Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Where are the Rights?

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 10:56:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: I know that I am a conscious being with emotions, Reason, Senses Imagination Thoughts, memory and a Body.

But where are this Rights. They are not on my body. They are not in my mind. I can't even form Rational thought of what the hell they are supposed to be. Oh Please tell me where they are hidden in me? How do you know this is in me but I don;t know where this is and I have DIRECT exclusive access MY THOUGHT's.

Anybody On DDO @ all. Able to give it a shot, or even a thought. Or do you just pretend that it isnt so OBVIOUS THAT THEY ARE FALSE. AND THEY WILL NEVER BE TRUE, NOT NOW NOT EVER!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:09:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 10:56:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I know that I am a conscious being with emotions, Reason, Senses Imagination Thoughts, memory and a Body.

But where are this Rights. They are not on my body. They are not in my mind. I can't even form Rational thought of what the hell they are supposed to be. Oh Please tell me where they are hidden in me? How do you know this is in me but I don;t know where this is and I have DIRECT exclusive access MY THOUGHT's.

Rights exist as concepts, which are verified and shared by societies. They are purely social constructs, and they are neither subjective or objective. Some rights are logical and others illogical, and they function as normative ethical minimums for interactions between individuals.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:17:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:09:41 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Rights exist as concepts, which are verified and shared by societies. They are purely social constructs, and they are neither subjective or objective.

So, let me make sure I have this right--rights "exist as concepts", and are invoked by "societies", but exist originally neither inside nor outside the minds of subjects? I wonder where that places them, then, since, by process of elimination, there's nowhere left for them to reside.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:36:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:17:13 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/27/2012 1:09:41 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Rights exist as concepts, which are verified and shared by societies. They are purely social constructs, and they are neither subjective or objective.

So, let me make sure I have this right--rights "exist as concepts", and are invoked by "societies", but exist originally neither inside nor outside the minds of subjects? I wonder where that places them, then, since, by process of elimination, there's nowhere left for them to reside.

I meant to say that they were either subjective or objective. I was trying to imply that the reasons people recognize rights determine whether or not it has objectivity or not. I wish there were an edit button sometimes.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:41:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:36:58 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 12/27/2012 1:17:13 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/27/2012 1:09:41 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Rights exist as concepts, which are verified and shared by societies. They are purely social constructs, and they are neither subjective or objective.

So, let me make sure I have this right--rights "exist as concepts", and are invoked by "societies", but exist originally neither inside nor outside the minds of subjects? I wonder where that places them, then, since, by process of elimination, there's nowhere left for them to reside.

I meant to say that they were either subjective or objective. I was trying to imply that the reasons people recognize rights determine whether or not it has objectivity or not. I wish there were an edit button sometimes.

Oh, okay. What if I make the non-cognitivist's reply--if it is true that there are no such things as rights, we have no paradigm in terms of which to define and evaluate other candidates--hence, it's not just that rights are "not objective" in the sense that we're rejecting that prong of the division: more strongly, we're rejecting that you can even evaluate the objectivity of a right insofar as no such thing exists to compare to. Rather than saying, for instance, "It is false that X is a flurble", a non-cognitivist would say that such a proposition has no truth content insofar as its predicate--whether that be "flurble" or "objective right"--isn't intelligible.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 2:03:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, okay. What if I make the non-cognitivist's reply--if it is true that there are no such things as rights, we have no paradigm in terms of which to define and evaluate other candidates--hence, it's not just that rights are "not objective" in the sense that we're rejecting that prong of the division: more strongly, we're rejecting that you can even evaluate the objectivity of a right insofar as no such thing exists to compare to. Rather than saying, for instance, "It is false that X is a flurble", a non-cognitivist would say that such a proposition has no truth content insofar as its predicate--whether that be "flurble" or "objective right"--isn't intelligible.

I'd say that you evaluate the objectivity of a right through the conceptual deductions that established that right in the first place, i.e., the logical proof that verifies it. For example: I see that someone has claimed an unclaimed plot of land for themselves, and I deduce that by recognizing his claim to that land it will strengthen the claim to my own land. I recognize that I ought to respect his property, because it will make him more likely to respect mine. This mutual understanding becomes a normative ethical minimum, also known as a right. By reducing the right to its concepts, I have proved that the right is objective.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 2:12:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 2:03:42 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Oh, okay. What if I make the non-cognitivist's reply--if it is true that there are no such things as rights, we have no paradigm in terms of which to define and evaluate other candidates--hence, it's not just that rights are "not objective" in the sense that we're rejecting that prong of the division: more strongly, we're rejecting that you can even evaluate the objectivity of a right insofar as no such thing exists to compare to. Rather than saying, for instance, "It is false that X is a flurble", a non-cognitivist would say that such a proposition has no truth content insofar as its predicate--whether that be "flurble" or "objective right"--isn't intelligible.

I'd say that you evaluate the objectivity of a right through the conceptual deductions that established that right in the first place, i.e., the logical proof that verifies it. For example: I see that someone has claimed an unclaimed plot of land for themselves, and I deduce that by recognizing his claim to that land it will strengthen the claim to my own land. I recognize that I ought to respect his property, because it will make him more likely to respect mine. This mutual understanding becomes a normative ethical minimum, also known as a right. By reducing the right to its concepts, I have proved that the right is objective.

I don't think that's what "objective" usually means, unless there's some definition I don't know about which goes something like "really convenient to the extent that most people could agree to it and act as if it was a natural law of conduct".

In other words, "normative ethical minimum" is a really fancy way of saying "I embrace reciprocity to avoid pissing myself at the thought of getting my swag jacked". Otherwise, you're just trying to play pretend with prudential ought by substituting it for an independent prescriptive ought. :P

I wonder what happens when you introduce an entity whose power sufficiently exceeds that of its peers such that it doesn't have to worry about getting jacked.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 2:27:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think that's what "objective" usually means, unless there's some definition I don't know about which goes something like "really convenient to the extent that most people could agree to it and act as if it was a natural law of conduct".

I think at a certain point you can begin to consider basic human nature to be a force of nature, which you could objectively measure. Since rights are based on interactions between people, objective rights conform to the realities of human nature.

In other words, "normative ethical minimum" is a really fancy way of saying "I embrace reciprocity to avoid pissing myself at the thought of getting my swag jacked". Otherwise, you're just trying to play pretend with prudential ought by substituting it for an independent prescriptive ought. :P

The point of rights is to provide mutual benefit to all people that recognize them. Not getting your swag jacked is beneficial to everyone in the long run.

I wonder what happens when you introduce an entity whose power sufficiently exceeds that of its peers such that it doesn't have to worry about getting jacked.

That's the relationship between humans and animals right now, and I think that's why rights really do not apply to animals. If a creature stronger, smarter, and more resourceful than humans came along, the concept of rights would likely fall apart; because the creature wouldn't have a reason to recognize the rights of humans.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 2:48:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 2:27:58 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I don't think that's what "objective" usually means, unless there's some definition I don't know about which goes something like "really convenient to the extent that most people could agree to it and act as if it was a natural law of conduct".

I think at a certain point you can begin to consider basic human nature to be a force of nature, which you could objectively measure.

1. I don't think you can consider "basic human nature" to be a unitary entity, a "force of nature", or to possess a necessary identity. That sort of view is typically based on Enlightenment-era thought--particularly contractarian thought--that starts from a fictional state of nature in which people are said to possess certain characteristics. Contemporary science, e.g., psychology, identifies certain statistical trends, but certainly no "natural" property which is both unique to and distributed over our species.

2. Suppose we grant that there is a "human nature" embedded in the "forces of nature" (whatever those are); in what units would you take your measurements?

Since rights are based on interactions between people, objective rights conform to the realities of human nature.

1. You're just redefining rights in a way that founds them on the prudential considerations of human interaction. If you define your terms in a way that gives you the result you want (i.e., if your terms are defined both prior to and through your analysis), it's just self-referential and arbitrary.

2. That still isn't "objective" in the non-trivial sense: that is, you at best get that there are certain behavioral constraints which would optimize interaction according to particular parameters (e.g., nonviolence). From what I understand, the question of the objectivity of rights does not present itself as an optimization problem.

In other words, "normative ethical minimum" is a really fancy way of saying "I embrace reciprocity to avoid pissing myself at the thought of getting my swag jacked". Otherwise, you're just trying to play pretend with prudential ought by substituting it for an independent prescriptive ought. :P

The point of rights is to provide mutual benefit to all people that recognize them. Not getting your swag jacked is beneficial to everyone in the long run.

"X is beneficial" --> "it would be prudent, based on pursuit of X, to behave in accordance with Y" --> "we ought to do Y" (or, if you like, "we have a right against exposure to non-Y").

Nope, doesn't follow.

I wonder what happens when you introduce an entity whose power sufficiently exceeds that of its peers such that it doesn't have to worry about getting jacked.

That's the relationship between humans and animals right now, and I think that's why rights really do not apply to animals. If a creature stronger, smarter, and more resourceful than humans came along, the concept of rights would likely fall apart; because the creature wouldn't have a reason to recognize the rights of humans.

So, rights are a fancy way of saying that it's practical to maintain an interpersonal balance of power? That's not what "we have rights" means in ethical discourse, dawg, I'm sorry to break it to you.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 3:06:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well I'm not really familiar enough with a lot of these concepts in all honesty. My knowledge of Epistemology and Metaphysics is limited.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 3:22:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 3:06:24 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Well I'm not really familiar enough with a lot of these concepts in all honesty. My knowledge of Epistemology and Metaphysics is limited.

It took me a long time, and a lot of hard work, to develop my thoughts on the subject, and I'm still pretty puny respective both of where I would like to be and compared to the great thinkers of our time and in recent history. It's good that you're willing to admit to your unfamiliarity, though, rather than trying to BS just to save face. It just means there's plenty of savory stuff left for you to think, which is awesome. If you ever want someone to bounce ideas off of, I'm always available. If I can't help you, I should at least be able to direct you to better scholars.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 3:42:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 3:22:44 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/27/2012 3:06:24 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Well I'm not really familiar enough with a lot of these concepts in all honesty. My knowledge of Epistemology and Metaphysics is limited.

It took me a long time, and a lot of hard work, to develop my thoughts on the subject, and I'm still pretty puny respective both of where I would like to be and compared to the great thinkers of our time and in recent history. It's good that you're willing to admit to your unfamiliarity, though, rather than trying to BS just to save face. It just means there's plenty of savory stuff left for you to think, which is awesome. If you ever want someone to bounce ideas off of, I'm always available. If I can't help you, I should at least be able to direct you to better scholars.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I still BS to try and safe face. I just don't do it as much as I used to. I'm reading a few books right now, and I'm taking a bunch of philosophy courses next semester. Unfortunately the philosophy department at my college doesn't really have a lot of epistemology or metaphysics related courses, because they focus primarily on applied ethics and political philosophy; that means I'm on my own in those two branches of philosophy. So I'll definitely take you up on your offer some time.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 5:18:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
They exist in our brains. Rights are social agreements about how we treat each other, created so that we can live in an acceptably peaceful and cooperative fashion.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:21:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:09:41 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 12/26/2012 10:56:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I know that I am a conscious being with emotions, Reason, Senses Imagination Thoughts, memory and a Body.

But where are this Rights. They are not on my body. They are not in my mind. I can't even form Rational thought of what the hell they are supposed to be. Oh Please tell me where they are hidden in me? How do you know this is in me but I don;t know where this is and I have DIRECT exclusive access MY THOUGHT's.

Rights exist as concepts, which are verified and shared by societies. They are purely social constructs, and they are neither subjective or objective. Some rights are logical and others illogical, and they function as normative ethical minimums for interactions between individuals.

The Fool: <strong> I have DIRECT exclusive access MY THOUGHT's.

Read before You RESPOND!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:29:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 5:18:34 AM, Kinesis wrote:
They exist in our brains. Rights are social agreements about how we treat each other, created so that we can live in an acceptably peaceful and cooperative fashion.

The Fool: Who are you Responding TOO??????????????????
I have DIRECT exclusive access to MY THOUGHT's.

They are not on my body.

They are not in my mind.

I can't even form Rational thought of what the hell they are supposed to be.

AKA I CAN"T EVEN FORM ANY THOUGHT OF IT.

1 How do you know this is in me but I don;t know where this is and I have DIRECT exclusive access to MY THOUGHT's.

2, How do you know they on in the Brain. where in the Brain did scientist see this.?

The Fool: Here is a better argument then you,
MONKEY MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are these such STUPID MONKEY MEN, that could actually believe this still in this day and AGE. THIS IS ARCHAIC MONKEY POOP.

Do you have one that is better then that?

The Fool: I know that I am a conscious being with emotions, Reason, Senses Imagination Thoughts, memory and a Body.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:43:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:09:41 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 12/26/2012 10:56:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I know that I am a conscious being with emotions, Reason, Senses Imagination Thoughts, memory and a Body.

But where are this Rights. They are not on my body. They are not in my mind. I can't even form Rational thought of what the hell they are supposed to be. Oh Please tell me where they are hidden in me? How do you know this is in me but I don;t know where this is and I have DIRECT exclusive access to MY THOUGHT's.

Rights exist as concepts, which are verified and shared by societies.

I have DIRECT exclusive access to MY THOUGHT's.


Where are those concepts? In you, Before you born, How did they get into your baby Mind. Or was it just Recollection.

How and what are they VERIFYING??? LOL

Are they checking in peoples minds. Where is this Incredible Technology, that they have had for thousands of years.

They are purely social constructs, and they are neither subjective or objective.

The Fool: What is it constructed out of?? What is Not Does not exist.

What are they ??

Some rights are logical and others illogical, and they function as normative ethical minimums for interactions between individuals.

The Fool: Its makes to sense to Talk ABOUT (around) Something is you Don';t Know what it IS?? That is how do you know what you are talking around.

How do they function? The can do things on there own? please enlighten me. .

How do you know when they are broken. and not functioning.?

The Fool: MONKEY MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are these such STUPID MONKEY MEN, that could actually believe this still in this day and AGE. THIS IS ARCHAIC MONKEY POOP

Do you have a better argument then my Monkey Poop Argument?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 1:12:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The intentions of the founding fathers of this nation was to have your rights endowed to you by your creator so they can never be manipulated or taken away. But society has changed and now wants their rights to come from some jack azz in Washington DC who can change them or take them away like they change their underwear. Your rights are not in you. They are endowed to you by your creator. Do not look to govt to acknowledge these rights as it is govt's goal to strip you of all of them. But they can't, even if they burn you at the steak, you still have them even though they will be held in utter contempt and violated constantly by man.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 2:28:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 2:03:42 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Oh, okay. What if I make the non-cognitivist's reply--if it is true that there are no such things as rights, we have no paradigm in terms of which to define and evaluate other candidates--hence, it's not just that rights are "not objective" in the sense that we're rejecting that prong of the division: more strongly, we're rejecting that you can even evaluate the objectivity of a right insofar as no such thing exists to compare to. Rather than saying, for instance, "It is false that X is a flurble", a non-cognitivist would say that such a proposition has no truth content insofar as its predicate--whether that be "flurble" or "objective right"--isn't intelligible.

MrBrooks: I'd say that you evaluate the objectivity of a right through the conceptual deductions that established that right in the first place, i.e., the logical proof that verifies it.

The Fool: We use the word "established". They are not Really Established. They are established by Declarations AKA words. AKA I declare my Monkey poop to be Correct. And I declare it to be inaliable to YOU! Now you have a Correctness in you that is monkey poop. There it's been Established.
You have correctness to monkey poop. Yaay,

MrBrooks: For example: I see that someone has claimed an unclaimed plot of land for themselves, and I deduce that by recognizing his claim to that land it will strengthen the claim to my own land.

The Fool: How do you see that someone has claimed an unclaimed plot of land? How do you recognize the Not claimness of something, from the claimed.

let's granted that you ask someone if they claimed an unclaimed plot, First how do you know it is unclaimed,?

Second: what if he is lying?

Three: How do you know that they set limits to their claim. Does that make the universe theirs?

Does any follow at all from Claim or declaration @ all.
I declare or claim it will rain Monkey poop. Hmmm""""..I don't smel nothing yet. Okay lets add another factor.
Let's say everybody votes for me everybody votes for me and agrees would you say that it would then start to rain monkey Poop?

But never mind that, Mabye it only works when we get lots of people.

As a fool, I am very intrested in your ways.

Thus if what you say it true. We can correct Forest Gump and say
"life is like a game of Marbles as appose to chocolates Just Yell "Stampcies"
And hopes no-one double stamps. Or then, you will actually Lose you Marbles.
<(8j)

The Fool: But before I celebrate this new wisdom.

How Does anything else follow Via (You recognizing something?)
What is the causal relationship between you recognizing that you ought to do something, and something about somebody else become into existence.

MrCrook:This mutual understanding becomes a normative ethical minimum, also known as a right.

The Fool: Oh you mean mutual CONCEPTIONS shared between two or more people causes Normative ethical Minimums to Come Into Being.

At which point the Moral part POP-into the equation.

Let A and B be:Persons L
Low case are conceptions

A(c) + B(c)= Normal + Moral + MINIMUMS

The Fool: Hmmmm.

MrCrook: By reducing the right to its concepts, I have proved that the right is objective.

The Fool: Do you mean reducing Term "Rights" or the concepts of Rights which must make sense first to then to then be reduced to the "concepts of the Rights" +Rational+ Objective. Hmmmmm

Just to make it more clear for me may I ask What did though giveth, and what did though takish away, and if it have been reduced would it be fair that you speak about something different or at least lesser then before.
How are you accounting for this Reduction?

The Fool: As a fool, I agree you proved very muchly. But I must worn ye that many wise men much wiser then myself would say that all you have proved here is that you are Retarded. But I think they are jerks sometime. They think they are better than us. We should vote against them.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 2:35:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 12:34:30 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
okay, rights are abstract. so what?

The Fool: In what sense are they ABSTRACT. are they LOGIC are THEY NUMBERS.

What are you using the word "Abstract" to refer to here.

I have never heard it used this way. Please share the Wisdom. What you are using "abstract" to mean.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 2:45:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 12:43:58 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/27/2012 1:09:41 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 12/26/2012 10:56:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I know that I am a conscious being with emotions, Reason, Senses Imagination Thoughts, memory and a Body.

But where are this Rights. They are not on my body. They are not in my mind. I can't even form Rational thought of what the hell they are supposed to be. Oh Please tell me where they are hidden in me? How do you know this is in me but I don;t know where this is and I have DIRECT exclusive access to MY THOUGHT's.

Rights exist as concepts, which are verified and shared by societies.

I have DIRECT exclusive access to MY THOUGHT's.


Where are those concepts? In you, Before you born, How did they get into your baby Mind. Or was it just Recollection.

How and what are they VERIFYING??? LOL

Are they checking in peoples minds. Where is this Incredible Technology, that they have had for thousands of years.

They are purely social constructs, and they are neither subjective or objective.

The Fool: What is it constructed out of?? What is Not Does not exist.

What are they ??

Some rights are logical and others illogical, and they function as normative ethical minimums for interactions between individuals.

The Fool: Its makes to sense to Talk ABOUT (around) Something is you Don';t Know what it IS?? That is how do you know what you are talking around.

How do they function? The can do things on there own? please enlighten me. .

How do you know when they are broken. and not functioning.?


The Fool: MONKEY MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are these such STUPID MONKEY MEN, that could actually believe this still in this day and AGE. THIS IS ARCHAIC MONKEY POOP

Do you have a better argument then my Monkey Poop Argument?

I enjoyed this greatly.
Tsar of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 3:18:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rights are found within our nature, that is those which stem from natural law. If you are put in a cage, you will have a natural reaction of rage and indignation that you have been put in captivity. If you are subjected to aggressive behavior, physical threats to your being, you will have a natural behavior of either fighting back, or running, so that the natural law would be that you are to be able to defend yourself or be able to remove yourself depending on the threat. Our basic rights stem from our basic nature, and are objective in character, in that they are universal, not subject by subject.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 5:54:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 1:12:20 AM, sadolite wrote:
The intentions of the founding fathers of this nation was to have your rights endowed to you by your creator so they can never be manipulated or taken away.

The Fool: I completely agree they are derived from Religion, but you should tell the Secularist religions. (they actually think they have Gods powers?)

On the other hand I am sure that threat of eternal and unmeasurable suffering by the invisible tyrant of all things, motivated your Founding fathers to fix God's mistakes. But the fear that forced them into trying to do that, had no relation to me, for I am a descendant of black slaves, And I personally was born in Canada.
But even having said that, there is still sound reason to have reservation about your claims.

First is, I don"t think God would have appreciated your fathers. He thinks that very unholy, But I think it pokes a lot of holes, in more ways than one.
Based from what Little I know, is feel safe to say that you can only have one Real father. The others are Labeled father by Terms. I label myself "wise" all the time, but all it does is prove that I am a Fool.
So unless your name is "Luke" , And you are in a galaxy far ,far away. you should probably be asking questions rather than giving answers.

From a Galaxy Far far away. Via sadolite

sadolite: Your rights are not in you. They are endowed to you by your creator.

<(8J)
sadolite: Do not look to govt to acknowledge these rights as it is govt's goal to strip you of all of them.

The Fool: Really, Oh now I know what going on around here.
<(8D)

sadolite: But society has changed and now wants their rights to come from some jack azz in Washington DC who can change them or take them away like they change their underwear.
<(XD)

The Fool: That was a Great analogy, from a fools point of view.

sadolite: But they can't, even if they burn you at the steak, you still have them even though they will be held in utter contempt and violated constantly by man.

The Fool: Now Personally I like steak. But my vampire friends are very offended by your remarks. They said you and Jack are constantly violating them. So, out of my respect for you, I repeatedly uttered "contempt" but they don't seem to give a Bats Azz.
<(8O)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 9:42:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 10:56:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I know that I am a conscious being with emotions, Reason, Senses Imagination Thoughts, memory and a Body.

But where are this Rights. They are not on my body. They are not in my mind. I can't even form Rational thought of what the hell they are supposed to be. Oh Please tell me where they are hidden in me? How do you know this is in me but I don;t know where this is and I have DIRECT exclusive access MY THOUGHT's.


Anybody On DDO @ all. Able to give it a shot, or even a thought. Or do you just pretend that it isnt so OBVIOUS THAT THEY ARE FALSE. AND THEY WILL NEVER BE TRUE, NOT NOW NOT EVER!!

The rights do exist in our body (in our brain, to be precise). I wouldn't, however, say that we have any rights which we were naturally born with. I just can't see how we can be born with rights, especially having in mind that the concept of "rights" is merely just something which we humans have invented and created. It doesn't exist in the real world; rather, it exist only in our mind (i.e., our brain). There you have it, Mr. Philosopher.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 4:26:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 9:42:34 AM, Clash wrote:
At 12/26/2012 10:56:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I know that I am a conscious being with emotions, Reason, Senses Imagination Thoughts, memory and a Body.

But where are this Rights. They are not on my body. They are not in my mind. I can't even form Rational thought of what the hell they are supposed to be. Oh Please tell me where they are hidden in me? How do you know this is in me but I don't know where this is and I have DIRECT exclusive access MY THOUGHT's.


Anybody On DDO @ all. Able to give it a shot, or even a thought. Or do you just pretend that it isn't so OBVIOUS THAT THEY ARE FALSE. AND THEY WILL NEVER BE TRUE, NOT NOW NOT EVER!!

Clash: The rights do exist in our body (in our brain, to be precise).

The Fool: Now that is precise, which chemical would you say it was. Oh wait a minute, I know which one. The RIGHT one. How did I miss that?
<(8O)

Less than a Minute:

The Fool: Hmm, but if that is True. What does that make the left one?
<(XD)

From Left Field
The Fool: So since we have both Right and Left chemicals what is Left to be the concept?
<(89)

Particular Homicide:
Clash: I wouldn't, however, say that we have any rights which we were naturally born with.

The Fool: Well I say lots of things, Like monkey Poop, Because I have recognized so much on this thread, I have a lot a monkey poop on my mind. But I didn't see the monkey poop itself nor didn't smell it. I hear its very smelly, But I can't hear smells. I just been seeing symbols that were call letters.

If what you say is precise can you tell me precisely how the monkey poop is on my brain. How would you say that the monkey poop, got there?

It can't be good to have that mixed with all the blood and chemicals of my Brain. It may even effect my mind. Those damn letter images on my computer screen are more than meets the eye. But I have yet to see one transform. (zing!)

Please, tell me where the Rights are in my brain. I must be suffering and I just don't know it. Can you save me? or did you save me already, And I just didn't know it. In fact if you tell me I will finally begin to know that it's like to suffer. I am pretty sure it's right before the left or is it right beside the right.
Oh oh. Mind freeze. Oh yeah sorry I brain freeze. But I am quite hot, in both ways, in both ways.
<(8D)

That wasn't a stutter it was 2 utters. There was One and then other, other, together, and each other.
<(XD)

I should be More Sensitive to zombies. But they ought sense my mind. Which is not to be sensed, by the senses alone but yet are the sense which the senses are sensed by which we sense it. When I say Mind I Mean conscious sensations. Does that make sense? In what sense? This sense, or essence, or A sense, or that sense, or the sense or absence? I should mention, My senses, sense, I may get censored, and centered for, for acting the center fold which is the center of attention. But the aforementioned is not my intention, I could never center the center of all my perceptions no matter what I demand, For that is the is, in the "I" and the "I" in "I am"!
-->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang!!
Straight From The Hill!

P.S.
It may sound quite sensational and maybe inspirational even if just for the relatable but if you cannot THEN YOU HAVE BEEN ROBBED OF YOUR MIND/SOUL.

The After Thought. Or Brain chemical Or whatever?
Clash: I just can't see how we can be born with rights, especially having in mind that the concept of "rights" is merely just something which we humans have invented and created.

The Fool: Right and Therefore are ALIEN TO US. It doesn't matter If you just CALL them inalienable. It doesn't Matter is you if you call them RIGHTS. IF they are Right they are RIGHT already You can't Create rights And change them into existence. THEY ARE VERBAL ILLUSIONS. That is what AN IDEOLOGICAL ENTITY IS. An Ideology is just a different TERM used to conceal the very fact that the CONCEPTION is the very same as RELIGION. That is the concept behind the word are the same. Ideology really just means I HAVE NO JUSTIFICTION but PURE FAITH.
JUST as a FACT is a way of using the conception TRUTH without making it obvious.

For a fact is always true and what is true is a FACT RIGHT.
AKA the Morning star is the night star and the night star is the morning star.

But I can't say the blue car is the Car blue and the car blue is the blue care.

Car blue doesn't make sense. Because there is an order of necessity. Blue depends on a spatial entity.. But spatial entities don't depend on BLUE.

Yours Truly Mr. Foolosopher
<(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tigers2005
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 9:25:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No matter what, a person will always have something that no one can take away from them, a right. Society dictates what that right is.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 6:17:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 9:25:24 PM, tigers2005 wrote:
No matter what, a person will always have something that no one can take away from them, a right. Society dictates what that right is.

The Fool: MONKEY MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are these such STUPID MONKEY MEN, that could actually believe this still in this day and AGE. THIS IS ARCHAIC MONKEY POOP

But they Do, Takith, away!

So you are False.

We need a MORAL system Not a Right, and Value. system. A Rational Moral System.
There Criteria here was to say something better then MONKEY POOP!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 6:22:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: Dictation, claim, or declaration, are exactly that. Nothing more nothing less.

It doesn't matter if I add A capital D to Declaration. All that does is turn the d into a bigger D. It doesn't create things other the words.

And you do have something they could never take away. Many things, they are just on things that people can dictate to exist into you. Sorry, Harry Potter doesn't really do magic. Nor do other, Infact the real magic is the fake Magic.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 2:25:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 4:26:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/28/2012 9:42:34 AM, Clash wrote:
At 12/26/2012 10:56:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I know that I am a conscious being with emotions, Reason, Senses Imagination Thoughts, memory and a Body.

But where are this Rights. They are not on my body. They are not in my mind. I can't even form Rational thought of what the hell they are supposed to be. Oh Please tell me where they are hidden in me? How do you know this is in me but I don't know where this is and I have DIRECT exclusive access MY THOUGHT's.


Anybody On DDO @ all. Able to give it a shot, or even a thought. Or do you just pretend that it isn't so OBVIOUS THAT THEY ARE FALSE. AND THEY WILL NEVER BE TRUE, NOT NOW NOT EVER!!

Clash: The rights do exist in our body (in our brain, to be precise).

The Fool: Now that is precise, which chemical would you say it was. Oh wait a minute, I know which one. The RIGHT one. How did I miss that?
<(8O)

Less than a Minute:

The Fool: Hmm, but if that is True. What does that make the left one?
<(XD)

From Left Field
The Fool: So since we have both Right and Left chemicals what is Left to be the concept?
<(89)

Particular Homicide:
Clash: I wouldn't, however, say that we have any rights which we were naturally born with.

The Fool: Well I say lots of things, Like monkey Poop, Because I have recognized so much on this thread, I have a lot a monkey poop on my mind. But I didn't see the monkey poop itself nor didn't smell it. I hear its very smelly, But I can't hear smells. I just been seeing symbols that were call letters.

If what you say is precise can you tell me precisely how the monkey poop is on my brain. How would you say that the monkey poop, got there?

It can't be good to have that mixed with all the blood and chemicals of my Brain. It may even effect my mind. Those damn letter images on my computer screen are more than meets the eye. But I have yet to see one transform. (zing!)

Please, tell me where the Rights are in my brain. I must be suffering and I just don't know it. Can you save me? or did you save me already, And I just didn't know it. In fact if you tell me I will finally begin to know that it's like to suffer. I am pretty sure it's right before the left or is it right beside the right.
Oh oh. Mind freeze. Oh yeah sorry I brain freeze. But I am quite hot, in both ways, in both ways.
<(8D)

That wasn't a stutter it was 2 utters. There was One and then other, other, together, and each other.
<(XD)

I should be More Sensitive to zombies. But they ought sense my mind. Which is not to be sensed, by the senses alone but yet are the sense which the senses are sensed by which we sense it. When I say Mind I Mean conscious sensations. Does that make sense? In what sense? This sense, or essence, or A sense, or that sense, or the sense or absence? I should mention, My senses, sense, I may get censored, and centered for, for acting the center fold which is the center of attention. But the aforementioned is not my intention, I could never center the center of all my perceptions no matter what I demand, For that is the is, in the "I" and the "I" in "I am"!
-->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang!!
Straight From The Hill!

P.S.
It may sound quite sensational and maybe inspirational even if just for the relatable but if you cannot THEN YOU HAVE BEEN ROBBED OF YOUR MIND/SOUL.

The After Thought. Or Brain chemical Or whatever?
Clash: I just can't see how we can be born with rights, especially having in mind that the concept of "rights" is merely just something which we humans have invented and created.

The Fool: Right and Therefore are ALIEN TO US. It doesn't matter If you just CALL them inalienable. It doesn't Matter is you if you call them RIGHTS. IF they are Right they are RIGHT already You can't Create rights And change them into existence. THEY ARE VERBAL ILLUSIONS. That is what AN IDEOLOGICAL ENTITY IS. An Ideology is just a different TERM used to conceal the very fact that the CONCEPTION is the very same as RELIGION. That is the concept behind the word are the same. Ideology really just means I HAVE NO JUSTIFICTION but PURE FAITH.
JUST as a FACT is a way of using the conception TRUTH without making it obvious.

For a fact is always true and what is true is a FACT RIGHT.
AKA the Morning star is the night star and the night star is the morning star.

But I can't say the blue car is the Car blue and the car blue is the blue care.

Car blue doesn't make sense. Because there is an order of necessity. Blue depends on a spatial entity.. But spatial entities don't depend on BLUE.

Yours Truly Mr. Foolosopher
<(8J)

You are obviously a troll. Thus, I will not waste my time on answering this nonsense. In fact, I don't even know how to respond to this. It's just too much nonsense.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:20:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 2:25:56 PM, Clash wrote:
At 12/28/2012 4:26:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/28/2012 9:42:34 AM, Clash wrote:
At 12/26/2012 10:56:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I know that I am a conscious being with emotions, Reason, Senses Imagination Thoughts, memory and a Body.

But where are this Rights. They are not on my body. They are not in my mind. I can't even form Rational thought of what the hell they are supposed to be. Oh Please tell me where they are hidden in me? How do you know this is in me but I don't know where this is and I have DIRECT exclusive access MY THOUGHT's.


Anybody On DDO @ all. Able to give it a shot, or even a thought. Or do you just pretend that it isn't so OBVIOUS THAT THEY ARE FALSE. AND THEY WILL NEVER BE TRUE, NOT NOW NOT EVER!!

Clash: The rights do exist in our body (in our brain, to be precise).

The Fool: Now that is precise, which chemical would you say it was. Oh wait a minute, I know which one. The RIGHT one. How did I miss that?
<(8O)

Less than a Minute:

The Fool: Hmm, but if that is True. What does that make the left one?
<(XD)

From Left Field
The Fool: So since we have both Right and Left chemicals what is Left to be the concept?
<(89)

Particular Homicide:
Clash: I wouldn't, however, say that we have any rights which we were naturally born with.

The Fool: Well I say lots of things, Like monkey Poop, Because I have recognized so much on this thread, I have a lot a monkey poop on my mind. But I didn't see the monkey poop itself nor didn't smell it. I hear its very smelly, But I can't hear smells. I just been seeing symbols that were call letters.

If what you say is precise can you tell me precisely how the monkey poop is on my brain. How would you say that the monkey poop, got there?

It can't be good to have that mixed with all the blood and chemicals of my Brain. It may even effect my mind. Those damn letter images on my computer screen are more than meets the eye. But I have yet to see one transform. (zing!)

Please, tell me where the Rights are in my brain. I must be suffering and I just don't know it. Can you save me? or did you save me already, And I just didn't know it. In fact if you tell me I will finally begin to know that it's like to suffer. I am pretty sure it's right before the left or is it right beside the right.
Oh oh. Mind freeze. Oh yeah sorry I brain freeze. But I am quite hot, in both ways, in both ways.
<(8D)

That wasn't a stutter it was 2 utters. There was One and then other, other, together, and each other.
<(XD)

I should be More Sensitive to zombies. But they ought sense my mind. Which is not to be sensed, by the senses alone but yet are the sense which the senses are sensed by which we sense it. When I say Mind I Mean conscious sensations. Does that make sense? In what sense? This sense, or essence, or A sense, or that sense, or the sense or absence? I should mention, My senses, sense, I may get censored, and centered for, for acting the center fold which is the center of attention. But the aforementioned is not my intention, I could never center the center of all my perceptions no matter what I demand, For that is the is, in the "I" and the "I" in "I am"!
-->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang!!
Straight From The Hill!

P.S.
It may sound quite sensational and maybe inspirational even if just for the relatable but if you cannot THEN YOU HAVE BEEN ROBBED OF YOUR MIND/SOUL.

The After Thought. Or Brain chemical Or whatever?
Clash: I just can't see how we can be born with rights, especially having in mind that the concept of "rights" is merely just something which we humans have invented and created.

The Fool: Right and Therefore are ALIEN TO US. It doesn't matter If you just CALL them inalienable. It doesn't Matter is you if you call them RIGHTS. IF they are Right they are RIGHT already You can't Create rights And change them into existence. THEY ARE VERBAL ILLUSIONS. That is what AN IDEOLOGICAL ENTITY IS. An Ideology is just a different TERM used to conceal the very fact that the CONCEPTION is the very same as RELIGION. That is the concept behind the word are the same. Ideology really just means I HAVE NO JUSTIFICTION but PURE FAITH.
JUST as a FACT is a way of using the conception TRUTH without making it obvious.

For a fact is always true and what is true is a FACT RIGHT.
AKA the Morning star is the night star and the night star is the morning star.

But I can't say the blue car is the Car blue and the car blue is the blue care.

Car blue doesn't make sense. Because there is an order of necessity. Blue depends on a spatial entity.. But spatial entities don't depend on BLUE.

Yours Truly Mr. Foolosopher
<(8J)

You are obviously a troll. Thus, I will not waste my time on answering this nonsense. In fact, I don't even know how to respond to this. It's just too much nonsense.

The Fool is not a troll. He's just spirited. I'm guessing he has at least a Ph. D. in philosophy, possibly is a professor of the stuff. His knowledge base is too high not to be.
Tsar of DDO