Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Do people really have any rights to anything?

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 1:35:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yep, something's wrong.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:27:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We just had this thread.

http://www.debate.org...
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 3:17:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is this a nihilist circlejerk or is there gonna be anything worth sticking around for?
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.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 3:32:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I like to think of "rights" as a mutual agreement violation of which leads to degradation of social communication and physical enforcement of norms. There's nothing inherently existing about it.

Either play along or go to another sandbox.

And before you say it, "play along" includes reshaping your own society's standards on rights (which changes depending on space-time local).
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 4:02:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 1:33:47 AM, YYW wrote:
I mean come on... Rights, they're all bullsh!t anyway.

The Fool: I think we can have an objective moral format. I just think, the formats of Rights is just irrtional metaphysics. We need a serious philosophical revolution that can be logicaly justify morals. But because they are swayed by vote as appose to reason. good luck on that happening some. I am against the spreading of that ideology on the world.

I would argue a completly consequencialist format. To create ethical laws, and even an ethical science in which we can progress to better moral principles.
"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
7/26/2012 5:14:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: This is the best definition of an existing Person. (I think so far)

A Person: is there inner/conscious/mind, and their physical representations (outer) taken into together.

What would we say is missing???
"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
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:35:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rights are absolutely ridiculous. First off, "right" is subjective - it has to be determined by somebody (even natural rights). Secondly, for every right you give, two must be taken away. By saying you have a right to a, you are implying you don't have a right to b-z.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:42:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
When you have a bad concept, it usually has many different problematic aspects. This one is no different. Another aspect I find troubling is that if humans have rights, then what do animals have? The default position is that animals do not actually have rights. After all, it would be hard to assign them any given the uses we have for them, i.e., slaughterhouses, CAFOs, etc. However this is contrary to human intuition and morality; Michael Vick ought to be a modern-day martyr if this is the case. While a select few of you will actually agree with this statement, the general consensus from the blood-circulating, living, breathing, and feeling populace is that it is horrible to torture and kill animals.
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:48:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:42:51 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Another aspect I find troubling is that if humans have rights, then what do animals have?
Tasty meat.

However this is contrary to human intuition and morality
Not mine.

Michael Vick ought to be a modern-day martyr
He is.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:49:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:35:10 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Rights are absolutely ridiculous. First off, "right" is subjective - it has to be determined by somebody (even natural rights). Secondly, for every right you give, two must be taken away. By saying you have a right to a, you are implying you don't have a right to b-z.

You don't give rights, you derive them.
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.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 2:46:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 11:49:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:35:10 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Rights are absolutely ridiculous. First off, "right" is subjective - it has to be determined by somebody (even natural rights). Secondly, for every right you give, two must be taken away. By saying you have a right to a, you are implying you don't have a right to b-z.

You don't give rights, you derive them.

That's not how this country does it, we have Constitution/laws. That's not derivation...
Rob
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 2:53:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 1:33:47 AM, YYW wrote:
I mean come on... Rights, they're all bullsh!t anyway.

Like me, I think you're tired of folks equivocating rights with 'preference.' Yes humans have intrinsic worth, at least on theism. But that doesn't mean that what they prefer is to be bought at the expense of other's rights. For preference has no intrinsic worth.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 6:12:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 2:53:37 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/26/2012 1:33:47 AM, YYW wrote:
I mean come on... Rights, they're all bullsh!t anyway.

Like me, I think you're tired of folks equivocating rights with 'preference.' Yes humans have intrinsic worth, at least on theism. But that doesn't mean that what they prefer is to be bought at the expense of other's rights. For preference has no intrinsic worth.

I get tired of the concept. It's lovely and Romantic to think about "natural rights" and the like (still bullsh!t but less offensive then rights in modern conception), but RA you are spot on in that people -because they have been given permission to think that way- begin to equate that they want with what they believe they are entitled to have (which bastardizes the concept, in the truest sense of the word).

And this phrase: "nihilistic circle jerk" made me lol. And so, lol. And lol again. Not quite a rofl, but definitely a lol.
Tsar of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 6:21:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We used to have "rights" Now they have all been converted into "regulation" You can't do much of anything without first asking the govt for permission. You have meaningless rights, like thinking to yourself.
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%
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 1:56:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 2:46:50 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 7/27/2012 11:49:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:35:10 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Rights are absolutely ridiculous. First off, "right" is subjective - it has to be determined by somebody (even natural rights). Secondly, for every right you give, two must be taken away. By saying you have a right to a, you are implying you don't have a right to b-z.

You don't give rights, you derive them.

That's not how this country does it, we have Constitution/laws. That's not derivation...
A law can only recognize preexisting rights (or falsely recognize ones that don't exist), it can't grant them.
When the Founders wrote the Constitution that is what they were trying to do, however imperfectly. Then FDR came along with no understanding of that, and similarly minded judges soon followed.
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.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:09:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that "rights" are "legally justified freedoms"...which are bestowed by whatever particular power is making it a "right"...and it is then limited by the power of the one who says it is a "right".
Mike_10-4
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 8:12:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2012 1:33:47 AM, YYW wrote:
I mean come on... Rights, they're all bullsh!t anyway.

We all have Unalienable Rights, they are part of the physical Laws of Nature. These Rights are a manifestation of the Constructal Law.
https://www.youtube.com...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 9:14:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2012 3:17:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is this a nihilist circlejerk or is there gonna be anything worth sticking around for?

2 years later and I'm going to sig this
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 9:17:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2012 3:17:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is this a nihilist circlejerk or is there gonna be anything worth sticking around for?
Nolite Timere