|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You keep repeating the same thing but never show any connection between desires and rights or the existence of any rights.
Emotion is not synonymous with "right". Empathy is not synonymous with "right".Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, where are there any inalienable rights in what you posted?
By definition something that "ought to be" does not exist.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but so far you have not shown any evidence that any "ought to be" is a right.
Laws are not "a list of ought to's and ought not's ", nor are they intrinsic or inalienable. The fact is that throughout history the evidence shows that there are no intrinsic or inalienable rights other than those agreed to within a given State, society or culture. AbE: YOU might reason that certain things "Ought to be" rights, but that says nothing about whether or not those so called rights exist. In addition, all of the evidence shows that such rights are neither intrinsic or inalienable and in fact have been taken away withing various States, societies and cultures. Edited by jar, : see AbE:Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I look at what you call evidence and find that it simply supports the posit6ion that there are no intrinsic or inalienable rights.
I am not arguing that doing 95 in a 35 speed limit area disproves speed limits, in fact speed limits exist only within and due to the consent of a State, society or culture. There is no right to drive at any speed, rather a speed limit simply says that the State has the right to sanction you should you exceed that speed limit. The evidence that there is no intrinsic or inalienable right is that States regularly revoke any right you have named so far. The State or society or culture can and does decide just what rights an individual might have.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Amnesty International simply tries to build a consensus and can confer no rights whatsoever.
They are great evidence that no intrinsic or inalienable rights exist. Rights only exist within the context of a State, society or culture. The speed limit does not cease to exist when you exceed it because it is still codified by a particular State, culture or society. The speed limit though is still not related in anyway to a right. In fact it is just the opposite, a proscription. It does not say that you can drive that speed, only that it is not illegal to drive that fast. And again, teh State, culture or society that established the speed limit can change, raise, lower or abolish that particular speed limit at any time.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, as an individual you can not revoke any rights. Period.
Speed limits are not a right. Period. Speed limits do not cease to exist as soon as you exceed them nor have I ever made such a claim or assertion. As long as the LIMIT (not a right) is codified by some State, culture or society it exists. Amnesty International can lobby for a State, culture or society to adopt what they believe should be some right, but unless the State, culture or society agrees, it is a non-issue.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
You know, others can actually read what I write.
A speed limit is not a right and exists only within the context of the State, culture or society that codified it. You exceeding the speed limit does not mean that the speed limit ceases to exist. As long as the LIMIT (not a right) is codified within the context of the State, culture or society it exists. And you have not shown that there are any rights except those codified by a given Sate, culture or society. And yes, there are things that you and I might well agree SHOULD be human rights, but that does not mean that they ARE human rights. Unless and until they are recognized by a State, culture or society they are NOT rights and do not even exist.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I have seen no evidence that human rights exist except within the context of a State, culture or society.
Since there are no human rights outside of that context then there is no way can they can be violated. And of course laws exist and are not abstract entities.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
taq writes: I presented that evidence outside of the context of a state, culture, or society. You flatly dismissed it without explaining why. I was hoping that you could explain why you reject the conclusion drawn from the premises. Then provide a link to the post where you presented such evidence.
taq writes: I have seen no evidence that laws exist outside of being abstract entities. You are free of course to take such a position. I will warn you though that taking such a position may well lead to your incarceration in very non-abstract prisons. Your example of South Africa is yet another great example to support my position. Restrictions and sanctions were placed against South Africa ONLY because States, cultures and societies decided to enact certain limited rights as "human rights". But even there, it was ONLY within the context of that limited incident. It was only when South Africa decided that within the context of South Africa the State, society and culture would grant those limited rights that for South Africans those rights even existed even in the limited scope that exists.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually, the US Sanctions were very much based in US Law.
The corporate sanctions were based on societal pressure.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is an acknowledgement of fact.
Until South Africa decided that blacks had rights, the blacks did not have rights. When you say "A more fact based analysis would be that apartheid was a denial of basic human rights by a minority government and society in a superior position to wrongly deny basic human rights." I could almost agree with you if you changed it to "A more fact based analysis would be that apartheid as seen by some States, cultures and societies outside South Africa, was, in the opinion of those outside States, cultures and societies, a denial of basic human rights by a minority government and society in a superior position to wrongly deny basic human rights."Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024