Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


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: 5.5


Message 256 of 300 (661767)
05-09-2012 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by fearandloathing
05-09-2012 8:08 PM


It seems to me that until there is some global/universal agreement of what is and isn't a human right then we cannot say that it is inalienable.
I disagree. We don't have to wait for the everyone to agree that the world is round before we can conclude that the world is round.
I also reject the idea that Might is Right. Just being able to do something does not make it moral. If a State is able to detain and torture its citizens that does not make it legal or moral. If that same State refuses to sign UN charters describing human rights it does not excuse them from violating the inherent and inalienable rights of its citizens.
In the world we live in today who is the authority?
Ultimately, our own conscience. What you believe to be right or wrong, moral or immoral, is up to your own beliefs. We can certainly The most horrid atrocities have occurred when people surrender this authority to others. "I was just following orders" was an excuse made by those involved in the Holocaust in WW II. It is NOT a valid excuse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by fearandloathing, posted 05-09-2012 8:08 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by fearandloathing, posted 05-09-2012 8:37 PM Taq has replied
 Message 258 by jar, posted 05-09-2012 8:39 PM Taq has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 257 of 300 (661770)
05-09-2012 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Taq
05-09-2012 8:18 PM


From all I have seen so far it seems to be a matter of opinion. I don't believe in any type of torture, but that is just my belief. There is a segment of the population of this world who cheers when an infidel gets beheaded....Not every one agrees on what is right or wrong.
I can't see a logical conclusion to this topic.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Taq, posted 05-09-2012 8:18 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Taq, posted 05-10-2012 6:01 PM fearandloathing has replied

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


(2)
Message 258 of 300 (661771)
05-09-2012 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Taq
05-09-2012 8:18 PM


More false analogies.
Once again you create false comparisons.
We don't have to wait for the everyone to agree that the world is round before we can conclude that the world is round.
Of course not, the shape of the earth can be independently tested and is unrelated to individual bias.
Rights though do not exist in reality and cannot be independently tested and are directly related to individual bias.
The earth is a physical object.
Rights are a matter of consensus belief.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Taq, posted 05-09-2012 8:18 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Taq, posted 05-10-2012 5:53 PM jar has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 300 (661778)
05-09-2012 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Panda
05-09-2012 5:52 PM


Re: Questioning the line of reasoning...
f one person thinks that humans have a right to liberty and another person thinks that humans don't have a right to liberty, how do you determine which of them is correct?
Not by voting on it, which seems to be your method.
When I am pointing out a problem with Taq's position
Taq's position is not limited to his views on liberty. I largely agree with his logic, and disagree with yours. As I understand your view, it includes the proposition that if there are laws against possession of cannabis or tax evasion, then there is no such thing as liberty.
I may not agree with a particular issue which Taq says does not constitute liberty, but that is just a matter of degree rather than principle.

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 244 by Panda, posted 05-09-2012 5:52 PM Panda has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 260 of 300 (661851)
05-10-2012 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by jar
05-09-2012 8:39 PM


Re: More false analogies.
Rights though do not exist in reality and cannot be independently tested and are directly related to individual bias.
I think rights can be tested. We ask people if they would like to be tortured or have their stuff taken away. We can use the results of that survey to objectively determine if, in reality, people like to be tortured or have their stuff taken. If they don't, which is what I suspect, then it stands to reason that it is wrong to take people's stuff and torture them.
Rights are a matter of consensus belief.
They are a matter of intrinsic human qualities that are shared by the vast majority of people. These are demonstrable qualities, such as the aversion to torture and the ability to sense pain in others. Rights are the conclusion drawn from these demonstrable qualities as much as a round Earth is a conclusion drawn from the observable qualities of the Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by jar, posted 05-09-2012 8:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 05-10-2012 6:04 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 261 of 300 (661854)
05-10-2012 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by fearandloathing
05-09-2012 8:37 PM


From all I have seen so far it seems to be a matter of opinion.
I don't think it is. It is not a matter of opinion that people do not want to be tortured, do not want to be jailed without due cause, and do not want their property confiscated. I happen to think that these are very universal emotions that nearly all sane humans share.
There is a segment of the population of this world who cheers when an infidel gets beheaded....Not every one agrees on what is right or wrong.
How many of those infidel's would cheer if it was their head on the chopping block? That is the issue here. I have no doubt that some people are sadistic enough that they will visit horrors on other people that they would never want visited upon themselves. The whole point of human rights is to point out that this is morally wrong. It should not occur, and we should strive to stop this behavior whenever we can.
I can't see a logical conclusion to this topic.
The logic is based on the Golden Rule. Would you like it if someone stole your car? If not, then you should not steal someone else's car. The logic is based on our ability to determine what causes pain in others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by fearandloathing, posted 05-09-2012 8:37 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by fearandloathing, posted 05-10-2012 6:32 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 262 of 300 (661857)
05-10-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Taq
05-10-2012 5:53 PM


Re: More false analogies.
Sorry but you are still conflating ideas and words, just posting word salad nonsense.
Preferences are NOT rights, desires are NOT rights.
Yes you can build a consensus within a State, society or culture of what that State, society or culture will recognize as 'rights' within that State, society or culture.
that does no mean that any rights exist EXCEPT within the particular State, culture or society.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Taq, posted 05-10-2012 5:53 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Taq, posted 05-11-2012 11:20 AM jar has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 263 of 300 (661874)
05-10-2012 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Taq
05-10-2012 6:01 PM


The logic is based on the Golden Rule. Would you like it if someone stole your car? If not, then you should not steal someone else's car. The logic is based on our ability to determine what causes pain in others
I mostly agree with you.
The golden rule does have shortcomings. Your idea of what is right for you may not mesh with what I feel is right for me, I think this is old ground that has been covered.
I could be wrong but it seems empathy was probably why we have the golden rule.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Taq, posted 05-10-2012 6:01 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2012 9:42 PM fearandloathing has replied
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 05-11-2012 11:11 AM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 264 of 300 (661917)
05-10-2012 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by fearandloathing
05-10-2012 6:32 PM


The golden rule does have shortcomings.
Exactly so.
Jesus said that we were to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Understood properly that commandment would not mean merely doing unto others what we ourselves would want, but would mean treating your neighbor with empathy for your neighbors feelings.
Your mom doesn't want a tennis racket for Mother's day. That's what you want.

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 263 by fearandloathing, posted 05-10-2012 6:32 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by fearandloathing, posted 05-10-2012 10:55 PM NoNukes has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 265 of 300 (661928)
05-10-2012 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by NoNukes
05-10-2012 9:42 PM


Jesus said that we were to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Understood properly that commandment would not mean merely doing unto others what we ourselves would want, but would mean treating your neighbor with empathy for your neighbors feelings.
Funny how many times I have been criticized for my empathy to the plight of undocumented aliens. I have always felt that I can't knock a person for trying to get ahead, if I was in their shoes I might do the same thing. I am not talking about those who smuggle drugs ect.... but the people who come here to work....But it seems the golden rule does not apply to them.... especially if you live in certain areas of the southwest....Arizona maybe

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2012 9:42 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2012 11:44 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 266 of 300 (661934)
05-10-2012 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by fearandloathing
05-10-2012 10:55 PM


But it seems the golden rule does not apply to them
Perhaps your critics are merely using the Conservapedia version of the Bible; the version where Christ is a bit less of the "let he who is without sin" guy and a bit more of an eye for an eye proponent.

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 265 by fearandloathing, posted 05-10-2012 10:55 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 267 of 300 (661962)
05-11-2012 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by fearandloathing
05-10-2012 6:32 PM


The golden rule does have shortcomings. Your idea of what is right for you may not mesh with what I feel is right for me, I think this is old ground that has been covered.
I am looking at it from a different direction. When we try to discern what human rights are we look for the basic foundation of what it is to be human. It's not as if we try to keep everyone from eating pork or not spend money on the Sabbath. Rather, we try to discern the nature of humanity, how humans are in their native state. If we stripped away every societal rule, religious dictate, and social norm what would we be left with? Locke argued that we would be left with a group of people who work together to protect very basic rights, those of life, liberty, and property. Those are natural rights, rights that are inherent to humanity.
I could be wrong but it seems empathy was probably why we have the golden rule.
IMO, that is also why we have human rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by fearandloathing, posted 05-10-2012 6:32 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 05-11-2012 11:18 AM Taq has replied

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


Message 268 of 300 (661963)
05-11-2012 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Taq
05-11-2012 11:11 AM


except of course, the ten commandments are unrelated to rights.
The point though is that the ten commandments do not relate to rights but rather proscribe behaviors or mandate behaviors and were only applicable within the tribal society that adopted those commandments.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 05-11-2012 11:11 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Taq, posted 05-11-2012 11:25 AM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 269 of 300 (661964)
05-11-2012 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by jar
05-10-2012 6:04 PM


Re: More false analogies.
Preferences are NOT rights, desires are NOT rights.
Where did I claim that they were?
Desires and preferences are the TEST to see if human rights exist. Human rights are a conclusion drawn from shared desires and preferences.
Yes you can build a consensus within a State, society or culture of what that State, society or culture will recognize as 'rights' within that State, society or culture.
Those rights exist prior to that consensus being built. The State is tool that societies use to protect these rights, but the State is not the source for these rights. The formation of the US is a good example. In the Declaration of Independence it was argued that the British Empire was violating their natural rights. This gave the colonies the justification for breaking political ties with the Empire. They then pushed forward and constructed a State that would protect those natural rights in a way that the Empire did not. It wasn't as if the US was formed, and then they stumbled on this crazy idea of natural rights. Those rights existed OUTSIDE of the State, above the level of political rule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 05-10-2012 6:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by jar, posted 05-11-2012 11:34 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 270 of 300 (661965)
05-11-2012 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by jar
05-11-2012 11:18 AM


Re: except of course, the ten commandments are unrelated to rights.
The point though is that the ten commandments do not relate to rights but rather proscribe behaviors or mandate behaviors and were only applicable within the tribal society that adopted those commandments.
I agree, but why don't they relate to human rights? I think this is an important point. Why is a ban on torture considered to be a human right but a ban on false idols is not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 05-11-2012 11:18 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by jar, posted 05-11-2012 11:31 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