Granted by who?
Aha. Thats all you needed to say. Thanks for playing.I think the problem is you believe you earned it.
Granted by who?
So you disagree with the idea that there are "human rights". Right?Granted by the society in which you live. That's why "rights" vary so dramatically from place to place. The idea that there are certain "rights" that exist across all borders and across all times is absurd.
It's appeal to authority and one of the most dangerous lines of thought out there. It enables terrible authoritative fascism. He with the guns defines the "rights". Except that they aren't rights, it appears as if Cephus does not believe in the existence of rights.
So you disagree with the idea that there are "human rights". Right?
Gotcha. Thanks.I disagree that there's any such thing as inherent human rights. Certainly we can grant that within a certain society, a certain set of rights exist, but to say that those rights exist regardless of social boundaries is absurd.
Gotcha. Thanks.
I personally subscribe to the natural rights theory -- I just wanted to see how far your position went. Most people that subscribe to the social contract theory will otherwise complain about human rghts violations in China, etc.I'm just getting sick of people who sit around and scream "I HAVE RIGHTS! I HAVE RIGHTS!" And when I ask where they got them, they've got no better answer than "They came to me in a dream!" or "I made them up!" and then they expect me to respect those imaginary rights.
It just doesn't work that way.
It's a concept, not semantics. Freedom is the natural state of man, liberty is the socially acceptable limits to the exercise of freedom, it's the difference between Anarchism, Socialism, Communism, Republicanism, Democracy, Theocracy, Despostism.......etc, etc.Captain Semantics strikes again! I love it.
They won't say "I'm not free to discuss that with you" and if they do they are incorrect?
No, it's an appeal to reality. You keep making these ridiculous claims that you cannot back up and when someone calls you on it, you'd rather insult the individual than admit you were wrong.
It's appeal to authority and one of the most dangerous lines of thought out there. It enables terrible authoritative fascism. He with the guns defines the "rights". Except that they aren't rights, it appears as if Cephus does not believe in the existence of rights.
Granted by the society in which you live. That's why "rights" vary so dramatically from place to place. The idea that there are certain "rights" that exist across all borders and across all times is absurd.
I personally subscribe to the natural rights theory -- I just wanted to see how far your position went. Most people that subscribe to the social contract theory will otherwise complain about human rghts violations in China, etc.
Yeah, but they do it under the guise of 'human rights'.They complain because what China does violates their standards, nothing more. That's the first requirement for successful outrage, after all.
It's not insult, it's truth. If you place the power of "rights" in the hands of some government force, you authorize some very dangerous practices. The base of this nation was built upon understanding and accepting the innate and inalienable nature of rights. If the government decides there is no "right to life" and sets up death troops, according to you we have no rightful place to resist or protest or dissent. But I say the right to life is innate to my very being. And in doing so, revolt against the death troops becomes am acceptable solution.
It's retarded to place such floppy definitions to rights as the use and evocation of rights are essential to understanding the basis of Republic. The People are in charge, why? Cause the government is our property, we own it, it derives all power from us, and if it does not work the way we like we have the right to get rid of it. But the "those with the guns" arguments wouldn't say that. Tyrannical government is fine because the tyrannical government is in the right (being the institute which can define and enforce such things). We can't get rid of it, it's not our right. It may be that rights were discovered phenomenologically, but it doesn't take away from their absolute nature.
Tell me, do you "believe" in the laws of thermodynamics? Can you show me where they are derived from?
When the tsnunami came, everyone on the beach drowned.
So much for their "right" to life.
The only thing the "right" to life gets anyone is legal cover for self-defense against a would-be murderer. And in many societies if the murderer was well connected, he was avenged.
Murder is frowned upon because nobody wants it to happen to him and societies that tolerate wanton murder don't survive long or well.
So you're saying that if someone attacks me, I have no justification to defend myself.
If someone tries to take my property, I have no justification to defend it
If someone tries to enslave me, I have no justification to fight it.
That's what you've just said.
If you fall from a plane, chances are you'll die. Because we're mortal doesn't mean we don't have right to life. Because people can steal doesn't mean that we don't have right to property. Because people can enslave doesn't mean that we don't have right to liberty. Just because exercise of rights can be infringed upon doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.
If someone tries to kill me, am I just in defending myself?
If someone tries to steal from me, am I just to prevent it?
If someone tries to enslave me, am I just in fighting it?
If rights do not exist, the answer to all these are no. There's no justification, you're merely beast doing as beast does. If you live in a society where the government allows you to fight back when someone tries to kill you, you may fight back. If that government doesn't allow it, you may not fight back. If the government allows slavery, you may not fight your bonds. If it prohibits slavery, you may fight your bonds. That's the squishy nature of taking rights as some arbitrary privilege granted by State. But the three questions I ask are base to rights. If I am always in the right to protect my life when threatened, then right to life cannot be defined through society or government. Rather it's innate to the individual. If it is just to fight your own slavery no matter what; than right to liberty is not defined through society or State, but rather innate to the person. If I am always just in defending my property against theft, then right to property is not defined through society or State, but rather innate to the person.
Making rights arbitrary opens up doors which are best left closed.
No, I'm saying that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills, since what I said isn't what you said.
The first thing I said is that "rights" are legal/abstract concepts. As such they have no existence in the real world of animal-to-animal interactions.
Ask Randy Weaver how far he got protecting his property from the Feds.
Yes, you have justification. You may or may not have the right to do so.
Why are you confusing "rights", an abstract term defining limits on government power, with "justice", an abstract concept of right and wrong?
Not hardly.
Look, you may FEEL you have a right to your life.
If your polity is dominated by men driven by personal greed who are above the law, your feelings don't mean ****, and you have no rights. Look at most of history. Your rights are only as strong as the law you live under, and when the law is weak, ie, doesn't protect you, your "rights" don't exist.
Repeat after me...a "right" is a conceptual entity with no true existence and is merely a definition of law.
Study the history of humanity. People fought to defend themselves because their instincts demanded it. If they won, they could establish a right of self-defense. If they failed, they usually wound up at crow food.
Your 'Rights' didn't exist until Civilization came up with them. Ancient cultures had different rights than we did now, so what happened to those rights? Did they stop being rights or what? In medieval Denmark you could kill someone so long as you paid their worth to the family, that was a 'right' so to speak.
If nothing naturally occurring has 'rights' clearly defined though physics then why would we, by natural occurrence, be any different? Rights are an abstract idea that man has come up with to decide upon the things that we hold dearest and feel that we can all be entitled to without imposing on others.
If someone tries to kill me, am I just in defending myself?
If rights do not exist, the answer to all these are no. There's no justification, you're merely beast doing as beast does.
Making rights arbitrary opens up doors which are best left closed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?