Summations Only

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. 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. 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. ...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.

Did you mean to link to one of jar's messages?

Good. Now look up '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?Do I need to provide more examples or are you going to now claim people aren't scared of flying or sharks? 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!) 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. 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.

Being 'mentally ill' is irrelevant. The main requirement is not knowing what 'intrinsic' means.
Go on - look it up. I double dare you! If you are unable to remember what the fuck you are talking about, then it is possible to click the links at the bottom of these posts and read what you have written. If all that geologists were doing was positing an opinion then yes.
But geologists have evidence to back up there claims.
Whereas you do not. Because your false premises make your conclusion regarding human rights invalid.
That's how logic works: false premises = invalid conclusion. But that is not what you said. You are now altering your premises because they were shown to be invalid.
They have now changed to "MOST people fear death. MOST people are able to determine that others fear death."
'Most' is not 'All'. It is also not compatible with 'inalienable', 'intrinsic' or 'universal'.
Your blatant goal-post moving shows that even you know your premises were wrong.
But the further you move the goal posts, the more obvious the invalidity of your conclusion becomes. Those are not 'objective rights' (LOL at "for no good reason")
In fact, they are not even 'rights'.You continue to be unable to provide a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective.
This fact alone says more about your baseless claim than anything else.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

But you seem to have forgotten what it means.
It is not possible for a single person to lack something that is "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a [person]".
If some people (however few) don't have something - it is, by definition, not intrinsic. Wrong. I remember perfectly well.
You are the one asking what it is you are talking about.
I suggest that you click the links below to refresh your memory of what you have written. I repeat my previous post:
'Most' is not 'All'. It is also not compatible with 'inalienable', 'intrinsic' or 'universal'.
You have provided no evidence of intrinsic rights.
Instead you keep describing how human rights are not applicable to everyone. And "objective observations of the human condition" are not 'rights'.
So....back to my first statement: you have not provided a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective. So, if a person's unconditional right to liberty was taken away then the perpetrator would be committing a breach of that person's human rights?
Would you like me to list the countries than need to be arrested?Ah...but, as you stated earlier, a person's right to liberty is dependant on many different factors.
So - liberty would be a very conditional human right, right?
Someone that refuses to pay a speeding fine doesn't have the human right to liberty.Your other examples are equally as situational, conditional and subjective.

But Taq disagrees that countries that imprison people are "evil doers".
He thinks that imprisonment is fine under certain circumstances.
The "list of evil doers" becomes relevant when someone (e.g. Taq) denies that they are evil.
My question was mainly to point out the inconsistency of Taq's position. But also, no-one is claiming that legal rights are intrinsic to being human.
Legal rights are (usually) created by governments. This is sometimes by a consensus of opinion; sometimes by just the word of a despot.
They are not universal, intrinsic or inalienable rights.
And they only exist in the context (e.g. country) that they are created.Human rights also only exist in the context (e.g. personal imagination) that they are created.
Human rights are created based on our own personal morality.
To claim that universal human rights exist is as false as claiming a universal morality exists. Do we have a right to liberty? Or do we only sometimes have a right to liberty?
Taq's position is that we only sometimes have that right.
But if we only sometimes have a right to liberty, then that right is neither inalienable nor intrinsic.
And if our right to liberty can be legitimately overwritten by a country's laws, then human rights are based on the non-universal laws of whatever country you happen to be in.

Because 'just cause' is subjective.How many people are imprisoned for possession of cannabis?
How many people consider that to be a "just cause"?
How many people consider all those governments to be breaching human rights?
Who is correct? For the sake of this discussion about inalienable human rights, I was thinking that we could ignore the alienable human rights and focus on just the inalienable human rights. Rights can't be both 'inherent' and 'alienable'. Yes. A consistent paradox. But those actions are different, depending on which country you happen to be in.
The rights you are describing vary, depending on where you live, what you do, who you are, etc. 'Murder' is a legal term. What constitutes murder is dependant on which country you live in.
This means that the human right you are describing is based on specific country's legal laws and is not inalienable.You are moving towards claiming that:
"You have a right of freedom of motion as long as you don't kill your brother in certain ways* in specific countries**. [*Please refer to each individual country's laws to see which 'ways' are pertinent. **Countries where there are no laws against murder do not have this restriction.]"
Does that sound like an intrinsic, inalienable, universal human right, to you?Eventually you will be left with just the vague claim that "We sometimes have the right to do certain things at certain times in certain places. The specifics vary considerably."Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

There also appears to be no intrinsic right to liberty.You implied that liberty is possibly an inherent right:

quote:

---

Why can't there cannot be an inherent right against imprisonment without just cause.

---

Since some people are imprisoned for cannabis possession and some people consider cannabis possession to not justify imprisonment, are the governments that imprison people for cannabis possession breaching their human right to liberty?
And is someone disagrees with your answer, how do we determine who is correct? Some people disagree with your suggestion that the "right not to be tortured by others" is an absolutely inalienable human right.
Some people agree with your suggestion that the "right not to be tortured by others" is an absolutely inalienable human right.
Who is correct and why?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Your repeated reference to "the vast majority of people" proves your own argument false.
Until you are unable to state "all people" then human rights are by definition not intrinsic. And you have not provided a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective. Did I ever say that you did? No.
Now try answering the question: If a person's liberty was taken away then the perpetrator would be committing a breach of that person's unconditional human right to liberty, yes? So....that would be a situational, conditional and subjective human right, then.And we are back to my first statement: you have not provided a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Do "human rights" really exist, when they can be so easily taken away, asks Will Self.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17866473
This article talks about what we have been discussing.Although I am not putting this forward as evidential support, I am willing to discuss what he has written.
I more thought that it would be an interesting on-topic read.
(I have always found Will Self to be a funny and articulate writer.)

Sobriety is not your enemy.
Don't fight it.

But Taq said that it wasn't.
And the fact that different people feel differently about something that only happens in certain countries shows how non-universal the human right of 'liberty' is. Then who's opinion should we use and why?

Because if a situation can take away an 'inalienable' right then it is not inalienable.
Because if conditions remove an 'inherent' right then it is not inherent.If a human right can be removed then it is neither inalienable nor inherent.
That's what inalienable and inherent mean.Let's start with the first word and work from there.
Inalienable: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
So - tell me again about how these inalienable human rights are taken away....

No. The problem is you aren't able to rad back and remember what is being discussed. Certainly.
I will use the examples of human rights being legitimately revoked, which you have previously agreed with: Is imprisonment a breach of a human's right to liberty?
Or is a human's right to liberty taken away when they commit certain crimes?
You can't have both.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

That is a question for Taq, not me.