Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What are "rights" made of?

Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 4:22:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Libertarians act as though rights are some kind of weird independently existing entity that dictate how people should act. I want to know what these rights are supposed to be. Are rights physical objects? Do they exist in some way like Plato's forms? Are they equivalent to brain states, like beliefs or desires? What is a right, and what is it reducible to?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 4:38:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The rights justification can be derived form several lines of reasoning, the main being the employment of some natural law based on some sort of human nature. Other approaches are religious ethics, argumentation ethics, etc. Rights don't exist in a metaphysical sense (except perhaps in the religious approach), they exist in relation to people and the way they act.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 4:47:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 4:38:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rights don't exist in a metaphysical sense (except perhaps in the religious approach), they exist in relation to people and the way they act.

So, do rights physically exist, or do they exist as some form of non-physical entity? That exhausts all the options.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 4:51:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 4:47:41 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/21/2012 4:38:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rights don't exist in a metaphysical sense (except perhaps in the religious approach), they exist in relation to people and the way they act.

So, do rights physically exist, or do they exist as some form of non-physical entity? That exhausts all the options.

Rights under this conception exist in some non-spatial manner. The conception of their ontological characteristics could best be likened to the rules of language.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:41:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 4:47:41 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/21/2012 4:38:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rights don't exist in a metaphysical sense (except perhaps in the religious approach), they exist in relation to people and the way they act.

So, do rights physically exist, or do they exist as some form of non-physical entity? That exhausts all the options.

Many Americans believe their right to freewill and freedom come from God or their Creator.

Endowed by their Creator with "unalienable rights". That's where that idea comes from.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:57:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 4:22:17 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Libertarians act as though rights are some kind of weird independently existing entity that dictate how people should act. I want to know what these rights are supposed to be.
The limits on social relations derivable from the choice all humans as rational animals made to live (except some humans who didn't, and they don't matter anyway because they aren't alive).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 6:07:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 4:22:17 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Libertarians act as though rights are some kind of weird independently existing entity that dictate how people should act. I want to know what these rights are supposed to be. Are rights physical objects? Do they exist in some way like Plato's forms? Are they equivalent to brain states, like beliefs or desires? What is a right, and what is it reducible to?

Rights are entitlements.

There are 2 main kind of rights.... Natural Rights, and Legal Rights. Natural rights are inalienable; no one can take them from you. Some states do not recognize certain natural rights, and they end up violating those natural rights. Legal rights are rights established by the state. Legal rights are determined by the laws of man, and natural rights are determined by the laws of nature.
Laws of nature are a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society.
When legal rights recognize natural rights, it's called a civil right. A civil right is a right is a right guaranteed by a state to all it's citizens.

Again Legal rights are determined by the laws of man, whereas natural rights are determined by the laws of nature.
The laws of nature are determined by a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
The laws of man are determined by either cultural or personal moral principles; it may also copy the laws of nature, and therefore it could be based upon natural moral principles as well.

The 3 types of moral principles are;
A Natural
B cultural
C personal

Because the laws of man can be determined by any of these 3 principles, the laws of man are not always morally correct.

For example, the holocaust was based on the personal moral principles of Hitler; he felt a moral obligation to exterminate the Jews. obviously the rest of the world saw this as immoral.

Personal morals may conflict with natural morals, and cultural morals are determined by a mixture between natural and personal morals. The effect of personal morals on a culture is what causes the differences cultural morals around the world, which are a product of passing time.

Marxism contradicts natural morals, because it is based on personal morals, created to address the issue of inequality in socioeconomic classes; this issue had a personal significance to Marx which led to the creation of the personal morals of Marxism.

Personal morals are determined by our experiences, whereas natural morals are inherent.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 6:34:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 4:22:17 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Libertarians act as though rights are some kind of weird independently existing entity that dictate how people should act. I want to know what these rights are supposed to be. Are rights physical objects? Do they exist in some way like Plato's forms? Are they equivalent to brain states, like beliefs or desires? What is a right, and what is it reducible to?

They're legal fictions, which tend to, in the libertarians case, be manifestations of an often a priori belief in freedom.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
YYW
Posts: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 7:48:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 4:22:17 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Libertarians act as though rights are some kind of weird independently existing entity that dictate how people should act. I want to know what these rights are supposed to be. Are rights physical objects? Do they exist in some way like Plato's forms? Are they equivalent to brain states, like beliefs or desires? What is a right, and what is it reducible to?

Rights are inventions by individuals who, upon concluding a deterministic order to the universe, apply similar concepts to the realm of human society. Such is the cause for language that reads "the laws of nature and nature's God entail" blah blah blah....

Libertarians do have a remarkable sense of entitlement, but rarely have any understanding of the responsibility that correlates with that entitlement. Usually, when they realize that every right is coupled with a duty, they become card carrying republicans. Some, though, never do.

The concept of natural law is hilarious, but profoundly influential in western thinking and political organization. It is the most basic premise upon which the very founding documents of the United States rests: the idea that somehow there exist laws in the universe that dictate just and proper human behavior across a variety of arenas.

Rights are not physical objects, they are metaphysical inventions of human creativity. I had a student ask one time in a class I was guest lecturing "Where do rights come from?" At the time, I quoted Locke. But in reality, rights come from a decision made by a majority of people who have enforcement power deciding that they have the right to something. (The even more cynical response is to reduce the enlightenment to an intellectual backlash to transgenerational oppression.)

Rights, though, don't exist unless we all agree that they exist. Libertarians will usually argue this point until they are blue in the face, because they are inexorably convinced that some force somewhere ordains them with some privileges. That's why only enlightenment philosophy is emphasized in American history courses: to lay the intellectual foundation for people to buy into the idea of the structure of American government.
Tsar of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 7:56:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
YYW, it sounds like you want to make an argument-- but you aren't doing it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
YYW
Posts: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:25:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 7:56:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
YYW, it sounds like you want to make an argument-- but you aren't doing it.

I'm not arguing in the above post, lol. Explanation =/= argumentation. If you'd like to debate me on anything I said though, feel free to challenge. My guess is that you'll probably win because no voter is going to accept any argument that suggests, implies or outrightly declares that "rights are fantasies of human imagination."
Tsar of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:31:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 4:22:17 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Libertarians act as though rights are some kind of weird independently existing entity that dictate how people should act. I want to know what these rights are supposed to be. Are rights physical objects? Do they exist in some way like Plato's forms? Are they equivalent to brain states, like beliefs or desires? What is a right, and what is it reducible to?

Rights are an agreement. Two or more parties decide that there is a way that they would like to be treated that they're willing to provide in return, share this ideal with one another, and agree that it will be assumed.

An example of this in real terms is the fact that American-born rights don't exist in other countries.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:38:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I would say that they are made of poor metaphysics. Which are just under different name. Because that what they are in the end. Just metaphyscial compositions.

If I am correct, Human Right was a relabeling of what was called natural rights. But philosophers and theologins alike complained of them being man made. So the quick solution was to relable them as Human Rights. So it can be claimed that they inside you, but of course, you don't know it. lol. They are then Declared true and universal by a some western nations, by Putting a capital D on declaration. So now they are true. lol. ANd the rest of Earth should BOW DOWN!! because of the CAPITAL D. That is a very powerfull letter. that D.

(mind you I give an over generalization.)
"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
7/21/2012 8:43:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: They are no more True then Unicorns. They are better then most past notions. A change to secularism came in the age of Enlightenment. When it was argued, that people shouldn't be forced to do what can't be justified. So we God a good clear seperation from Church and state. Secularism. There was some good philosphy and some progress. But after the enlightment things get wierd relative and inconsistent. ANd so here we are with 50 or so commandments. (obviously this is a Ridiculas over generalization)
"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
7/21/2012 8:43:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:56:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Don't even get me started.

The Fool: you claim to not know anything how are you going to get started?
"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: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:43:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 8:38:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I would say that they are made of poor metaphysics. Which are just under different name. Because that what they are in the end. Just metaphyscial compositions.

If I am correct, Human Right was a relabeling of what was called natural rights. But philosophers and theologins alike complained of them being man made. So the quick solution was to relable them as Human Rights. So it can be claimed that they inside you, but of course, you don't know it. lol. They are then Declared true and universal by a some western nations, by Putting a capital D on declaration. So now they are true. lol. ANd the rest of Earth should BOW DOWN!! because of the CAPITAL D. That is a very powerfull letter. that D.

(mind you I give an over generalization.)

This.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:46:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 8:43:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:38:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I would say that they are made of poor metaphysics. Which are just under different name. Because that what they are in the end. Just metaphyscial compositions.

If I am correct, Human Right was a relabeling of what was called natural rights. But philosophers and theologins alike complained of them being man made. So the quick solution was to relable them as Human Rights. So it can be claimed that they inside you, but of course, you don't know it. lol. They are then Declared true and universal by a some western nations, by Putting a capital D on declaration. So now they are true. lol. ANd the rest of Earth should BOW DOWN!! because of the CAPITAL D. That is a very powerfull letter. that D.

(mind you I give an over generalization.)

This.

The Fool: everything I am saying now, is crude an off the top of my head. Don't quote me on it.. I am give saying for the most part they cant be defined in the sense that they have been since the enlightenment.
"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
7/21/2012 8:52:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Correction from 'Legal to human rights"
"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
7/21/2012 8:54:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Small argument:

In the 19th century, natural rights, or the 'rights of man', became less relevant to political change, and thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham ridiculed the idea that 'All men are born free' as 'Absurd and miserable nonsense'. Bentham famously dismissed natural and imprescriptible rights as 'nonsense upon stilts', declaring that wanting something is not the same as having it. In Bentham 'sterms: 'hunger is not bread'. For Bentham, real rights were legal rights, and it was the role of law makers, and not natural rights advocates, to generate rights and determine their limits. Bentham considered that one was asking for trouble, inviting anarchy even, to suggest that government was constrained by natural rights.
The contemporary scholar Amartya Sen has recalled Bentham's influence, and highlighted a 'legitimacy critique' whereby some see human rights as 'pre-legal moral claims'that 'can hardly be seen as giving justiciable rights in courts and other institutions of enforcement'. Sen cautions against confusing human rights with 'legislated legal rights'. He also points to a further reaction to human rights discourse: It has been claimed by some that human rights are alien to some cultures which may prefer to prioritize other principles, such as respect for authority. Sen calls this the 'cultural critique'. This last criticism is a common preoccupation of commentators whenever the topic of human rights is raised.
"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
7/21/2012 9:01:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: this is the song that came into my head. When I was saying The Capital D on declaration, mean BOW DOWN> from the west.
"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
7/21/2012 9:03:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: The lyrics can be perfectly related.
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:04:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 7:48:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2012 4:22:17 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Libertarians act as though rights are some kind of weird independently existing entity that dictate how people should act. I want to know what these rights are supposed to be. Are rights physical objects? Do they exist in some way like Plato's forms? Are they equivalent to brain states, like beliefs or desires? What is a right, and what is it reducible to?

Rights are inventions by individuals who, upon concluding a deterministic order to the universe, apply similar concepts to the realm of human society. Such is the cause for language that reads "the laws of nature and nature's God entail" blah blah blah....

Libertarians do have a remarkable sense of entitlement, but rarely have any understanding of the responsibility that correlates with that entitlement. Usually, when they realize that every right is coupled with a duty, they become card carrying republicans. Some, though, never do.

The concept of natural law is hilarious, but profoundly influential in western thinking and political organization. It is the most basic premise upon which the very founding documents of the United States rests: the idea that somehow there exist laws in the universe that dictate just and proper human behavior across a variety of arenas.

Rights are not physical objects, they are metaphysical inventions of human creativity. I had a student ask one time in a class I was guest lecturing "Where do rights come from?" At the time, I quoted Locke. But in reality, rights come from a decision made by a majority of people who have enforcement power deciding that they have the right to something. (The even more cynical response is to reduce the enlightenment to an intellectual backlash to transgenerational oppression.)

Rights, though, don't exist unless we all agree that they exist. Libertarians will usually argue this point until they are blue in the face, because they are inexorably convinced that some force somewhere ordains them with some privileges. That's why only enlightenment philosophy is emphasized in American history courses: to lay the intellectual foundation for people to buy into the idea of the structure of American government.

How can the same person who speaks with so much sense right now advocate something as outrageous as drafts later?

In the end, humans do whatever the heck they want. Since there's no such thing as objective morality, the purpose of life is the fulfillment of desire. What we collectively want is all that matters; it is our end; it is our meaning. And the insuperable foundation on which all desires can be achieved,....is Liberty.

Therefore, social Libertarianism is the conclusion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:04:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 8:46:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:43:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:38:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I would say that they are made of poor metaphysics. Which are just under different name. Because that what they are in the end. Just metaphyscial compositions.

If I am correct, Human Right was a relabeling of what was called natural rights. But philosophers and theologins alike complained of them being man made. So the quick solution was to relable them as Human Rights. So it can be claimed that they inside you, but of course, you don't know it. lol. They are then Declared true and universal by a some western nations, by Putting a capital D on declaration. So now they are true. lol. ANd the rest of Earth should BOW DOWN!! because of the CAPITAL D. That is a very powerfull letter. that D.

(mind you I give an over generalization.)

This.

The Fool: everything I am saying now, is crude an off the top of my head. Don't quote me on it.. I am give saying for the most part they cant be defined in the sense that they have been since the enlightenment.

Lol, the next time I write an article I doubt that upon peer review they would find a citation that looked anything like:

Hill, The Fool On The. "The Fool On Rights." Debate Dot Org. (Jul., 2012)
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:05:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Better
"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: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:07:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 9:04:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/21/2012 7:48:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2012 4:22:17 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Libertarians act as though rights are some kind of weird independently existing entity that dictate how people should act. I want to know what these rights are supposed to be. Are rights physical objects? Do they exist in some way like Plato's forms? Are they equivalent to brain states, like beliefs or desires? What is a right, and what is it reducible to?

Rights are inventions by individuals who, upon concluding a deterministic order to the universe, apply similar concepts to the realm of human society. Such is the cause for language that reads "the laws of nature and nature's God entail" blah blah blah....

Libertarians do have a remarkable sense of entitlement, but rarely have any understanding of the responsibility that correlates with that entitlement. Usually, when they realize that every right is coupled with a duty, they become card carrying republicans. Some, though, never do.

The concept of natural law is hilarious, but profoundly influential in western thinking and political organization. It is the most basic premise upon which the very founding documents of the United States rests: the idea that somehow there exist laws in the universe that dictate just and proper human behavior across a variety of arenas.

Rights are not physical objects, they are metaphysical inventions of human creativity. I had a student ask one time in a class I was guest lecturing "Where do rights come from?" At the time, I quoted Locke. But in reality, rights come from a decision made by a majority of people who have enforcement power deciding that they have the right to something. (The even more cynical response is to reduce the enlightenment to an intellectual backlash to transgenerational oppression.)

Rights, though, don't exist unless we all agree that they exist. Libertarians will usually argue this point until they are blue in the face, because they are inexorably convinced that some force somewhere ordains them with some privileges. That's why only enlightenment philosophy is emphasized in American history courses: to lay the intellectual foundation for people to buy into the idea of the structure of American government.

How can the same person who speaks with so much sense right now advocate something as outrageous as drafts later?

In the end, humans do whatever the heck they want. Since there's no such thing as objective morality, the purpose of life is the fulfillment of desire. What we collectively want is all that matters; it is our end; it is our meaning. And the insuperable foundation on which all desires can be achieved,....is Liberty.

Therefore, social Libertarianism is the conclusion.

I suppose that my public endorsing of mandatory conscription is going to haunt me forever. roflmao
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:09:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 9:04:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:46:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:43:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:38:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I would say that they are made of poor metaphysics. Which are just under different name. Because that what they are in the end. Just metaphyscial compositions.

If I am correct, Human Right was a relabeling of what was called natural rights. But philosophers and theologins alike complained of them being man made. So the quick solution was to relable them as Human Rights. So it can be claimed that they inside you, but of course, you don't know it. lol. They are then Declared true and universal by a some western nations, by Putting a capital D on declaration. So now they are true. lol. ANd the rest of Earth should BOW DOWN!! because of the CAPITAL D. That is a very powerfull letter. that D.

(mind you I give an over generalization.)

This.

The Fool: everything I am saying now, is crude an off the top of my head. Don't quote me on it.. I am give saying for the most part they cant be defined in the sense that they have been since the enlightenment.

Lol, the next time I write an article I doubt that upon peer review they would find a citation that looked anything like:

Hill, The Fool On The. "The Fool On Rights." Debate Dot Org. (Jul., 2012)

The Fool: I know I would be considered a heritic!
"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
7/21/2012 9:10:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Mind you I am biasly a Neo-Enlightment Thinker.
"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: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:13:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 9:09:13 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/21/2012 9:04:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:46:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:43:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:38:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I would say that they are made of poor metaphysics. Which are just under different name. Because that what they are in the end. Just metaphyscial compositions.

If I am correct, Human Right was a relabeling of what was called natural rights. But philosophers and theologins alike complained of them being man made. So the quick solution was to relable them as Human Rights. So it can be claimed that they inside you, but of course, you don't know it. lol. They are then Declared true and universal by a some western nations, by Putting a capital D on declaration. So now they are true. lol. ANd the rest of Earth should BOW DOWN!! because of the CAPITAL D. That is a very powerfull letter. that D.

(mind you I give an over generalization.)

This.

The Fool: everything I am saying now, is crude an off the top of my head. Don't quote me on it.. I am give saying for the most part they cant be defined in the sense that they have been since the enlightenment.

Lol, the next time I write an article I doubt that upon peer review they would find a citation that looked anything like:

Hill, The Fool On The. "The Fool On Rights." Debate Dot Org. (Jul., 2012)

The Fool: I know I would be considered a heritic!

Even still, I know you don't like to be quoted (or worse yet, paraphrased). We've discussed this before. I'm cool with that. (I would hate to be quoted or paraphrased in German or Russian. Even though I'm conversationally sort of fluent in both, I would hate for anything I say in either language to be taken seriously, because neither are the native tongue.) All that to say, I get it. It's cool.
Tsar of DDO