|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Ooo, Free For All...
Why the hell do people lean either very far to the left or very far to the right at the cost of common sense? Is there some kind of mental block at work here that I'm not aware of? Its because even thought you're an ex-cop, you're still a pig who thinks he knows best. If it makes sense to you, then you're willing to force it upon everyone. Pathetic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The wiki then is factually wrong since there are nations that can and do dismiss just about any so called "natural right" you care to mention.
That would be tatamount to a government declaring that water is not wet. "unalienable - incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another"Unalienable - definition of unalienable by The Free Dictionary By definition, unalienable rights can not be taken away. Ergo, your rights aren't unalienable... Proof: Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia Most of them were american citizens. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : your
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Their human rights were violated. That is quite different from unalienable rights not existing. So if you loose your rights, how do you still have them?
You might as well claim that speed limits do not exist since your car can go 70 mph in a 55 zone. Right, to the person claiming that, because of the speed limit, I can't drive faster than 55 I would... those signs don't really limit your speed. Just like a government defining a right as unalienable doesn't mean they can't be taken away from you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You don't lose your rights. You always have the rights that all humans have. Whether those rights are violated is a separate issue. I think I get it: Natural rights aren't really real, they're just some imaginary things that people think other people ought to have, regardless of whether or not having them benefits that person in any way. That african slave from 1000 years ago? yeah, he had all the rights a modern day american has, he was just chained up starving in the desert... but he still had his rights!
Violating a person's human rights does not make those rights go away. They are not lost. They are still there. And by "being there", you mean that you pretend that they are there. They're not really there doing anything, they just should be there in a magical make-you-feal-warm-and-fuzzy sort of way, right?
Human rights are not things that humans are physically incapable of doing. They are moral guidelines of how we should treat each other. To reference Hume, human rights are an ought, not an is. We can say that slavery is bad because it violates human rights. Showing that someone owns a slave does not make this human rights violation go away. That's oddly religious... These rights seem to stem from rationalism or, fuck it, pull out the big card: they were just endowed by our Creator!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I tend to think that conservatives are too touchy about a lot of things which frankly aren't their business. That's religious people. They've hijacked conservatism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I think I got it right last time:
quote: And it doesn't make sense to call natural rights "unalienable" if they're just ought's... how can you loose something you never really had in the first place? Or wait... is that what it means? You can't lose natural rights because they don't really exist to loose in the first place? And how can you determine that there's an ought. If I think that the Mona Lisa ought to be smiling a little more, does that exist as something?
As much as we pretend that reason and morality exist. I think its even more pretend than those.
Natural rights are not derived from infallible proclamations of a supernatural deity. They are derived from reason and empathy. Okay, but every person has a different set of natural rights from every other person based on what they think you ought to have. I don't see how you can say those things exist independently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I tend to think that conservatives are too touchy about a lot of things which frankly aren't their business.
That's religious people. They've hijacked conservatism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Every person has the same set of basic human rights. "unless they threaten your life, liberty, and estate", so no, not everyone. Too, you say they're there, but nobody can agree on exactly what they are. How's that work?
So you are indifferent to being murdered, stolen from, and imprisoned? Do you just pretend to care about these things? Its not that I'm indifferent, I just don't see any basis on which to claim that I intrinsically ought to not have those things done to me. The only way I can see them actually existing is when they become legal rights. Otherwise, as I said, they're just make-believe. Every person has a different set of natural rights from every other person based on what they think you ought to have, so how can you say that everyone has a basic set of them? If I think that the Mona Lisa ought to be smiling a little more, does that exist as something? You say you can determine that there's an ought through reason and empathy: How do you determine if the Mona Lisa ought to be smiling more through reason and empathy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Every person has the same set of basic human rights. "unless they threaten your life, liberty, and estate", so no, not everyone. That is also the same for everyone. Why are people having such a hard time with this? Because that's not unalienable...
It is very simple concept. Anyone who violates the human rights can face punishment. It is the same for everyone. One punishment being loosing your "unalienable" right to liberty
Its not that I'm indifferent, I just don't see any basis on which to claim that I intrinsically ought to not have those things done to me. Did you just shut your brain off? Really. You have no emotion whatsoever when it comes to someone taking your life. None whatsoever. Is that what you are telling me? If someone was standing over you with a knife you wouldn't raise a hand to protect yourself? You wouldn't feel one ounce of fear? Really? I said I'm not indifferent. What I don't see, is any basis on which to claim that I intrinsically ought to not have those things happen. The Law of the Jungle doesn't use those natural rights. Its only when we have societies that we can begin to pretend that there are natural rights.
Every person has a different set of natural rights from every other person based on what they think you ought to have, They have the same rights. What differs is whether or not their actions have harmed others. No, if every person has their own opinion on what rights are natural, i.e. the things people ought to have, then they will NOT be the same for everyone. If fact, there's practically an infinite number of different rights that every person thinks all the others ought to have, i.e. what natural rights exists and what don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Rights are things that individuals/societies/cultures make up.
Rights are arrived at through Reason. I've never seen you advocate Rationalism before... why now? I still think I was right back in Message 68.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Writing them down does not make them any more real than human rights. Yeah, but I can see a real effect from legal rights - I'll get a fine if I'm speeding. But telling that african slave that's starving in the desert that he has rights and ought not be treated like that doesn't do him a goddamned thing. And on that basis I can see that legal rights are more real natural ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There are also real effects from human rights violations, such as economic sanctions and being convicted in international courts (e.g. the Hague). Do those go against individuals, or are they more for entire countries?
South Africa suffered economic sanctions in the mid 1980's in response to human rights violations. This sanction was not based on codified US law. It was based on the argument that violating human rights is wrong. I'd like to see the basis for the argument myself.
The fact that we can point to injustices is evidence that human rights do exist. How can we say that something is wrong unless we have a set of human rights to compare them to? Well, you could draft some legal rights But the human rights only need to exist in our imagination for us to point to injustices. They don't really exist out in reality, they're just make-believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If human rights do not exist then what justification did we have for placing sanctions on South Africa? So, I can see how they "exist", in that if given a person we can come up with things we should and should not do to them. They don't really exist outside of being an ought, but I can see how you might call "being an ought" as existing. But, they're not universal and they're unalienable. The OP mentions a 10 year old giving birth in Colombia. You might think that a 10 y/o shouldn't be getting pregnant. Colombians might think that its okay. That there's a difference in opinion in what ought to be shows that its not universal. Them being a Colombian, and thereby subject to the Colombians' opinions on what ought to happen to them, means that your opinion on what ought to happen doesn't matter, which takes away your ought from them, and therefore alienates it.
If human rights do not exist then what justification did we have for placing sanctions on South Africa? One way, without natural rights, to justify that is to draft legal rights.
Current events at the International Criminal Court: The ICC gets their authority from a treaty. Its only by those legal rights that they can do anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There is also the possibility that one of the opinions is wrong. How would you determine which one?
No one is saying that human rights are easy to figure out, and certainly not myself. Human rights have been the subject of debate for a long time, and will continue to be. However, just because they are difficult to define does not mean that they don't exist. But if they're just based on peoples' opinions, they can't be said to be "universal".
You are confusing an is with an ought. No, I have them completely serperated here. You have your ought and the Colombians have their ought. We have no way to determine who's is correct. That the girl lives in Colombia means that we're going to be using their oughts and not your oughts, so therefore your oughts are alienated from her. Should she ought to be pregnant or not? You can't say other than expressing your opinion on the matter.
Whether or not anything happens in Columbia has nothing to do with what ought to happen. How do you determine what ought to happen?
I fully understand the pragmatic view that your are putting forward, the idea that human rights are useless if they don't result in action. However, without human rights no actions can ever take place. The reasoning behind justice disappears without universal and inalienable rights, at least in my view. Not in my view. Go to any practically lawless area of the country and people are killing each other left and right, its a jungle out there. Its only when the law is enforced that people behave. It matters not one bit how those people ought to be treating each other. Order, even by itself, warrants justice.
Why institute one legal right over another? Which legal rights do we choose to enact or not enact, and who are they granted to? What is the justification for these decisions? Consensus.
Very much so, and the justification for the treaty are universal, inalienable rights. I'm pretty sure its the guns and jails
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Through the application of reason. And when, through the application of reason, you come to different answers, you're not going to be able to determine that one opinion is more correct than the other. That's a big problem with your Rationalist approach. I'm still wondering why you're content on employing Rationalism here when you seem to normally oppose an approach like this in every other discussion you're in. Are you just training or something?
But if they're just based on peoples' opinions, they can't be said to be "universal". They are based on empathy and reason. Surely you can figure out that if you don't like your stuff stolen that other people don't like it either. But not everyone has the same opinions on what rights people ought to have, so there's still no way for anyone to support any universal-ness to them.
No, I have them completely serperated here. You have your ought and the Colombians have their ought. We have no way to determine who's is correct. Sure we do. We can interview the girl and find out if she understood what was happening to her and able to consent. If not, then it is wrong. Not that hard actually. And if she did, and was cool with it, then I guess she didn't have that ought to begin with? How is that in any way intrinsic or universal? It seems very dependent and individual to me.
That the girl lives in Colombia means that we're going to be using their oughts and not your oughts, so therefore your oughts are alienated from her. Her rights were violated, not taken away. But the only ought that got violated is the one that you believe should exist based on your own opinions. That's not really something that can be meaningfully said to be existing and being violated.
What is Order, other than a set of rules based on human rights? It could be a set of legal rights, drafted by a community, based on pragmatics.
Consensus. Allowing a consensus to make rules for society is, in itself, a human right. Locke and others were arguing against a system where a ruling elite made the rules for the majority. Locke argued that the natural state of man is people forming a consensus based on natural human rights. But again, that's just an opinion based on Rationalism with no way to detemine any amount of veracity to it. It misleading to say that it "exists".
People convicted in these tribunals were not punished simply because we could do it. Rather, they were convicted because they violated human rights. Do you have a link to their conclusion? Are you sure it wasn't based on legal rights?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024