kill each other (or largely one or the other), has the tendency to results in maximized freedoms. Almost all society rules and laws revolve in some way around this concept.

No, #1 doesn't not make it impossible for it to be scientific, but after consistently asking for the scientific publications and only getting "well, it's self evident," it would appear to be entirely non-scientific. It's the equivalent of saying "take my word on it." Sorry, that doesn't cut it in the field of science.

If I (or you, or anyone) threaten to kill someone, then they also may be thrown in jail, heavily limiting their freedoms. How's that maximizing freedoms?

 

[Mach]

Rights are societal rules governing what people are allowed or what people are owed. Rules are knowledge and have no physical existence.
I agree. Science is simply knowledge of how the world works. Science has no physical reality.

Currently I am interpreting this as you are using three general bins to categorize this stuff:

1. What you refer to as Physically existing things (like a car)
2. Knowledge (not physically existing)
3. Not knowledge (not physically existing)

Is that roughly accurate? Assuming that's the case, the relationship between #1 and #2 as different from #3, indicates something real differentiates them...surely we can identify it?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

The fact that if someone takes your life, that you cannot vote or exercise free speech, you believe is subjective? Really?

The fact that it happened or didn't happen isn't subjective. It's an action that occurred or didn't. That it's my "right" to have that not happen is, indeed, subjective. It's an opinion. No matter how many people share it, it can't become anything more than that.

 

[Green Man]

No, the right to think what you want actually is real. That's what I'm telling you. So when someone asks what "rights" they have outside of positive law, the answer is that: you have the right to think what you want. That's all.

Rights are rules established by people. Your ability to think what you want is not subject to any rules, because it cannot be prevented or violated. I put it to you that you are confusing the ABILITY to controls one's thoughts with a right. You don't NEED a right (rule) to think what you want, since you cannot be prevented from thinking what you want.

 

[Mach]

No, #1 doesn't not make it impossible for it to be scientific, but after consistently asking for the scientific publications and only getting "well, it's self evident," it would appear to be entirely non-scientific. It's the equivalent of saying "take my word on it." Sorry, that doesn't cut it in the field of science.

Science requires logic which rests on axioms which are self-evident. Why is it OK to accept some self-evident things in science and not others? Whim?

If I (or you, or anyone) threaten to kill someone, then they also may be thrown in jail, heavily limiting their freedoms. How's that maximizing freedoms?

You're just confirming that limiting some freedoms can in turn maximize overall freedoms. Our agreement to jail someone who threatens our freedoms results in maximized freedoms for the community. That's why we have the law...for the very concept you were not accepting.

 

[Green Man]

Currently I am interpreting this as you are using three general bins to categorize this stuff:

1. What you refer to as Physically existing things (like a car)
2. Knowledge (not physically existing)
3. Not knowledge (not physically existing)

Is that roughly accurate? Assuming that's the case, the relationship between #1 and #2 as different from #3, indicates something real differentiates them...surely we can identify it?

What would be an example of something you would put in bin #3?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Rights are rules established by people. Your ability to think what you want is not subject to any rules, because it cannot be prevented or violated. I put it to you that you are confusing the ABILITY to controls one's thoughts with a right. You don't NEED a right (rule) to think what you want, since you cannot be prevented from thinking what you want.

Okay, this is getting pointless.

Enlightenment thinkers claimed there were rights beyond that of man. There's only one. That's all.

 

[haymarket]

Saying the same thing over and over still will not make it true

So why then are you doing it?

 

[Mach]

The fact that it happened or didn't happen isn't subjective. It's an action that occurred or didn't. That it's my "right" to have that not happen is, indeed, subjective. It's an opinion. No matter how many people share it, it can't become anything more than that.

OK, thanks for continuing to clarify your position with me. Yes, I do not think that's what a right is at all, which would explain why we're not seeing eye to eye.
A right to life is NOT your right to have that not happen. I agree such a concept is absurd, but I don't know anyone that really thinks that (maybe some people who believe in divine intervention?)

It's a recognition by those involved that its necessary to have life, prior to having other rights. In a sense, that it's of primary importance to mutually beneficial social existence. Which is not subjective. Notice in the Declaration of Independence, for example, they go on to state that "to secure these rights", clearly accepting that they must actively be maintained by people, not simply stated by people.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

OK, thanks for continuing to clarify your position with me. Yes, I do not think that's what a right is at all, which would explain why we're not seeing eye to eye.
A right to life is NOT your right to have that not happen. I agree such a concept is absurd, but I don't know anyone that really thinks that (maybe some people who believe in divine intervention?)

It's a recognition by those involved that its necessary to have life, prior to having other rights. In a sense, that it's of primary importance to mutually beneficial social existence. Which is not subjective. Notice in the Declaration of Independence, for example, they go on to state that "to secure these rights", clearly accepting that they must actively be maintained by people, not simply stated by people.

I understand what you're saying. My position is about natural/inalienable/universal rights: rights that exist whether or not humans recognize them. Often, people try to maintain that there are several of them, and I'm sure you're aware of the list. I'm saying that there's only one, that's all.