| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » More on: "What is a Right?"... |
|
Page 5 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Rod Speed... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote
[quote]Rod Speed wrote
Michael Coburn wrote
Rod Speed wrote
David Johnston wrote
Demon Buddha <Nobody 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.
So Jefferson declared. He declared that claim to be "self-evident".
He did indeed, and quite a few agreed with him when he did that, too.
And it is that agreement that lends the substance.
Thats very arguable when hordes didnt even consider what was declared.
It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't it?
Yep.
It is sort of like the current rightard use of "clearly".
Not really. Its obvious that the sun usually does come up most mornings etc.
As you read the rightrded screed then this is the keyword that
normally precedes the asserted dogma presented as being factual.
Yes, but thats just their style. Doesnt mean that the word obvious isnt useful.
This is not an indictment of Jefferson or any one particular person or claim.
It is an illustration of what is meant by "self evident" types of axioms.
Indeed.
It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to accept it anyway."
You're lying now.
It is a call for agreement.
Not really, its much more of a proclaimation.
And an attempt to segregate and marginalize those who do not agree.
Or that either. They are free to disagree and when there were a
number of amendments to the bill of rights, clearly there must have
been disagreements on what should have been included etc.
And its got proceedures for changing the list in the future too.
The discussion was about the DCI; not the Constitution.
[/quote]
It was about both, most obvious from the subject. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Gordge wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
What the moronic brain damaged fail to understand is that
governments are entrusted to accomplish tasks that the individual
cannot. There is no real hope for people like Michael Gordge.
There is a fundamental religious affliction that will
keep them in an infantile state for all their lives.
Its not religious so much, more just mindless fundamentalism.
You used your mind to point out to David Johnston that "law" is not
the standard of any moral right, with your reference to the Jews,
which I praise you for.
If promoting as I do, morality based on the human individual (thats
you) as being the only possible standard of all your moral values,
is "mindless fundamentalism", then I am guilty as charged.
[/quote]
I didnt say THAT was mindless fundamentalism.
[quote]Lets read your better idea.
[/quote]
That govts can do what individuals cannot, like do something about arseholes
like Adolf and Hirohito etc, and even work out how to avoid full world wars
and how to drastically reduce the number of great depressions we see today. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 2:04 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
If little kids have an idea of justice, is proves there
are gods or equivalent metaphysical entities?
[quote]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.
[/quote]
That depends on whether the writer desired to
convey meaning.
[quote]Valence refers (usually) to power or effect.
But not just to power as was originally claimed.
What does _metaphysical power_ or _metaphysical effect_ refer to?
Never used either term.
And what set of beings am I being held to be equivalent to?
Never said the either.
Humans? Old White humans? All sentient beings?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
To reject this notion is to open the door to every evil we may be
able to conceive and perhaps a few we haven't yet discovered.
If you and I are not of equal value as beings, then if I possess
superior instrumentality there is no argument you or anyone
could make against my making you my slave, or just killing
you for kicks. In such a case, might defines right.
The primary arguments most animals will make against
being killed or enslaved are violent self-defense and flight.
Its much more complicated than that. And those are instincts, not rights, anyway.
I didn't say they were rights,
That is what we happen to be discussing.
I said that the animals would not argue metaphysics.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ?
Neither of these is an appeal to an abstraction.
In fact, abstractions seem completely powerless
in such a case -- if not, we should observe bacteria
invoking them against the threats of predators.
If, OTOH, we accept the simple premise that we are all of equal
value as "units of life" (yes, inadequate, but I cannot find a
better term for the sake of being conversational), then the whole
set of inherent and inalienable human rights evolves from this
very naturally. For example, if you and I are of equal value,
which is to say that we are equivalent - that we are equals as
living beings - then I hold no moral authority to compel you to do
anything, nor you me except as we may beforehand come to agree,
such as in an employer/employee relationship. If I attempt to
force you to do something against your will, while I may be able
to materially succeed, I would have done so only by virtue of
superior force and not as the result of any moral imperative.
IOW, I would have violated your rights.
So rights emanate from supposed resolutions of contests of power.
No they dont.
Maybe not, but that's what the paragraph I followed up seemed to be saying.
It wasnt.
I'm trying to clarify Demon Buddha's argument, and "so rights emanate...." is a suggestion.
Its a dud.
But then, so do hierarchy and slavery.
The pure pragmatist may say that this is all irrelevant and from a
certain POV it could well be. But we choose the sorts of lives we
want, generally speaking, and I think I prefer something of
principles beyond that of the instrumentality of pure brute force
to be the basis upon which our lives are governed. I think it
makes for better living.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 10:22 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
That depends on your view of what the gods are
and how they operate, doesn't it? Many religious
people assert a claim that religious experience is
fundamental and primary, not the result of an
abstract idea. If so, children will exhibit god-
derived ideas independent of learning of related
abstractions.
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, which is what
we were talking about above, and why the idea of
gods was brought in. The notion of fairness could
be some kind of mental circuit that evolved to
enhance the probability of individual and group
survival. I don't know if mental circuits can be
called "rights".
[quote]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.
[/quote]
I don't think so, 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:22 am |
|
|
|
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
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?
[/quote]
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.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]Valence refers (usually) to power or effect.
But not just to power as was originally claimed.
What does _metaphysical power_ or _metaphysical effect_ refer to?
Never used either term.
And what set of beings am I being held to be equivalent to?
Never said that either.
Humans? Old White humans? All sentient beings?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
To reject this notion is to open the door to every evil we may be
able to conceive and perhaps a few we haven't yet discovered.
If you and I are not of equal value as beings, then if I possess
superior instrumentality there is no argument you or anyone
could make against my making you my slave, or just killing
you for kicks. In such a case, might defines right.
The primary arguments most animals will make against
being killed or enslaved are violent self-defense and flight.
Its much more complicated than that. And those are instincts, not rights, anyway.
I didn't say they were rights,
That is what we happen to be discussing.
I said that the animals would not argue metaphysics.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ?
Neither of these is an appeal to an abstraction.
In fact, abstractions seem completely powerless
in such a case -- if not, we should observe bacteria
invoking them against the threats of predators.
If, OTOH, we accept the simple premise that we are all of equal
value as "units of life" (yes, inadequate, but I cannot find a
better term for the sake of being conversational), then the whole
set of inherent and inalienable human rights evolves from this
very naturally. For example, if you and I are of equal value,
which is to say that we are equivalent - that we are equals as
living beings - then I hold no moral authority to compel you to
do anything, nor you me except as we may beforehand come to
agree,
such as in an employer/employee relationship. If I attempt to
force you to do something against your will, while I may be able
to materially succeed, I would have done so only by virtue of
superior force and not as the result of any moral imperative.
IOW, I would have violated your rights.
So rights emanate from supposed resolutions of contests of power.
No they dont.
Maybe not, but that's what the paragraph I followed up seemed to be saying.
It wasnt.
I'm trying to clarify Demon Buddha's argument, and "so rights
emanate..." is a suggestion.
Its a dud.
But then, so do hierarchy and slavery.
The pure pragmatist may say that this is all irrelevant and from
a certain POV it could well be. But we choose the sorts of lives
we want, generally speaking, and I think I prefer something of
principles beyond that of the instrumentality of pure brute force
to be the basis upon which our lives are governed. I think it
makes for better living.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Beam Me Up Scotty... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Gordge wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 4:56 pm, David Johnston <da... at (no spam) block.net> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:28 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
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.
You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to rights - How
does the state determine that "certain criteria"?
With laws.
Laws plucked from thin air? what laws? where did the laws come from?
MG
[/quote]
Where are they derived from, if it's NOT from the constitution then it
is NO law at all, just some legislators fictional plans for government. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
[quote]Michael Gordge wrote
David Johnston <da... at (no spam) block.net> wrote
Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
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.
You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to rights -
How does the state determine that "certain criteria"?
With laws.
Laws plucked from thin air? what laws? where did the laws come from?
Where are they derived from, if it's NOT from the constitution then it
is NO law at all, just some legislators fictional plans for government.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 7:26 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
That govts can do what individuals cannot, like do something about arseholes
like Adolf and Hirohito etc,
[/quote]
The size of the US govt that helped to get rid of Hitler and Hirohito
was but a fraction of the disgustingly obese, bloated, parasitical,
draconian, anti-freedom, anti-human, anti-progess, thieving, anti-
business, anti-capitalist, communist inspired scumbag of arseholes
sticking their disgusting noses into every aspect of life that it has
no moral right or business getting involved in, that they have become
today.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 12:55 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
[quote]
Where are they derived from, if it's NOT from the constitution.....
[/quote]
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 and they would be
spinning in their grave fast enough to hook up to the National grid
watching the disgusting violations of their Constitution on an almost
hourly occurance now, by leftist / conservative commie scum who have
been running that country over the last 100 years.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 6:01 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Why not? If religious experience is fundamental and
primary, then it will precede abstractions about it.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Genetically. No gods or metaphysics required.
[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.
[/quote]
Can you explain that?
[quote]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'
[/quote]
Why not? Anything can be due to gods. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:01 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
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?
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]Many religious people assert a claim that religious experience
is fundamental and primary, not the result of an abstract idea.
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]If so, children will exhibit god-derived ideas
independent of learning of related abstractions.
[/quote]
Wrong.
[quote]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,
[/quote]
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.
[quote]which is what we were talking about above,
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]and why the idea of gods was brought in.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]The notion of fairness could be some kind of mental circuit that
evolved to enhance the probability of individual and group survival.
[/quote]
There is no other possibility. And thats just another way of saying his 'born-in'
[quote]I don't know if mental circuits can be called "rights".
[/quote]
Corse they can.
[quote]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,
[/quote]
Corse you did on what I was saying that behaviour with little kids indicates.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
I actually said that that cant be due to 'gods' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Gordge wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Michael Gordge wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
What the moronic brain damaged fail to understand is that
governments are entrusted to accomplish tasks that the individual
cannot. There is no real hope for people like Michael Gordge.
There is a fundamental religious affliction that will
keep them in an infantile state for all their lives.
Its not religious so much, more just mindless fundamentalism.
You used your mind to point out to David Johnston that "law" is not
the standard of any moral right, with your reference to the Jews,
which I praise you for.
If promoting as I do, morality based on the human individual (thats
you) as being the only possible standard of all your moral values,
is "mindless fundamentalism", then I am guilty as charged.
I didnt say THAT was mindless fundamentalism.
Lets read your better idea.
That govts can do what individuals cannot, like do
something about arseholes like Adolf and Hirohito etc,
The size of the US govt that helped to get rid of Hitler and Hirohito
[/quote]
It wouldnt have happened without the US govt.
[quote]was but a fraction of the disgustingly obese, bloated, parasitical,
draconian, anti-freedom, anti-human, anti-progess, thieving, anti-
business, anti-capitalist, communist inspired scumbag of arseholes
sticking their disgusting noses into every aspect of life that it has no
moral right or business getting involved in, that they have become today.
[/quote]
You're always free to fuck off to Somalia any time you decide they do it better there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Gordge wrote
[quote]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
[/quote]
No they didnt. If that was true, there wouldnt have been any need for any amendments.
And they wouldnt have included a mechanism to amend it either.
And they fucked up on a number off issues too, most obviously a standing army.
[quote]and they would be spinning in their grave fast enough to hook up to
the National grid watching the disgusting violations of their Constitution
on an almost hourly occurance now, by leftist / conservative commie
scum who have been running that country over the last 100 years.
[/quote]
Corse no rightists ever did anything like a standing army, eh ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:23 am |
|
|
|
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
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?
[/quote]
Because there are no gods, just a vast array
of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds'
[quote]If religious experience is fundamental and primary,
[/quote]
It isnt in little kids of that age.
[quote]then it will precede abstractions about it.
[/quote]
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'
[quote]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.
[/quote]
What I said below in different words. And not what you
said below, the exact opposite of what you said below.
[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?
[/quote]
Just did with that point about little kids and how they operate.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 12:23 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]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'
[/quote]
So _you_ say. But there may be a god hiding under your
bed at this very moment. When did you last look?
[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.
[/quote]
Wrong.
[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.
[/quote]
I don't see how some genetic tendency turns into a thing
which other people are said to possess. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:46 am
|
|