|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But it is not an intrinsic and inalienable right or something universally held. It would be just things that the parties to the agreement believe should be a human right.
That still does not make them a right except within that particular State, society or culture.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
caffeine writes:
I completely agree with your conclusion. All you're both arguing about is 'do right and wrong really exist'. No, of course not - they're things we make up. Rights are things that individuals/societies/cultures make up. But that flies in the face of human rights being intrinsic, inalienable or universal - as Taq claims.Instead they are transitory, conditional and subjective. caffeine writes:
Sure, we make them up because they benefit our own society. But we make them up for good reasons.But different societies make up different rights. There is no global consensus. Rights seem to simply be an emergent property of having laws.But different laws produce different rights and "no law" produces "no rights". Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You need to add in the additional "P5: You ought not to cause in others that which you do not wish to experience"; and then you can logically conclude "You ought not to cause fear of death in others". That seemed more like a conclusion than a premise, at least to me. I will take your suggestion to heart and rework it for future posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
No. But many people do. Yes, those suffering such intense pain (physical or emotional) that it overcomes their fear of death. That doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of people fear death, and that fear is in all of us (except for those who have serious mental problems).
Premise 1 is false - Not everyone fears death. In fact, many people long for it. As a general rule, they do.
Premise 2 is false - Many people enjoy being scared. People go on helter-skelter rides because they like being scared by death. People would not be on those rides if there was a 10% fatality rate.
Premise 3 is false - Empathy fools you into thinking that other people feel the same way as you do. I never said that empathy was infallible. The point stands that we are able to determine that others fear death, and they do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You know, others can actually read what I write. A speed limit is not a right . . . I would suggest that you read what I write as well. I have never said that speed limits are a right. NEVER. I was using the speed limit as an example of the difference between violation and existence.
You exceeding the speed limit does not mean that the speed limit ceases to exist. Just like human rights exist even when they are violated. Pointing to a government violating the rights of its citizens is not an example of a government revoking human rights.
And you have not shown that there are any rights except those codified by a given Sate, culture or society. I have shown that the conclusion of human rights follows from the premises.
Unless and until they are recognized by a State, culture or society they are NOT rights and do not even exist. Did the Earth only become round once humans recognized it? Or was the roundness of the Earth an intrinsic property of the planet from the very start? The same applies to human rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But I can show that speed limits exist, they are codified into law.
They are also neither universal or intrinsic. The exist only within the context of the State, society or culture that codified them. And no, you have not shown that "human rights" follows from some premise. The earth is kinda round, and that can be definitely established. It does not follow from some premise. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Rights are things that individuals/societies/cultures make up. Rights are arrived at through Reason.
Sure, we make them up because they benefit our own society. But different societies make up different rights. There is no global consensus. I will agree that not everyone has adopted the idea of human rights. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. Surely you would not argue that the Earth can not be 4.55 billion years old because some societies do not accept it.
Rights seem to simply be an emergent property of having laws. Rights are an emergent property of Reason when applied to human cultures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
But I can show that speed limits exist, they are codified into law. If, as you argue, violations result in a revocation, then they cease to exist the moment I break the speed limit. You argue that governments revoke human rights when they violate them.
And no, you have not shown that "human rights" follows from some premise. Could you go into more depth?
The earth is kinda round, and that can be definitely established. As I established human rights in the argument above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
But since it is not 100% true, it undermines your claims of human rights being intrinsic. As a general rule, they do.Your claim (which I quoted) is blatantly false. Perhaps you should try to correct it, rather than use weasel words to wriggle out of being wrong. Taq writes:
But there is a fatality rate and people still go on those rides. People would not be on those rides if there was a 10% fatality rate.Premise 2 is still false regardless of the risk: the hazzard still exists and people still enjoy the fear of death. Taq writes:
We can also tell that people don't fear death. I never said that empathy was infallible. The point stands that we are able to determine that others fear death, and they do.Premise 3 fails to support your conclusion. In summary:Your conclusion continues to be baseless and worthless. Causing people to be scared of death may or may not be an ok thing to do. It depends.There is no human right pertinent to deciding which is correct. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
taq writes: jar writes: But I can show that speed limits exist, they are codified into law. If, as you argue, violations result in a revocation, then they cease to exist the moment I break the speed limit. You argue that governments revoke human rights when they violate them. But I have never made such a claim; in fact I have said repeatedly that there is no evidence that any "human or natural" rights even exist except within the context of specific State, cultures or societies. Speed limits are a great example. They exist ONLY within a specified context codified into law by some State, culture or society and even then have very proscribed limits. You can drive 55 in an area where the speed limit is 55 or higher but not in an area where it is lower. In addition, those speed limits can be changed at the will of the State, culture or society. And no, you have never established any human rights. Sorry but to claim otherwise is simply a falsehood. You have shown that certain States, cultures or societies have said that certain things "ought to be" human rights. That is pretty meaningless and irrelevant. Other States, cultures and societies have codified actual rights. No "ought" needed.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
But since it is not 100% true, it undermines your claims of human rights being intrinsic.
It is intrinsic. It is still there even in those suffering pain. If they felt there was another option to end their pain I am sure they would take that option instead of death.
But there is a fatality rate and people still go on those rides. There is not a 10% fatality rate, and the death rate is about the same as driving down the freeway.
We can also tell that people don't fear death. Then you seem to agree with me that empathy works.
Causing people to be scared of death may or may not be an ok thing to do. It depends. There is no human right pertinent to deciding which is correct. How did you determine this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
But I have never made such a claim; in fact I have said repeatedly that there is no evidence that any "human or natural" rights even exist except within the context of specific State, cultures or societies. In message 63 you stated:
quote: It is the continual conflation of an is with an ought that makes the claim for you. What we ought to do is not defined by what we do. They are two different things. Human rights are not defined by what a government does. They are defined by what a government ought to do. In this, no government can revoke a person's human rights. No matter what they do it does not exempt them from what they ought to do. Violating a person's human rights does not prove that human rights do not exist. Pointing to governments who do not recognize human rights does not prove that they don't exist. Human rights are based on Reason, not on what governments, societies, or cultures actually do.
They exist ONLY within a specified context codified into law by some State, culture or society and even then have very proscribed limits. You can drive 55 in an area where the speed limit is 55 or higher but not in an area where it is lower. You can drive faster than the speed limit. I've done it. According to your argument, this negates the existence of the speed limit because an is negates an ought.
Other States, cultures and societies have codified actual rights. No "ought" needed. If they didn't codify those rights they would still exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I have never made such a claim.
Oughts do not exist in reality. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I have never made such a claim. Just to make sure we are on the same page, you are agreeing that human rights, IF they exist, are not disproven by what a government actually does?
Oughts do not exist in reality. Empirically, neither do legal laws. Legal laws are abstract entities as well. Writing them down does not make them any more real than human rights.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024