 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » More on: "What is a Right?"... |
|
Page 7 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Michael Gordge... |
 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 8, 1:06 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]which they have been.
If you believe that............
[/quote]
pathetic, is that all ewe have?
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Clave... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Johnston" <david at (no spam) block.net> wrote in message
news:44kbf5lcfdpubn1e23ege3gg65gme8qf06 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:16:54 -0800, "Clave"
ClaviusNoSpamDammit at (no spam) cablespeed.com> wrote:
"David Johnston" <david at (no spam) block.net> wrote in message
news:g515f51jph0lp4shung37rpduahpttjif0 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:19:25 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nobody at (no spam) no.where
wrote:
[/quote]
<...>
[quote]States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in
qualities of humans.
So Jefferson declared.
No he fucking didn't, not in any universal or moral sense.
Yeah he did. Saying that something is a self-evident truth is a
universal claim.
[/quote]
No, he prefaced that with "*WE* HOLD...", which pretty much means that they
expect George, et al, to hold otherwise.
Don't let that stop you from hanging onto a comfortable myth, though.
Jim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an
important one to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it
means is that the grantor of the right (the State or
State-like jurisdiction) will not act against you if you
can demonstrate that your actions meet certain criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does.
These are born-in qualities of humans.
Just like an Immortal Soul, right?
I made no mention of any such thing. The rights actually
follow very naturally and reasonably if one accepts the
notion of the equivalence of all people. Notice I did not
say "equality". We are NOT equal, which would imply
we were clones. But we are equivalent in a metaphysical
sense - that is, we are of equal value as living beings.
That seems like a religious position to me.
It isnt. Its more an instinctive gut feeling.
Little kids very quickly develop pretty firm ideas about
what is and is not fair about what they get told to do, or
what they end up with, LONG before they are capable of
reasoning or being able to grasp religious concepts etc.
Value implies choice or preference. What is
being preferred over what, and by whom?
Yes, but thats got nothing to do with religion.
I smell gods.
More fool you. You cant just ignore that point about little kids, it wont go away.
If little kids have an idea of justice, is proves there
are gods or equivalent metaphysical entities?
When they develop those ideas about what is fair
LONG before they can grasp the concept of religion,
it cant have anything to do with religion or gods.
That depends on your view of what the gods
are and how they operate, doesn't it?
Nope.
Many religious people assert a claim that religious experience
is fundamental and primary, not the result of an abstract idea.
Yes.
If so, children will exhibit god-derived ideas
independent of learning of related abstractions.
Wrong.
Why not?
Because there are no gods, just a vast array
of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds'
So _you_ say. But there may be a god hiding under your bed at this very moment.
[/quote]
Nope, the dog would have noticed.
[quote]When did you last look?
[/quote]
Dont need to, the dog does that for me.
[quote]If religious experience is fundamental and primary,
It isnt in little kids of that age.
then it will precede abstractions about it.
Nope. Kids need a metal capacity to grasp
religious concepts for that to happen.
In practice they are just afraid of the dark and can have very
vivid imaginations and suck their thumbs and need night lights
etc and their parents comforting etc instead of 'gods'
In any case, I don't see how this innate sense
of justice you say you observe speaks to the
problem of whether the metaphysical notion of
equality has some kind of independent existence,
More fool you. There is no other way it can show up in
almost all little kids that early, when it cant be trained into
them consciously or unconsiously by their parents etc.
Genetically. No gods or metaphysics required.
What I said below in different words. And not what you
said below, the exact opposite of what you said below.
Wrong.
[/quote]
Everyone can see for themselves that its right.
[quote]which is what we were talking about above,
Yes.
and why the idea of gods was brought in.
There are no gods. Just an endless variety of crutches
for pathetically inadequate 'minds'. Basically a way of
getting fools to do what they would otherwise not do.
The notion of fairness could be some kind of mental circuit that
evolved to enhance the probability of individual and group survival.
There is no other possibility. And thats just another way of saying his 'born-in'
I don't know if mental circuits can be called "rights".
Corse they can.
Can you explain that?
Just did with that point about little kids and how they operate.
Assuming value is meaningful when applied to "us"
-- another undefined element -- what does equality
of value mean, the mysterious evaluator can't
decide between some of "us" and others?
You also neglect to show why rights follow from this
equivalence of value. I don't see any obvious connection.
It does follow that if you believe you are equivalent in a
metaphysical sense in the sense he is talking about, that
individual rights follow from that in the sense that you
have as much right to something as anyone else etc.
My problem is that I don't know what "equalivalent
in a metaphysical sense" can possibly mean.
Your problem.
That depends on whether the writer desired to convey meaning.
Nope, there will always be some who cant understand the simplest
stuff. You fucked up completely on that bit about little kids,
got it completely backwards. I don't think so,
Corse you did on what I was saying that behaviour with little kids indicates.
although you're welcome to show that the various mental
states of small children are evidence of metaphysical
entities or whatever it is they're supposed to be evidence of.
I actually said that that cant be due to 'gods'
Why not? Anything can be due to gods.
Nope, because there is no such animal, just an endless
variety of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds'
In spades with little kids who cant even grasp the concept of gods.
They do develop strong ideas about their rights tho much earlier than they do about gods.
I don't see how some genetic tendency turns into
a thing which other people are said to possess.
[/quote]
Your problem. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Gordge wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Michael Gordge wrote
Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote
Where are they derived from, if it's NOT from the constitution.....
So are you suggesting that the wording of the constitution was just plucked from thin air?
I am suggesting that those who wrote or who took part in the writing
of the US constitution had spent decades studying what it was about
man, the human individual, that made him so unique and they had
worked out what it was that was needed for man, the human
individual, to live as his, the individual's, nature demands, to live
by using his own life as the standard of all his moral values.
And apart from the odd hiccup, e.g. black slaves (notwithstanding
of course that there would not be a black American today who
would regret the fact their ancestor was chosen to be a slave)
apart from that, the writers of the US Constitution got it 100% right
No they didnt. If that was true, there wouldnt have been any need for any amendments.
The amendments were never meant to be in contradiction / violation of the over-all intent of the constitution,
[/quote]
The writes clearly didnt get it 100% right, stupid.
[quote]which they have been.
[/quote]
If you believe that, feel free to set fire to yourself on the Jefferson Memorial or sumfin. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an
important one to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it
means is that the grantor of the right (the State or
State-like jurisdiction) will not act against you if you
can demonstrate that your actions meet certain criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does.
These are born-in qualities of humans.
Just like an Immortal Soul, right?
I made no mention of any such thing. The rights actually
follow very naturally and reasonably if one accepts the
notion of the equivalence of all people. Notice I did not
say "equality". We are NOT equal, which would imply
we were clones. But we are equivalent in a metaphysical
sense - that is, we are of equal value as living beings.
That seems like a religious position to me.
It isnt. Its more an instinctive gut feeling.
Little kids very quickly develop pretty firm ideas about
what is and is not fair about what they get told to do, or
what they end up with, LONG before they are capable of
reasoning or being able to grasp religious concepts etc.
Value implies choice or preference. What is
being preferred over what, and by whom?
Yes, but thats got nothing to do with religion.
I smell gods.
More fool you. You cant just ignore that point about little kids, it wont go away.
If little kids have an idea of justice, is proves there
are gods or equivalent metaphysical entities?
When they develop those ideas about what is fair
LONG before they can grasp the concept of religion,
it cant have anything to do with religion or gods.
That depends on your view of what the gods
are and how they operate, doesn't it?
Nope.
Many religious people assert a claim that religious experience
is fundamental and primary, not the result of an abstract idea.
Yes.
If so, children will exhibit god-derived ideas
independent of learning of related abstractions.
Wrong.
Why not?
Because there are no gods, just a vast array
of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds'
So _you_ say. But there may be a god hiding under your bed at this very moment.
Nope, the dog would have noticed.
When did you last look?
Dont need to, the dog does that for me.
How do you know the dog hasn't been subverted?
[/quote]
I know because I know that he's unsubvertable.
[quote]You know, gods, they might do anything.
[/quote]
Everytime I have checked whether the dog has got it right, he has.
The only time he got it wrong, I was carrying a big empty box
close to dark, to the big patio glass door that is my front door,
that he always lay in front of watching everthing that happened
in the park thats just outside that big patio door. Hilarious how
embarrassed he was when he worked out that he had fucked up.
[quote]If religious experience is fundamental and primary,
It isnt in little kids of that age.
then it will precede abstractions about it.
Nope. Kids need a metal capacity to grasp
religious concepts for that to happen.
In practice they are just afraid of the dark and can have very
vivid imaginations and suck their thumbs and need night lights
etc and their parents comforting etc instead of 'gods'
In any case, I don't see how this innate sense
of justice you say you observe speaks to the
problem of whether the metaphysical notion of
equality has some kind of independent existence,
More fool you. There is no other way it can show up in
almost all little kids that early, when it cant be trained into
them consciously or unconsiously by their parents etc.
Genetically. No gods or metaphysics required.
What I said below in different words. And not what you
said below, the exact opposite of what you said below.
Wrong.
Everyone can see for themselves that its right.
Wrong.
[/quote]
You never ever could bullshits your way out of a wet paper bag.
Cant even manage your own lines, or anything else at all either.
[quote]which is what we were talking about above,
Yes.
and why the idea of gods was brought in.
There are no gods. Just an endless variety of crutches
for pathetically inadequate 'minds'. Basically a way of
getting fools to do what they would otherwise not do.
The notion of fairness could be some kind of mental circuit that
evolved to enhance the probability of individual and group survival.
There is no other possibility. And thats just another way of saying his 'born-in'
I don't know if mental circuits can be called "rights".
Corse they can.
Can you explain that?
Just did with that point about little kids and how they operate.
Assuming value is meaningful when applied to "us"
-- another undefined element -- what does equality
of value mean, the mysterious evaluator can't
decide between some of "us" and others?
You also neglect to show why rights follow from this
equivalence of value. I don't see any obvious connection.
It does follow that if you believe you are equivalent in a
metaphysical sense in the sense he is talking about, that
individual rights follow from that in the sense that you
have as much right to something as anyone else etc.
My problem is that I don't know what "equalivalent
in a metaphysical sense" can possibly mean.
Your problem.
That depends on whether the writer desired to convey meaning.
Nope, there will always be some who cant understand the
simplest stuff. You fucked up completely on that bit about
little kids, got it completely backwards. I don't think so,
Corse you did on what I was saying that behaviour with little kids indicates.
although you're welcome to show that the various mental
states of small children are evidence of metaphysical
entities or whatever it is they're supposed to be evidence of.
I actually said that that cant be due to 'gods'
Why not? Anything can be due to gods.
Nope, because there is no such animal, just an endless
variety of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds'
In spades with little kids who cant even grasp the concept of gods.
They do develop strong ideas about their rights tho much earlier
than they do about gods.
I don't see how some genetic tendency turns into
a thing which other people are said to possess.
Your problem.
It's _your_ problem.
[/quote]
Nope, your terminal stupidity is no problem for me.
[quote]You're the one making assertions about the strong ideas of little children constituting "rights".
[/quote]
Wrong again. I'm the one rubbing your stupid nose in that fact. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 11:15 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Anarcissie:
...
So _you_ say. But there may be a god hiding under your bed at this very moment.
Nope, the dog would have noticed.
When did you last look?
Dont need to, the dog does that for me.
How do you know the dog hasn't been subverted?
I know because I know that he's unsubvertable.
You know, gods, they might do anything.
Everytime I have checked whether the dog has got it right, he has.
[/quote]
See the physicist's proof:
http://everything2.com/title/Proof+that+all+odd+numbers+are+prime |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie:
So _you_ say. But there may be a god hiding under your bed at this very moment.
Nope, the dog would have noticed.
When did you last look?
Dont need to, the dog does that for me.
How do you know the dog hasn't been subverted?
I know because I know that he's unsubvertable.
You know, gods, they might do anything.
Everytime I have checked whether the dog has got it right, he has.
See the physicist's proof:
http://everything2.com/title/Proof+that+all+odd+numbers+are+prime
[/quote]
Completely useless, as always. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:47 am
|
|