|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs) | |||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
You agree it is not 100% therefore it is not intrinsic.
You didn't even comment on what I actually said. Here it is again: "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."
Your reply has not even attempted to support your premise. Your 2nd premise remains false. Your premise that people go on carnival rides because they risk death is falsified. My premise remains.
Then you seem to agree with me that premise 3 fails to support your conclusion. 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.
Because if there was a pertinent human right then you would have stated it and not replied with the impossible demand for me to "prove a negative". Perhaps you should not make claims that rely on a universal negative.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Then provide a link to the post where you presented such evidence. EvC Forum: radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs)
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. Just as people have been imprisoned for violations of human rights.
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". The actions taken by the government were based on consensus. They were justified by the principle of human rights which are universal and inalienable.
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. They existed the entire time. That is why sanctions were put in place, because the government was violating their human rights. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Do those go against individuals, or are they more for entire countries? Current events at the International Criminal Court:
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Did you mean to link to one of jar's messages?
No, I didn't. Thanks for the heads up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
How would you determine which one?
Through the application of reason.
But if they're just based on peoples' opinions, they can't be said to be "universal". They are based on empathy and reason. Surely you can figure out that if you don't like your stuff stolen that other people don't like it either.
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. Sure we do. We can interview the girl and find out if she understood what was happening to her and able to consent. If not, then it is wrong. Not that hard actually.
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. Her rights were violated, not taken away.
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. What is Order, other than a set of rules based on human rights? How do we determine which rules to live by, and who gets to determine those rules?
Consensus. Allowing a consensus to make rules for society is, in itself, a human right. Locke and others were arguing against a system where a ruling elite made the rules for the majority. Locke argued that the natural state of man is people forming a consensus based on natural human rights.
I'm pretty sure its the guns and jails No, it is not. The ICC is an extension of the UN which was initiated to protect human rights in the wake of the atrocities in both world wars. The tribunals in both Tokyo and Nuremburg were models for the ICC. People convicted in these tribunals were not punished simply because we could do it. Rather, they were convicted because they violated human rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Being 'mentally ill' is irrelevant. The main requirement is not knowing what 'intrinsic' means.
I already posted a definition. I have looked it up.
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. I guess you are incapable of remembering as well?
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. My evidence is that the vast, vast majority of people do not like to be killed, do not like to have their stuff stolen, and do not like to be put in jail for no good reason.
Because your false premises make your conclusion regarding human rights invalid. Would you agree that the vast majority of people do not want to be killed, do not want their stuff stolen, and do not want to be put in jail for no good reason?
But that is not what you said. You are altering your premises because they were shown to be invalid. It has 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'. The fact that the exceptions are the mentally ill does not negate the argument. The fact that we can determine that there is something wrong with the mentally ill only stresses the conclusion that human rights do exist. Otherwise, how could we say that they are mentally ill? If it all just subjective, why can't we say that they are normal?
Those are not 'objective rights' (LOL at "for no good reason") In fact, they are not even 'rights'. They are objective observations of the human condition.
You continue to be unable to provide a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective. I have supplied three: life, liberty, and property.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
It is not possible for a single person to lack something that is "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a [person]".
That is exactly my point. Human rights are intrinsic to being human.
I repeat my previous post: 'Most' is not 'All'. It is also not compatible with 'inalienable', 'intrinsic' or 'universal'. I am saying that human rights are intrinsic to being human.
And "objective observations of the human condition" are not 'rights'. The observations that lead to the conclusion of human rights are objective making human rights an objective conclusion.
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? Yes, please. Did I ever argue that no country was currently violating human rights? Part of the reason that the UN was formed was to put pressure on countries that were violating human rights.
Ah...but, as you stated earlier, a person's right to liberty is dependant on many different factors.
It is also dependent on a person's right to self defense as part of that liberty. When you threaten another person's liberty you can be punished. As Locke puts it:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
I would hope that we could come to the correct conclusion through discussions like these.
Are you just training or something? Perhaps.
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. This is why I was pointing to the universal-ness of people wanting life, liberty, and property (excluding the mentally ill for Panda's sake). I don't know of a fully functioning human who thinks nothing of being jailed for the rest of their life simply because they wore the wrong colored shirt one day. Do you?
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. If you look back through the last 300 years of history, those oughts have been very powerful and very meaningful. It has shaped modern western civilization. In the US, we revere these ideas as the very meaning of what it is to be an American citizen. We are taught in government classes that we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Why? Because we were born with those rights, not as Americans but as humans.
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". They exist as much as any conclusion drawn from premises.
Do you have a link to their conclusion? Are you sure it wasn't based on legal rights? The Nuremburg trial was founded on the London Charter which was further based on the Moscow Declaration: Statement on Atrocities:
quote: Obviously, they were disgusted by crimes against humanity that were being perpetrated in locations controlled by Hitler's Germany. They felt that people should be held accountable for these gross violations of human rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Sorry for the absence. . . now, where was I . . .
And you have not provided a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective. How does being situational and conditional prevent these rights from being inherent and inalienable? Physical laws are situational and conditional. The force of gravity depends on the presence of mass and the distance from that mass. These are conditions and situations that affect the force of gravity. Does this make gravity subjective, or not an inherent property of the universe?
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? Yes.
So....that would be a situational, conditional and subjective human right, then. That would be an outcome of the interactions between inherent, inalienable, and objective human rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
A Point of View: Do human rights really exist? - BBC News 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.) Excellent find. From the article: "I only throw this proposition out in a spirit of humane enquiry - could it be that human rights simply don't exist? After all, in my understanding it's difficult to conceive of a person's rights as obtaining at all unless an effective sanction is in place in the event of their violation." This sentiment has been put forward by others in this thread. The problem is that this conflates two separate issues. One issue is whether or not human rights exist in the first place. The other issue is how we are punishing those who vioilate those rights. Again, these are SEPARATE issues. Also, the statement above all but confirms that human rights do exist. Why? How did the author determine that human rights violations were going unpunished in the first place? If I asked anyone for examples of people who went unpunished for human rights violations would most people be able to name at least 1 person? Probably. Why is that? Obviously, we can determine that human rights have been violated without needing a legal finding from an official judicial system. What the author and others are really saying is what good are human rights if they are so easily trampelled. I think the last 200 years of European and American history demonstrate what happens when societies strive to protect human rights. Yes, there will be hiccups, atrocities, and mistakes along the way, but if we decide that human rights do not exist then they cease to be atrocities and mistakes. They just become every day occurences. Let's say you are at a little Mom and Pop diner. You are at the front counter getting ready to pay your bill and you notice that the cash drawer is ajar. You look around and no one is watching you. You know that you could take a few 20's out of the drawer and no one would be the wiser. If you will not be caught or punished does it make it OK to take the money? Does right and wrong cease to exist if punishment is not involved? More importantly, do we want to live in a society where morality is based on whether or not we can catch a perpetrator?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
man the funniest tactics ever. (how i see Taq): neener neener...nah uh. you didn't answer me, because you know I am just going to deny anything ainsgt me and move the goalposts. you are the funniest, maybe funnier than Dr semantics. man the funniest tactics ever.(how i see Taq): neener neener...nah uh. you didn't answer me, because you know I am just going to deny anything ainsgt me and move the goalposts. you are the funniest, maybe funnier than Dr semantics. At least I attempt to add something of substance to the thread. Perhaps you could give that a try?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Because if a situation can take away an 'inalienable' right then it is not inalienable. The problem is that you point to violations of human rights and claim that it is the same as taking those rights away. That is wrong. They are not the same thing.
So - tell me again about how these inalienable human rights are taken away.... You are the one claiming that they are taken away. Why don't you show us how this is done.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024