Summations Only

Ooo, Free For All... 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.

Ergo, your rights aren't unalienable...Proof: Internment of Japanese Americans - WikipediaMost of them were american citizens.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : your

So if you loose your rights, how do you still have them? 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.

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! 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? 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!

That's religious people. They've hijacked conservatism.

I think I got it right last time:

quote:

---

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.

---

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? I think its even more pretend than those. 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.

Sure, religious people are gonna back conservatism. But being touchy about things that aren't your business stems from religious ideals, not conservative ones.

"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? 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?

Because that's not unalienable... One punishment being loosing your "unalienable" right to liberty 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. 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.

I've never seen you advocate Rationalism before... why now?I still think I was right back in Message 68.

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.

Do those go against individuals, or are they more for entire countries? I'd like to see the basis for the argument myself. 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.

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. One way, without natural rights, to justify that is to draft legal rights. The ICC gets their authority from a treaty. Its only by those legal rights that they can do anything.

How would you determine which one? But if they're just based on peoples' opinions, they can't be said to be "universal". 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. How do you determine what ought to happen? 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. Consensus. I'm pretty sure its the guns and jails

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 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. 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. 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. It could be a set of legal rights, drafted by a community, based on pragmatics. 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". Do you have a link to their conclusion? Are you sure it wasn't based on legal rights?