This might need severe critique but here goes:
First paragraph. I don't want to sound as if I'm simply contradicting but it will read like it I'm sure. Sometimes I come across that way and it's unfortunate because I can't quite get the tone right – my problem not yours.
When they apologize for their looming failure... it's rarely a good sign that sound reasoning is about to follow...
But it is adorable, isn't it? I love it when idiots try to reason... it's so CUTE.
Ability is different from a “right.” My ability to do things is constrained by – among other things, by my physicality (I can't bench press 300lbs) and the physical laws of the universe (eg I can't fly like a bird – but as JW might say, I can drink like a fish). Ability is both potential and actual. In action I fulfil potential (as limited by the aforesaid). In a solitary state the only limits to me are those I've mentioned and of course my will. I have no need of the concept of “rights” in that solitary state because I can act.
Again, the entire screed is predicated upon the classic confusion of RIGHTS and the protection of Rights...
That one freely exist in solitude is IRRELEVANT TO ONE'S RIGHT... That one lives in BONDAGE is IRRELEVANT TO ONE'S RIGHT... One rights are intrinsic in one's life... and those rights come with RESPONSBILITIES...
Your right to life comes with the responsibility to defend that life... thus where one lives in solitude... one being free to burn down the forrest, does nto give you a RIGHT to burn down the forrest, as the forrest is what sustains one's life. One doesn't have the right to spend their day killing sub-species absent a valid moral justiciation... and for the same reason; and so on.
All the 'solitude' argument represents is more fallacious distraction; specifically it's a lame reductio example which tries to promote the notion that '
rights are merely a form of defense... which do not come into play where one is not being contested... one doesn't NEED RIGHTS if one is ALONE, because there's no one stopping you from doing anything... '
Such species of reasoning completely set aside the intrinsic RESPONSIBILITIES of Rights; responsibilities, in the absence of which, RIGHTS simply... CANNOT EXIST!
Alone on a vast planet, or crammed into a smuthering urban hell... Human beings are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights... PERIOD. That those human beings reject that notion, concede their inherent responsibilities thus the human rights which rest upon those responsibilities... is irrelevant.
To your second paragraph. The denial of humanity, of human nature – and here I'm referring not to control of its base instincts but the actual essence of being human – is indeed totalitarian. The denial of human essence can be carried out by totalitarian government and is to be resisted, as you indicate. But the denial of human essence can be authored by other agencies. One of the early arguments against capitalism advanced by Marx was its tendency to alienate the worker from their humanity.
Irrational drivel... First, you adhere to the notion that denying 'human essence' is totalitarianism... you simply failed to define human essence. Thus the statement can mean anything to anyone that reads it.
Humanity's essense is it's divine origins...
Deny that and humanity is relegated to little more than a common beast; which serves the purpose of fulfilling its base instincts...
Summing up. Being human means having an ability to act as a human.
Well that's fascinating... because I had a puppy once that used to walk on her hind legs; clearly acting human... I watched a Chimp, which was dressed in a tuxedo, smoke a cigarette and using your calculation this 'acting human qualifies these sub-species as human. Which is fine for what it is... but they're not human. Thus disproving the notion...
Being a social being means acting within recognised limits. Being a human social being means having the ability to act as a human within recognised limits.
Golly... being human sound SO SPECIAL when you explain it like this... Rinsing all the high minded notions out of it.
The ability of the human social being to act and to be human and the limits of the ability to act, those which are not physical, are called rights.
ROFLMNAO... NOooooooouuuu... Now who could argue with that?
So training a horse to count to 6, bi-pedal Dogs and tuxedo wearing, smoking Chimps all represent the the purest essence of Human Rights, as long as they behave socially... which no doubt comes with exponential potential, considering that the standards of acceptable behavior is being reduced with every opening of Leftist Governing sessions around the world...
LOL... Sweet Mother that is some of the most deluded twaddle I've come across lately... and I've followed your work for quite a while now Diur.
Now be honest, did you consult with Chris on this one?
