Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs)
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 286 of 300 (661986)
05-11-2012 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Taq
05-11-2012 12:31 PM


Re: More false analogies.
Did Pluto only exist once we discovered it, or did it exist prior to its discovery? Human rights are the same. Enlightenment philosophers like Locke discovered human rights. They did not invent them.
Rules for social behavior can only ever be a human invention. There is no objective law of the Universe that says "torture is evil." The Universe doesn't care. Only people care, only we give moral meaning to the Universe, not the other way around, and so we are the ones who decide what rights we have by common agreement.
Secondly, how does a society take away human rights?
A society that pretends human rights don't exist looks curiously identical to a world where human rights don't exist. The Nazis decided that human rights were not universal...and the only thing that stopped them in the end was military force from others who disagreed.
That would seem to suggest that human rights only exist as long as we choose to keep them.
We always have them. What the agreement allows for is a State that protects those rights.
Why? Because you say so?
A foreign power or tyrant could only violate our human rights, not take them away.
Only from the perspective of an idealist who for some irrational reason believes that morality is objective.
Taq, morality (and thus human rights) can only ever be subjective, because it can only ever exist in the minds of people. Guidelines for interpersonal behavior are not written in stone, nor are they numbered among the laws of physics alongside gravity.
Moral conclusions like human rights only appear to be self-evident when sufficient people have a sufficiently similar ethical goal system. If we all believe that morality is guided by human empathy, then yes, we'll tend to wind up with nearly identical conclusions, and if enough of us think that way then such conclusions will appear to be self-evident.
But if a person believes that morality is dictated by an authority figure, for an example, that person can wind up with entirely different moral conclusions and thus believe something entirely different about human rights.
We can probably agree on which point of view creates a better society, but that doesn't mean that our moral conclusions are somehow objectively true.
Rights only exist in the human mind. Just like all other aspects of morality.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Taq, posted 05-11-2012 12:31 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:25 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 287 of 300 (661991)
05-11-2012 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Taq
05-11-2012 12:41 PM


Re: More false analogies.
The issue is YOU confusing does with should.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Taq, posted 05-11-2012 12:41 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:07 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 288 of 300 (661992)
05-11-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Taq
05-11-2012 12:43 PM


Re: except of course, the ten commandments are unrelated to rights.
Of course it was the State, society or culture that wrote the agreement.
It really is that simple.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Taq, posted 05-11-2012 12:43 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:06 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 289 of 300 (662399)
05-15-2012 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by jar
05-11-2012 2:01 PM


Re: except of course, the ten commandments are unrelated to rights.
Of course it was the State, society or culture that wrote the agreement.
I never argued otherwise. They wrote the agreement based on human rights that exist outside of the state, society, or culture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by jar, posted 05-11-2012 2:01 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 290 of 300 (662400)
05-15-2012 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by jar
05-11-2012 2:00 PM


Re: More false analogies.
The issue is YOU confusing does with should.
Could you go into more depth on this one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by jar, posted 05-11-2012 2:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 11:19 AM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 291 of 300 (662403)
05-15-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Taq
05-15-2012 11:07 AM


Re: More false analogies.
It is really very simple.
You seem to think that something that "should be" really is. The very fact that the word "should" can be asserted proves that it does not exist.
Rights exist only when recognized by a State, culture or society. There is no such thing as a universal or inalienable right except within the consensus of that State, culture or society.
Rights are simply a construct of a given State, culture or society an even then are usually limited in context and extent, and are created through a consensus within that State, culture or society and have no existence outside that State, culture or society and are not even universal or inalienable within that State, culture or society.
It is only when that State, culture or society removes the term "should" and substitutes the term "is" through either building consensus or imposition by force, compulsion, intimidation or coercion that the rights have any existence.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:07 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:31 AM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 292 of 300 (662405)
05-15-2012 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Rahvin
05-11-2012 12:55 PM


Re: More false analogies.
Rules for social behavior can only ever be a human invention.
But what do we base the rules on? I have argued in this thread that the rules should be based on human rights that can be objectively determined through empathy and reason.
There is no objective law of the Universe that says "torture is evil." The Universe doesn't care.
Throughout this thread I have argued that we can objectively determine what human rights are. The Golden Rule is a decent approximation.
A society that pretends human rights don't exist looks curiously identical to a world where human rights don't exist.
Human rights are not a list of actions that humans are physically incapable of doing. I have never pretended that they are. This comes down to Hume's Is/Ought problem. We don't derive what a society ought to do by what a society is doing.
Why? Because you say so?
I have said so with the backing of what I consider to be a compelling argument. Do you want your stuff stolen? Probably not. Are you able to determine that another person is sentient like you are and would feel the same emotions as you if their stuff was stolen? Yes. Therefore, you should not steal other peoples stuff because it is something that you do not want done to you.
Taq, morality (and thus human rights) can only ever be subjective, because it can only ever exist in the minds of people.
I am arguing that it can be objective because we share the same fundamental emotions and are capable of using empathy and reason.
But if a person believes that morality is dictated by an authority figure, for an example, that person can wind up with entirely different moral conclusions and thus believe something entirely different about human rights.
This would be a case of someone ignoring empathy and reason, therefore leading to subjective conclusions on human rights.
Rights only exist in the human mind.
As much as any objective scientific model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Rahvin, posted 05-11-2012 12:55 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 293 of 300 (662406)
05-15-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by jar
05-15-2012 11:19 AM


Re: More false analogies.
You seem to think that something that "should be" really is.
No, I am arguing that empathy and reason are real. Using these two things we can arrive at the objective conclusion of human rights.
Rights exist only when recognized by a State, culture or society. There is no such thing as a universal or inalienable right except within the consensus of that State, culture or society.
It is my stance that these rights exist whether or not a state, culture, or society recognizes them. They have always existed as long as humans have been sentient. A state, culture, or society does not need to recognize these rights in order for them to exist. Violating a person's human rights does not make those rights go away.
It is only when that State, culture or society removes the term "should" and substitutes the term "is" through either building consensus or imposition by force, compulsion, intimidation or coercion that the rights have any existence.
What you are talking about is the decision to punish those who violate human rights. This is different than determining if these rights exist in the first place.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 11:19 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 11:34 AM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 294 of 300 (662407)
05-15-2012 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Taq
05-15-2012 11:31 AM


Re: More false analogies.
I fully understand your stance but so far you have not provided any support for that position.
It really is that simple.
Reason and empathy are not rights, nor are they universal nor are they inalienable.
Until and unless you can provide some testable evidence to support your assertion, you have nothing but your opinions.
AbE: nor am I just talking about punishment. Read what I write fully, what you even quoted.
jar writes:
It is only when that State, culture or society removes the term "should" and substitutes the term "is" through either building consensus or imposition by force, compulsion, intimidation or coercion that the rights have any existence.
Note the term "consensus".
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:31 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:50 AM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 295 of 300 (662412)
05-15-2012 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by jar
05-15-2012 11:34 AM


Re: More false analogies.
I fully understand your stance but so far you have not provided any support for that position.
You could at least acknowledge that I have put forward an argument for human rights, and then show why that argument fails. That would seem to be more productive than pretending that I never put an argument forward.
Reason and empathy are not rights, nor are they universal nor are they inalienable.
I never said that they were. I said that one can use reason and empathy to arrive at human rights.
Until and unless you can provide some testable evidence to support your assertion, you have nothing but your opinions.
Here is the test. I say that not having your stuff taken away for no reason is a human right. We test this by determining if a vast majority of sane people do not like to have their stuff stolen from them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 11:34 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 11:54 AM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 296 of 300 (662413)
05-15-2012 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Taq
05-15-2012 11:50 AM


Re: More false analogies.
Whether someone likes or dislikes something is not a matter of rights nor does it show that any rights exist.
I will acknowledge that you have put forward an argument that you believe human rights should exist, but so far I have seen no argument that shows that human rights exist except where they are implemented and accepted by a State, culture or society.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:50 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Taq, posted 05-17-2012 6:02 PM jar has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 297 of 300 (662506)
05-16-2012 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Taq
05-09-2012 4:03 PM


Taq writes:
At least I attempt to add something of substance to the thread. Perhaps you could give that a try?
since when is moving the goalposts adding substance?
your delusions of you adding substance is funnier than Dr. Semantics!!!
ROFL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Taq, posted 05-09-2012 4:03 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Taq, posted 05-17-2012 5:56 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 298 of 300 (662656)
05-17-2012 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Artemis Entreri
05-16-2012 10:03 AM


since when is moving the goalposts adding substance?
your delusions of you adding substance is funnier than Dr. Semantics!!!
Where did I move the goalposts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-16-2012 10:03 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 299 of 300 (662658)
05-17-2012 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by jar
05-15-2012 11:54 AM


Re: More false analogies.
Whether someone likes or dislikes something is not a matter of rights nor does it show that any rights exist.
Why not?
I will acknowledge that you have put forward an argument that you believe human rights should exist, but so far I have seen no argument that shows that human rights exist except where they are implemented and accepted by a State, culture or society.
In that argument I argue that they do exist outside of any state, culture, or society. My argument is based on the idea of empathy and reason, not the sovereignty of a state or the consensus of a culture. The idea is that we are sentient, we are capable of empathy, and we are able to understand the pain we cause in others. If you think it is wrong for people to kill you without cause, take your stuff without cause, or imprison you without cause then it is wrong for you to do the same to someone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 11:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by jar, posted 05-17-2012 6:26 PM Taq has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 300 of 300 (662661)
05-17-2012 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Taq
05-17-2012 6:02 PM


Re: More false analogies.
What I think is totally irrelevant to the issue of rights.
It really is that simple.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Taq, posted 05-17-2012 6:02 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024