Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs)
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 196 of 300 (659861)
04-19-2012 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by New Cat's Eye
04-18-2012 5:50 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Do those go against individuals, or are they more for entire countries?
Current events at the International Criminal Court:
quote:
Gbagbo is charged as an indirect perpetrator on four counts of crimes against humanity: murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution, and other inhuman acts, committed by his supporters in the aftermath of last year’s presidential election.
Homepage - Haguejusticeportal.net
I'd like to see the basis for the argument myself.
If human rights do not exist then what justification did we have for placing sanctions on South Africa?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2012 5:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-19-2012 12:00 PM Taq has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 300 (659866)
04-19-2012 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Taq
04-19-2012 11:27 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Taq, posted 04-19-2012 11:27 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Taq, posted 04-19-2012 12:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 198 of 300 (659870)
04-19-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Taq
04-19-2012 11:10 AM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Taq writes:
You didn't even comment on what I actually said.
Taq: "You fear death. You also know that others fear death, and the actions that cause them to fear death. Therefore, you should not do those things."
You claim is wrong. Not all others fear death. Therefore it is not intrinsic.
Now please go look up what 'intrinsic' means - else I will be forced to post the Inigo Montoya clip.
Taq writes:
Your premise that people go on carnival rides because they risk death is falsified.
That was not my premise. Stop making shit up.
Taq: "P2: Fear is a very, very negative experience. You don't want to experience fear of death."
Your premise is invalidated by the fact that people on fairground rides enjoy experiencing the fear of death.
Your statement that it is a low chance of death is irrelevant: they still enjoy the fear.
Your second premise is false.
Taq writes:
We can use empathy to understand that people in great pain still would rather not die if there was any other way to rid them of pain. The premise still stands.
And we can understand the opposite it true as well.
Taq: "P4: You are able to determine which of your actions creates the same negative experience in others."
We can subjectively (and often incorrectly) identify reactions in other people and then we decide for them that if is a negative experience or not.
There are people that see others practising witchcraft and decide that it would be best for them if they were hanged.
Making a personal subjective moral decision is not related to any intrinsic rights.
Your 4th premise does not support your conclusion.
Taq writes:
Panda writes:
Even you (who continues to assert the existence of human rights) are unable to supply a single human right which isn't situational, conditional and subjective.
I have supplied three: life, liberty, and property.
...which are all "situational, conditional and subjective".
Next time, please read to the end of the sentence.
In summary: your claims are so badly supported that you are forced to make shit up.
Your don't understand the words you are using and therefore don't see how contradictory your claims are.
Your premises are invalid and your conclusion is just plain wrong.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Taq, posted 04-19-2012 11:10 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Taq, posted 04-19-2012 12:38 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 199 of 300 (659871)
04-19-2012 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Taq
04-19-2012 11:16 AM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Taq writes:
Then provide a link to the post where you presented such evidence.
EvC Forum: radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs)
Did you mean to link to one of jar's messages?

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Taq, posted 04-19-2012 11:16 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 04-19-2012 12:39 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 200 of 300 (659874)
04-19-2012 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by New Cat's Eye
04-19-2012 12:00 PM


That there's a difference in opinion in what ought to be shows that its not universal.
There is also the possibility that one of the opinions is wrong. 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.
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.
You are confusing an is with an ought. Whether or not anything happens in Columbia has nothing to do with 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.
One way, without natural rights, to justify that is to draft legal rights.
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?
The ICC gets their authority from a treaty. Its only by those legal rights that they can do anything.
Very much so, and the justification for the treaty are universal, inalienable rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-19-2012 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-19-2012 2:40 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 201 of 300 (659881)
04-19-2012 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Panda
04-19-2012 12:06 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
You claim is wrong. Not all others fear death.
Perhaps "all" is too far reaching because there are those who suffer from psychoses where they are incapable of fearing death, or their fear of death is seriously impaired. However, your example of people who want to die because of intense and chronic pain (physical or emotional) fails to falsify my premise. The fear of death is still there. However, the fear of living in pain is greater. If they had the option of stopping the pain by means other than death they would take that option.
Your premise is invalidated by the fact that people on fairground rides enjoy experiencing the fear of death.
People don't die in the normal operation of carnival rides, so how can there be a fear of death?
Taq: "P4: You are able to determine which of your actions creates the same negative experience in others."
We can subjectively (and often incorrectly) identify reactions in other people and then we decide for them that if is a negative experience or not.
There are people that see others practising witchcraft and decide that it would be best for them if they were hanged.
Being executed for following the religion of your choice is a very negative experience that should not be visited upon others.
which are all "situational, conditional and subjective".
They are intersubjective, that I will grant. However, I don't see how a fear of death is really debatable. Yes, you can find an extreme minority that fail to meet the criteria, but this is a case of the exception proving the rule. I would hope that you do not want public policy based on the emotions of psychotics.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Panda, posted 04-19-2012 12:06 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Panda, posted 04-19-2012 1:10 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 202 of 300 (659884)
04-19-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Panda
04-19-2012 12:09 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Did you mean to link to one of jar's messages?
No, I didn't. Thanks for the heads up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Panda, posted 04-19-2012 12:09 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 203 of 300 (659887)
04-19-2012 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Taq
04-19-2012 11:05 AM


Re: A statist by any other name...
So you keep claiming but so have you have shown no evidence such rights exist outside the context of a State, culture or society.
Your reference up thread to treaties is great support for my position.
Treaties are voluntary agreements between States. The States that sign a treaty agree that within the context of THEIR State, culture, society they will adopt certain things as law.
But guess what?
The fact that States agree to adopt a position does not have any baring on those states that do not agree.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Taq, posted 04-19-2012 11:05 AM Taq has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 204 of 300 (659894)
04-19-2012 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Taq
04-19-2012 12:38 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Taq writes:
Perhaps "all" is too far reaching
Good. Now look up 'intrinsic' !!
Taq writes:
People don't die in the normal operation of carnival rides, so how can there be a fear of death?
People don't die in the normal operation of planes, so how can there be a fear of flying?
People don't normally die of shark attacks when swimming, so how can there be a fear of sharks?
Do I need to provide more examples or are you going to now claim people aren't scared of flying or sharks?
Taq writes:
Being executed for following the religion of your choice is a very negative experience that should not be visited upon others.
You may think that the witch's human rights were being breached, but the anti-witchcraft person would disagree with you.
That is how 'subjective' works. (Don't make me link to YouTube again!)
Taq writes:
Yes, you can find an extreme minority that fail to meet the criteria, but this is a case of the exception proving the rule.
Exceptions do not show that a rule is true.
Finding a pre-cambrian rabbit does not prove evolution is correct.
Every time you admit that your arguments are not applicable to everyone, you undermine your claim that human rights are.
Taq writes:
I would hope that you do not want public policy based on the emotions of psychotics.
What I want is subjective and personal to me.
Public policy is based on the subjective emotions and opinions of a few people - some of whom may be psychotics.
This is a good example of laws being subjective - and it also undermines your argument.
Your premises were false.
Your conclusion was invalid.
And you have not provided a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective.
Humans rights are not universal, inherent nor intrinsic.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Taq, posted 04-19-2012 12:38 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Taq, posted 04-25-2012 11:10 AM Panda has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 300 (659908)
04-19-2012 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Taq
04-19-2012 12:23 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Taq, posted 04-19-2012 12:23 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Taq, posted 04-25-2012 11:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 300 (659922)
04-19-2012 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by jar
04-18-2012 7:55 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
I could almost agree with you if you changed it to
I don't want you to agree with me. I find it quite fascinating that you will attempt to defend the position that there is nothing inherently wrong with a system of apartheid forced on a majority population against its will by a minority government. I want you to continue defining the indefensible.
apartheid as seen by some States, cultures and societies outside South Africa, was, in the opinion of those outside States,
No need for that. The fact is that the system of apartheid was seen as evil by the majority of people inside of South Africa. Your attempt to say that all three of the government, culture and society of South Africa viewed did not agree that blacks had rights cannot be justified without viewing the black population as of no consequence in the culture and society.
In fact, your position really boils down to saying that black South Africans had no rights until the government got around to recognizing those rights.
I don't find it necessary to change a single word of my position, and I certainly would not do so in order to gain possible agreement with you. Even using your own ridiculous criteria, we can defend the position that black South Africans had rights which were being violated by the minority government. The idea that blacks had no rights until de Klerk et al. deigned to recognize them is both ridiculous and repugnant. Fortunately, that idea is also wrong.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 04-18-2012 7:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by jar, posted 04-19-2012 5:41 PM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 207 of 300 (659936)
04-19-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by NoNukes
04-19-2012 3:39 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
NoNukes writes:
I don't want you to agree with me. I find it quite fascinating that you will attempt to defend the position that there is nothing inherently wrong with a system of apartheid forced on a majority population against its will by a minority government. I want you to continue defining the indefensible.
Of course you cannot show where I ever said "that there is nothing inherently wrong with a system of apartheid forced on a majority population against its will by a minority government" but if you wish to continue to misrepresent what I say or my position, feel free to continue.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by NoNukes, posted 04-19-2012 3:39 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by NoNukes, posted 04-19-2012 7:44 PM jar has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 300 (659939)
04-19-2012 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by jar
04-19-2012 5:41 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Of course you cannot show where I ever said "that there is nothing inherently wrong with a system of apartheid forced on a majority population against its will by a minority government" but if you wish to continue to misrepresent what I say or my position, feel free to continue.
I did not claim to have quoted you directly. But if apartheid was inherently wrong, then we can also say that the black population had a right to oppose such a system because of its inherent evil. Yet you deny such to be the case.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by jar, posted 04-19-2012 5:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by jar, posted 04-19-2012 7:55 PM NoNukes has not replied

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


Message 209 of 300 (659941)
04-19-2012 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by NoNukes
04-19-2012 7:44 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Again, please show where I said that?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by NoNukes, posted 04-19-2012 7:44 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 210 of 300 (660404)
04-25-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Panda
04-19-2012 1:10 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Good. Now look up 'intrinsic' !!
To those who are not mentally ill, it is intrinsic.
People don't die in the normal operation of planes, so how can there be a fear of flying?
People don't normally die of shark attacks when swimming, so how can there be a fear of sharks?
I don't see how pointing to phobias has anything to do with human rights. Care to explain?
I don't see anyone at the state fair lining up to share needles with HIV positive drug user. Have you?
You may think that the witch's human rights were being breached, but the anti-witchcraft person would disagree with you.
That is how 'subjective' works.
Then the age of the Earth is also subjective since young earth creationist disagree with geologists.
Every time you admit that your arguments are not applicable to everyone, you undermine your claim that human rights are.
So my arguments on fearing death do not apply to the mentally ill. How does this undermine the idea of fundamental human rights?
Your premises were false.
No, they aren't. People fear death. People are able to determine that others fear death. Those are the premises that lead to the conclusion.
And you have not provided a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective.
Our ability to determine that other people do not want their stuff stolen, their lives taken, or be thrown in jail for no good reason makes it objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Panda, posted 04-19-2012 1:10 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Panda, posted 04-25-2012 11:48 AM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024