If rights, whither from?

[editec]

Intense,

Ad hominen insults are the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

You are dismissed.

 

[JBeukema]

actions for creatures capable of self-determination of those actions, constitute a seizure of advantage of a natural right.

Demonstrate this 'natural right' that is being seized. Actions by a creature demonstrate an ability to act in such a matter and, in creatures capable of being aware of their decision-making, possibly a decision to act in such a matter, although we might not consciously make those decisions, since they seem to be made before we are aware of it.

If you really intend to rob 'natural rights' of all its meaning and reduce it to a mere synonym for awareness of decision-making, go ahead. But in so doing you rob your own words and the entire concept you seek to coopt of any meaning whatsoever.

If 'natural rights' is no longer claimed to be anything more than self-awareness, then sure, self-awareness exists. But that's like redefining 'God' 'that tingly feeling you get when your foot falls asleep' and then claiming that you've proven God exists.


You have to demonstrate the right exists before you can claim it's been exercised. Ability is ability and action is action. At this point, it's not even entirely certain that action equals an exercise in free will in our own species, since human decision making can, it seems can, at least in some instances, be detected seven seconds before a person is becomes aware of a decision being made.

firstly, your observation that decisions are made before we are aware is only an observation of the workings of the mind, but only goes so far as supporting an argument that our will has subconscious pretexts. it does not imperil the idea of will, itself.

It does if it holds true for more complex decisions, for how can a decision made without our even being aware of it be a conscious decision made of our own free will?

next, your argument crosses the concepts of self-determination, which i associate as a qualifier for their being rights, and self-awareness, which you have presented despite it having no relevance to the matter at hand.

Self-awareness as nothing to do with self-determination? Such a conjecture is laughable.

this has been a consistent trend in your argumentation, to wit: your arguments based on meaning, a meaning/definition, ability, determinism, and now self-awareness. later, i'll add your contention that the effect of a force cant be taken as evidence to this list of buffoonery.

I have made no arguments at all. I have merely asked for your evidence that x exists. You have failed to present any, instead repeatedly attempting to redefine x as anything and everything in order to bend semantics instead of actual presented evidence for your metaphysical assertions. At this point, the only appropriate response to your evasions and redefinitions of your own claims is open laughter- and that remains the case until you present evidence.

you cant cope with the most basic precepts of natural rights.

Correction: I don't forego reason in preference of metaphysical bullshit. You assert a thing exists and you declare it to be natural. Hence, if it exists, it exists in the natural world and is subject to study via the natural sciences. Thus, it falls upon you to present the evidence, in accordance with the scientific method of learning, supporting your assertions. Until you do, the only appropriate response if wholesale rejection of your baseless assertions.

That is how science works- either present your evidence or stop wasting everyone's time with meaningless self-assuredness and metaphysical conjecture. When you are prepared to enter the age of positivity and reason, let us know.

while you feel that a demonstration of rights existing must precede a claim that they are in use, i digress to our earlier discussion about the parallels of gravitation and rights.

Graviton was shown to exist by demonstrating graviton, or more precisely, 'graviton' was the term applied to an observable and measurable phenomenon.

I can drop an apple and prove gravitation- let alone the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe at large.

You can't point at 'natural rights'; rather you keep pointing at the social contract, proving that social rights exist and claiming that this somehow demonstrates the existence of vague metaphysical 'rights' that simultaneously manage to be 'natural' yet exist outside the realm of the natural sciences- as you refuse to subject the notion to science. It's absurdity and it is laughable. If you truly believe your own metaphysical bullshit, I question your intelligence. If you are floundering so desperately because you don't even believe your own words, then it becomes a question of your character.

in the discovery of the forces at play, with certainty, the first observations of gravity were made as to the effects of the force in use itself. these effects are what has endowed gravity it's quantification and our understanding of its nature. in the same way, my observation of how rights are employed and the consequences of their deployment in different contexts are the basis of the demonstration of their existence

-pof the existence of social/positive rights, sure. But not of the vague metaphysical yet 'natural' rights of your mythology.

. your obstinacy with 'evidence', like retiredgysargeant, has put you at a loss to locate it, even as this instant you exercise a natural right to self-education.

I exercise my ability and my will. You've proved the existence of nothing beyond that.

Now, show us the science that demonstrates the validity of your assertions.

shouldn't i have expected that your incessant harping for evidence was the product of one of the many demonstrated (yet not explicitly posted) fallacies to which you dearly adhere?

The fallacy is on your side, as you assert x ('natural' yet metaphysical 'rights'), then demonstrate that y (social/positive rights) exist and declare victory. Either you have evidence or your claims are bullshit. It's that simple. You show that 'natural rights' exist the same way you show a planet or photon exists. All knowledge is conclusion based on available evidence. Only one thing, the existence of the self as a sentient awareness (the mind or the ego) is self-evident (that being because only the existence of the self as such can explain the ability of the self to ask the question in the first place).

If you have no evidence that x exists, x is not part of the model of the universe.

See: logical positivism, positivism, Occa's Razor, since you brought up philosophy

i guess its only a matter of time before each of your arguments divulge the stupidity at their foundation.

Right.... Where's your evidence again? That's right, you have none, making you the stupid one for believing that asserting something enough times makes it true and that evidence is unnecessary.

don't lose hope! i'm sure if you applied more brainpower in contemplating what you believe, that it would not get shot down with such ease,

Again, you leave us with only one appropriate response

 

[JBeukema]

I really don't have social contracts with friends, family, or even customers. There are implied rules and guidelines I guess.

That's pretty much what the social contract is. Sometimes it becomes more formalized, even codified into law and written down, but usually it simply remains non-codified ethics and societal norms.

Don't confuse this realm with the next.

What is this 'next realm' of which you speak. Definition and evidence, please.

You have to buy a ticket first.

I'm skeptical of 'site-unseen' purchases, especially when you seem to be selling indulgences. Might you be a Catholic?

 

[JBeukema]

What government has given me life? What government can take it away?

Addressing the latter: many governments have commanded the extermination of a great many peoples' lives throughout history, making your question a rather stupid one.

 

[JBeukema]

Editic (Premature Ejaculation)

Very mature...

 

[arKangel]

human rights
pl.n. The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

Are you saying that because something can be supressed or taken away by force that it doesn't exist?

Does a "million dollars" give you rights?

 

[JBeukema]

human rights
pl.n. The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

Are you saying that because something can be supressed or taken away by force that it doesn't exist?

Does a "million dollars" give you rights?

Entitled?

I thought the entitlement mentality was what was wrong with America? Every conservative in the nation keeps saying so.

 

[arKangel]

Are you saying that because something can be supressed or taken away by force that it doesn't exist?

Does a "million dollars" give you rights?

 

[antagon]

firstly, your observation that decisions are made before we are aware is only an observation of the workings of the mind, but only goes so far as supporting an argument that our will has subconscious pretexts. it does not imperil the idea of will, itself.

It does if it holds true for more complex decisions, for how can a decision made without our even being aware of it be a conscious decision made of our own free will?

it doesnt. as i've explained. might that discovery reveal a flaw in how you think we think, while not changing thought itself?

Self-awareness as nothing to do with self-determination? Such a conjecture is laughable.

you used these terms interchangeably. i contend that they are neither synonymous nor necessarily related at all. every time you made jokes from demonstrating your capacity for reasoning, i dissected your argument. have a laugh and argue what i've stated above is false.

I have made no arguments at all.

...like an idiot, i might add...

I have merely asked for your evidence that x exists. You have failed to present any, instead repeatedly attempting to redefine x as anything and everything in order to bend semantics instead of actual presented evidence for your metaphysical assertions. At this point, the only appropriate response to your evasions and redefinitions of your own claims is open laughter- and that remains the case until you present evidence.

do you know what metaphysical means? you use that shit at random. and i remind that you have made many lame, passive arguments in your rebuttals. just because they stink with fallacy and are passively presented as if fearing reprisal doesn't mean they aren't arguments.

contrary to the bullshit you state above, i have presented my simple definition not uncommon to any other of natural rights. in no way has the basis of my argument changed whatsoever in the course of this thread. there is no bullshit evasion on my part; no redefinitions. in fact, i have defended my definition in content and origin, and rather than posting in dissent of that, you've ignored that and persist in claiming that i have moved goalposts and radically altered definitions somehow.

ignoring an argument is not a valid form of argumentation itself. you can add that to your lame attempts at semantic argument. ignoring evidence presented you, and basing 3/4 of your rebuttal on claiming that no evidence has been presented does not make for a valid rebuttal, either.

this is a philosophical debate. your attempts to introduce laws which govern science make you out to be an idiot. you have argued that id is exempt from scientific probability, albeit pathetically, and i claim that many extensions of the same, to include rights, possess this same exemption. as you storm in with your positivist bullshit - entirely a fallacy in itself - you make note of one of the many concepts which betray its fallacious foundation. even if evidence of rights were required, i have defined rights and presented you evidence which you have not yet rebutted, except by changing the role of self-determination in my definition to that of self-awareness, or this time, ignoring your own acknowledgment of my truth:

I exercise my ability and my will. You've proved the existence of nothing beyond that.

that i have so defined natural rights, as have scholars since the enlightenment, your own statement above is your evidence, dummy. beyond that is beyond my definition of natural rights. i argue that your exercising your will for self-education is well within thomas hobbes' definition as well. have you evaded recognition of the evidence that i have presented over and over and over again by changing definitions in the way you falsely characterize my argumentation? don't bother answering, its plain as day.

at least you are able to accept my evidence in such an assertive way. kudos.

before we move on, having finally traversed this first hurdle in the race, let me smackdown your feeling in any position to lecture me on philosophy following your thought-challenged performance on display thus far:

it's ockham's razor, son, not occa's, and i contend that my simplified definition of hobbes/locke natural rights which has been shed of these thinker's qualifications and built-in implications is so better on the basis of this principle.

while i am essentially a scientist, i am not a positivist or a reductionist, and i contend that positivity is not characteristic of the age we're in. as an ambassador for that positivist bullshit, you've only demonstrated its frailty when deployed in philosophical and social contexts while at once demonstrating your own ineptitude in argumentation.

'age of positivity'

 

[JBeukema]

firstly, your observation that decisions are made before we are aware is only an observation of the workings of the mind, but only goes so far as supporting an argument that our will has subconscious pretexts. it does not imperil the idea of will, itself.

It does if it holds true for more complex decisions, for how can a decision made without our even being aware of it be a conscious decision made of our own free will?

it doesnt. as i've explained.

You've explained a matter of science the scientist studying it say isn't settled?

you used these terms interchangeably.

No, I didn't. You just fail at reading comprehension.

this is a philosophical debate. your attempts to introduce laws which govern science make you out to be an idiot.

Fail. You insists a thing exists and that t is natural. Hence, if it exists it exists in nature and it is within the realm of the natural sciences. You try to declare it to be outside the realm of the material- to be metaphysical- to try to run away from presenting any evidence that x exists.

Once again, you present zero evidence and leave only a single appropriate response:

That is the only appropriate response until you present evidence of your claims.

your positivist bullshit - entirely a fallacy in itself

Science is based in positivity. Positivity is reason and logic. You assert a thing exists- hence you bear the burden of proof; it is on you to present evidence of your claims. That you attack the basis of scientific progress as 'bullshit' show that you are intellectually dishonest at best.

even if evidence of rights were required,

It is. You assert x exists, therefore you are required to present evidence or gtfo. You expect your assertions to be taken as gospel and scoff at the idea of evidence being required. You have proven there is absolutely no reason to take you any more seriously than creationist who insists that god is real and all we positivists and honest persons will burn in hell.

As I said before, 'rights' turn out to be an awful lot like 'God'.

it's ockham's razor, son, not occa's

Occam's razor is a widely used alternative spelling and that you try to argue over the spelling of a man's name and declare victory just highlights your total lack of any evidence, point, or argument whatsoever.

while i am essentially a scientist, i am not a positivist or a reductionist

Fail. All real science is rooted in positivity and evidence.

positivity is not characteristic of the age we're in

Maybe not your bass-ackwards morons, but that's your problem.=

'age of positivity'

Yes, the rest of the civilized world has moved past superstition and metaphysics- it's pretty key to scientific advancement.


Not only do you have zero evidence, but you state openly that you don't believe in evidence but rather in dogma and faith. Once again, you leave only one appropriate response

Now get the fuck out here and join the creationists and the little girls looking for faeries in the garden.

 

[antagon]

Not only do you have zero evidence, but you state openly that you don't believe in evidence but rather in dogma and faith. Once again, you leave only one appropriate response

Now get the fuck out here and join the creationists and the little girls looking for faeries in the garden.

look, dummy, i've presented you evidence which you accepted, claiming that i have 'proven nothing more'. despite peppering your shitpost with LOL's you failed to address that fact after i pointed it out in my previous post. do you rescind your earlier acknowledgment that as you read this, you exercise a natural right? was that just a brief glint of intelligence? ignoring is not a root of argumentation, it is a root of ignorance.

positivity is not the basis of science, nor the progenitor of scientific method, rather it is the scientific philosophy which defers to reductionist science, and aims to stretch the scientific method to tasks which it fails to envelop. such failings in biology, physics, and social sciences among philosophy, psycology and anthropology, indicate the weakness in the positivist philosophy, rather than of the observation itself. for this reason science, the scientific community and the age we live in is not decidedly positivist in the least. that era of the 19th and 20th centuries has since been overrun by scientific synthesis which retains 'positivity', but embraces a qualitative component to guide and afford practicality to research. if you are a die-hard positivist, that's great, but we are in no age of positivism, not for some 50 years.

i dont see what the positivism question has to do with my contention about natural rights. it is another of your non-sequitur failures in this debate.

i fail to see how your subconscious precognition observation has to do with self-determination. i believe that it creates an upheaval in the claims (of positivists) who concluded that conscious thought occurred in a specific part of the brain and sub-conscious in another, and that these centers are distinct from eachother during thought. it challenges the very attributions of conscious and subconsious, but not that of thought itself. when you're done laughing out loud, consider that the scientists which you refer to are recalibrating their understanding of thought, but that the discovery does not lend to any question about whether determination is of self or other. it is all within the subjects cabesa, after all. what was your point in bringing up that non-sequitur? what does that have to do with natural rights.

lastly, your insistence that the word 'natural' in 'natural rights' qualifies it for scientific assessment on level with physics is just your latest adventure in semantics. in the context of natural rights, natural more alludes to the constant and universal nature of the rights themselves excluding them from the relativity of rights within social or legal contexts. like i said, semantic is for dummies.

Occam's razor is a widely used alternative spelling and that you try to argue over the spelling of a man's name and declare victory just highlights your total lack of any evidence, point, or argument whatsoever.

1. you said occa's, not occams's...
2. this wasn't an argument; i just pointed out that you kicked your rebuttal off on a stupid note
3. the argument followed when i asserted that my definition of natural rights which you have derided in the past was in keeping with the spirit of ockham's razor.
4. ockham is not dude's name, either, but the name of a place.
5. you are the only one who claims to lack argument.

 

[Intense]

That's pretty much what the social contract is. Sometimes it becomes more formalized, even codified into law and written down, but usually it simply remains non-codified ethics and societal norms.

What is this 'next realm' of which you speak. Definition and evidence, please.

You have to buy a ticket first.

I'm skeptical of 'site-unseen' purchases, especially when you seem to be selling indulgences. Might you be a Catholic?

Funny. I'm skeptical of that You Tube post you made yesterday....

Post Denominational Christian, Renegade Catholic, Anarchist For God. Take Your pick. Labels are what they are, we are what we are. I'm actually not selling anything, the only place I will ever attempt to lead you or direct you, is to your own conscience. I trust that Our Creator equipped us with what we need internally. You can reboot, defrag, change sides, any time you are ready. One thing we each have to contribute to the whole is our individual witness and perspective, that's a good thing, when it is in tune.

 

[Intense]

Intense,

Ad hominen insults are the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

You are dismissed.

You imagine yourself to be a pretty important Hombre in this life. You have yet to earn the right to dismiss me, or anyone else. My insults mirror what yours hide under the surface. You are not on high ground Editec, you wouldn't even recognize it if it was close. Back track, find what in deed corrupted your reason and ability to discern. Reconcile, see again.

 

[Intense]

What government has given me life? What government can take it away?

Addressing the latter: many governments have commanded the extermination of a great many peoples' lives throughout history, making your question a rather stupid one.

Salvation is beyond the realm of Government. Conscience, Soul.

 

[Intense]

Not only do you have zero evidence, but you state openly that you don't believe in evidence but rather in dogma and faith. Once again, you leave only one appropriate response

Now get the fuck out here and join the creationists and the little girls looking for faeries in the garden.

look, dummy, i've presented you evidence which you accepted, claiming that i have 'proven nothing more'. despite peppering your shitpost with LOL's you failed to address that fact after i pointed it out in my previous post. do you rescind your earlier acknowledgment that as you read this, you exercise a natural right? was that just a brief glint of intelligence? ignoring is not a root of argumentation, it is a root of ignorance.

positivity is not the basis of science, nor the progenitor of scientific method, rather it is the scientific philosophy which defers to reductionist science, and aims to stretch the scientific method to tasks which it fails to envelop. such failings in biology, physics, and social sciences among philosophy, psycology and anthropology, indicate the weakness in the positivist philosophy, rather than of the observation itself. for this reason science, the scientific community and the age we live in is not decidedly positivist in the least. that era of the 19th and 20th centuries has since been overrun by scientific synthesis which retains 'positivity', but embraces a qualitative component to guide and afford practicality to research. if you are a die-hard positivist, that's great, but we are in no age of positivism, not for some 50 years.

i dont see what the positivism question has to do with my contention about natural rights. it is another of your non-sequitur failures in this debate.

i fail to see how your subconscious precognition observation has to do with self-determination. i believe that it creates an upheaval in the claims (of positivists) who concluded that conscious thought occurred in a specific part of the brain and sub-conscious in another, and that these centers are distinct from eachother during thought. it challenges the very attributions of conscious and subconsious, but not that of thought itself. when you're done laughing out loud, consider that the scientists which you refer to are recalibrating their understanding of thought, but that the discovery does not lend to any question about whether determination is of self or other. it is all within the subjects cabesa, after all. what was your point in bringing up that non-sequitur? what does that have to do with natural rights.

lastly, your insistence that the word 'natural' in 'natural rights' qualifies it for scientific assessment on level with physics is just your latest adventure in semantics. in the context of natural rights, natural more alludes to the constant and universal nature of the rights themselves excluding them from the relativity of rights within social or legal contexts. like i said, semantic is for dummies.

Occam's razor is a widely used alternative spelling and that you try to argue over the spelling of a man's name and declare victory just highlights your total lack of any evidence, point, or argument whatsoever.

1. you said occa's, not occams's...
2. this wasn't an argument; i just pointed out that you kicked your rebuttal off on a stupid note
3. the argument followed when i asserted that my definition of natural rights which you have derided in the past was in keeping with the spirit of ockham's razor.
4. ockham is not dude's name, either, but the name of a place.
5. you are the only one who claims to lack argument.

Pretty strong argument here using Natural Rights, communication, rejection, reason, on both sides. Of course one is an automatic fail.
Are we nothing more than what society decrees? Is Society ever wrong? Does the scientist ever find himself on the wrong side of the equation? Does the scientist ever bumble and stumble into a realization??? More often than one would think.

 

[JBeukema]

do you rescind your earlier acknowledgment that as you read this, you exercise a natural right? was that just a brief glint of intelligence?

What in the blue fuck are you babbling about?

Did you post an experiment to detect and measure these' natural rights' yet? Did you present a mathematical proof yet? Did you present a shred of evidence in this latest post?


*skims*

Nope. Dismissed.

natural more alludes to the constant and universal nature of the rights themselves excluding them from the relativity of rights within social or legal contexts

So you once declare your claims to be metaphysical and outside the realm of reality. Like 'god', your 'rights' are wholly outside the realm of logic and must be respected as a matter of faith. How convenient a position to backpeddle to.

1. you said occa's, not occams's...

Wow, a typo. Do you feel special now? As I said, such pathetic flailing proves that you've totally given up up on presenting any evidence of your claims.

4. ockham is not dude's name, either, but the name of a place.

It refers to William of Occam/Hockham, which is a proper name. Again you give up completely on your premise and seek desperately to change the subject...

 

[JBeukema]

You have to buy a ticket first.

I'm skeptical of 'site-unseen' purchases, especially when you seem to be selling indulgences. Might you be a Catholic?

Funny. I'm skeptical of that You Tube post you made yesterday....

You refer to the music thread?

Post Denominational Christian

, Renegade Catholic,

Roman Universal and Christian are mutually exclusive.

 

[antagon]

Are we nothing more than what society decrees? Is Society ever wrong? Does the scientist ever find himself on the wrong side of the equation? Does the scientist ever bumble and stumble into a realization??? More often than one would think.

this is at the core of the broader question of rights. i contend that societies recognized our freedoms and bartered them for practical provision of protection and entitlement, seizing some of these rights to common or government possession. while these remain constant at a natural level, on a social level, they are bound by agreements to conform - to be 'civilized'.

we can only study the way things work and what we have historically acknowledged, but for those who aren't blind to the fact, natural rights are the actual capital which societies use to function. by abiding with the contract even of 'rights-honoring' societies like the US, we imperil our access to these rights; we endanger our freedom. some actions could put us out of touch with our rights altogether - see treason - the highest crime - one against the contract itself, incidentally.

science and philosophy are merely studies of these forces at work in our universe - physical or social. their contentions are strengthened if not defeated when they're aired out as mine are to scrutiny. it's unfortunate that some lack the wits to address the argument without ignoring its tenets or fabricating weak postures therein unsupported as JB has over and over again.

 

[antagon]

Roman Universal and Christian are mutually exclusive.

you present new ways that you are a bumbling idiot with every post.

 

[rikules]

1) Do people have rights?

2) If so, where do they come from?

Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?

there is no real theological argument for human rights.

since there is no god.....

let's look at this with the FACTS that we actually KNOW;


FACT: nobody knows if there is or is not a god
FACT: that means that the existance of god is NOT a fact
FACT: that means that theology/religion/god can NOT be entered into the equation
(unless you are equaly willing to include superman, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy)
FACT: the only rights we have are the rights we have established (defined, protected and defended) via CONSENSUS/government

list all the rights you believe you have (if you're a liberal it will be a very long list)
(if you're a conservative it will be a very SHORT list)
and ALL of those rights did NOT come from any god

they came from our conscious thought processes/logic/reason/discussion
and we turned them into RIGHTS via whatever form of government you think we have