What Constitutes a "Right?"

[AdlerianThinker]

Well Vern, I am an atheist and a supporter of Natural Rights.

.

Then you should be able to demonstrate their existence using logic.

Funny how you said you "support them", not that you recognize them or believe they exist.

You should be able to refute their existence with logic. Go.

 

[rubberhead]

Well Vern, I am an atheist and a supporter of Natural Rights.

.

Then you should be able to demonstrate their existence using logic.

Funny how you said you "support them", not that you recognize them or believe they exist.

You should be able to refute their existence with logic. Go.

Actually if we wanted to use pure logic to argue, we would need to agree on a set of nonlogical axioms (yet to be defined) to couple with our logical axioms (quantifier rules, relation rules, demorgan's law, etc) and definitions to connect our syntax to a semantic standard. What is justice? When everyone's rights are respected and penalties are imposed on those who violate the rights of others. Right? So how do we decide what rights are? We all must agree. But how do we know that our decision won't be influenced by our own particular interests? This is the purpose of the veil of ignorance.

Setarcos obviously has nothing of value to contribute, except his supposed "refutations" of everything everyone else says. The fact is that justice is not in the beginning a logical matter. Once we have principles, we can proceed logically to decide what is just, but until then we must debate philosophy. I think that we agree that the principles of justice must supercede any particular government. In fact, governments should not be formed which vary too widely from the principals of justice, for they will not endure. Whether those principles supercede society is still under debate, but without society we are all absolutely free so I would argue that equal freedom still applies although justice obviously does not prevail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

John Beyers, my old professor, would have fun with Setarcos. He would say, "Set, old boy, define your terms", and go from there. He would eat Setarcos up.

 

[rubberhead]

The fun would quickly evaporate when he realized that Setarcos has nothing to say. He must be presented with an assertion so he can find some miniscule semantic refutation. And then, after he declares victory he says something offensive or insulting and walks away satisfied as if trying to piss people off in the name of statism is somehow praiseworthy. What kind of pathetic piece of shit could justify the kind of values that facilitate this behavior? Only an acolyte of the Church of Reason of the most pompous and self-satisfied degree.

Let's have a hand for the new biggest douche in the universe! Setarcos

 

[Intense]

Then you should be able to demonstrate their existence using logic.

Funny how you said you "support them", not that you recognize them or believe they exist.

You should be able to refute their existence with logic. Go.

Actually if we wanted to use pure logic to argue, we would need to agree on a set of nonlogical axioms (yet to be defined) to couple with our logical axioms (quantifier rules, relation rules, demorgan's law, etc) and definitions to connect our syntax to a semantic standard. What is justice? When everyone's rights are respected and penalties are imposed on those who violate the rights of others. Right? So how do we decide what rights are? We all must agree. But how do we know that our decision won't be influenced by our own particular interests? This is the purpose of the veil of ignorance.

Setarcos obviously has nothing of value to contribute, except his supposed "refutations" of everything everyone else says. The fact is that justice is not in the beginning a logical matter. Once we have principles, we can proceed logically to decide what is just, but until then we must debate philosophy. I think that we agree that the principles of justice must supercede any particular government. In fact, governments should not be formed which vary too widely from the principals of justice, for they will not endure. Whether those principles supercede society is still under debate, but without society we are all absolutely free so I would argue that equal freedom still applies although justice obviously does not prevail.

We can debate eternally, or maybe to decide to live a Purpose Driven Life, anytime along the way. You may tend to over complicate the matter.

 

[Intense]

The fun would quickly evaporate when he realized that Setarcos has nothing to say. He must be presented with an assertion so he can find some miniscule semantic refutation. And then, after he declares victory he says something offensive or insulting and walks away satisfied as if trying to piss people off in the name of statism is somehow praiseworthy. What kind of pathetic piece of shit could justify the kind of values that facilitate this behavior? Only an acolyte of the Church of Reason of the most pompous and self-satisfied degree.

Let's have a hand for the new biggest douche in the universe! Setarcos

I think Setarcos secretly worships Albert Pike.

 

[rubberhead]

we will debate eternally whether here or somewhere more public. i use this forum to collect and organize my own thoughts on the matter so that when the time comes where i must discuss this in public, i have firmly decided what my own thoughts are. the only way to discover what defeats my position is to have a productive debate. this is the microcosm of human evolution. our everlasting quest for a truly just society.

Equality in the eyes of justice ("justice is blind") seems to be the first and foremost principle to which we must adhere in order to have justice. actually i think this is pretty simple. everyone must have the same rights for there to be justice. I may obscure my point with flowery language, but this simple concept-equality-is at the core of my belief.

Next, optimality of rights. Each person must have the maximum allotment of rights while maintaining equality. That is, equal and maximal liberty for all. There is no reason to deny the existence of rights, except when they are clearly in conflict (i.e. the right to kill would clearly be in conflict with the right to live).

 

[rubberhead]

The fun would quickly evaporate when he realized that Setarcos has nothing to say. He must be presented with an assertion so he can find some miniscule semantic refutation. And then, after he declares victory he says something offensive or insulting and walks away satisfied as if trying to piss people off in the name of statism is somehow praiseworthy. What kind of pathetic piece of shit could justify the kind of values that facilitate this behavior? Only an acolyte of the Church of Reason of the most pompous and self-satisfied degree.

Let's have a hand for the new biggest douche in the universe! Setarcos

I think Setarcos secretly worships Albert Pike.

Is that because of his affiliation with the Know-Nothing Party?

 

[Setarcos]

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.

Then no government can be based on justice, for the mob is always the ultimate decider. At most, the minority can limit the options of the masses to obedience or war. The decision to obey or fight, however, always rests, in the end with the mob and those who comprise it.

 

[Setarcos]

That is absolutely false and a lie of the damnabale variety...

You asserted AS FACT: That inalienable rights are alienable... you were chellenged to demonstrate such, to support the assertion and you FAILED!

I asserted no such thing. I said they have ne3ver been demonstrated to exist.

Do try to pay attention.

DUMBASS!

If you're going to act like a child, kindly excuse yourself from the discussion.

 

[Setarcos]

In order to have a right, you must be able to defend that right. Thank You Second Amendment.

What happens if you miss?

You reload and fire again

 

[Setarcos]

. Rights are produced by society, not by “government”, “government” is only the instrumentality to protect those rights and also the instrumentality that can create new rights to meet the demands of contemporary society. The concept of rights existed before monarchs or governments in societies composed of individuals who had to get on with each other to survive. Again I assert that the biological imperative in each individual and its expression in the relations between individuals is the originator of the concept of rights in humans.

Positive Rights...

We are in agreement

 

[Setarcos]

Inalienable Rights come from God.

You've yet to demonstrate that

 

[Setarcos]

This is exactly what the Constitution does. It grants and denies rights to a government. Notice the language of the first amendment ("shall not abridge"). What is there to "abridge" if the Constitution is defining peoples' rights. The rights defined by the first amendment must already exist if they are not abridged by the Constitution.

Wrong. The Fed is granted no rights, only powers and authority. Read the document carefully.

 

[Setarcos]

If you aren't going to read the book I've presented, I'm not reading anything you present.

I just refuted his argument as you present them. If that is the best he offers, there is no point in addressing his claims in any more detail.

Flawed conclusion from a faulty premise. You ask me to define 'God', and then proceed to construct your argument on your own definition. And you are calling me dishonest? Hypocrite.

I used your definition.

If you wish to forward another definition, do so and stop complaining.

So you say. Appealing to your own authority is crass fallacy, at best.

Forwarding an argument is not appealing to authority. i accept your concession, since you are unable to refute.

Defend your position. God does not exist. Go.

Define your god and demonstrate its existence.

Since you continue to flee from the burden of proof, I accept your concession that your god does not exist.

 

[Setarcos]

You should be able to refute their existence with logic. Go.

You bear the burden of proof.

 

[Intense]

we will debate eternally whether here or somewhere more public. i use this forum to collect and organize my own thoughts on the matter so that when the time comes where i must discuss this in public, i have firmly decided what my own thoughts are. the only way to discover what defeats my position is to have a productive debate. this is the microcosm of human evolution. our everlasting quest for a truly just society.

Equality in the eyes of justice ("justice is blind") seems to be the first and foremost principle to which we must adhere in order to have justice. actually i think this is pretty simple. everyone must have the same rights for there to be justice. I may obscure my point with flowery language, but this simple concept-equality-is at the core of my belief.

Next, optimality of rights. Each person must have the maximum allotment of rights while maintaining equality. That is, equal and maximal liberty for all. There is no reason to deny the existence of rights, except when they are clearly in conflict (i.e. the right to kill would clearly be in conflict with the right to live).

Well intentioned. Justice is supposed to be without Partiality, not blind to reason. Just thought I'd give you a heads up there. When something is Conscience driven, it trims the fat. Just a thought. What we surrender to enter society, in Liberty by consent, is equal in nature. When Civil Law dictates, usually for moral and ethical reasons, we are rightly limited.

 

[Intense]

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.

Then no government can be based on justice, for the mob is always the ultimate decider. At most, the minority can limit the options of the masses to obedience or war. The decision to obey or fight, however, always rests, in the end with the mob and those who comprise it.

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. -Henry David Thoreau

Great start Setarcos, comprehension skills getting there, but finish the thought.

Another basic point is that the majority is not always out of phase with Justice. Your conclusion implies that the majority is never right, which is a mis characterization. In Our system the Majority is not always the Ultimate decider. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. We can be called a Democratic Republic. Even should there be a Super Majority of 76% or 95%, there still is Due Process. That takes time we do not always have. The Powers of The Executive and Judicial are Instant.

That said, Thoreau was suggesting to Conscience, through the Higher Self. For believer or unbeliever that should not be an offense. Imagine You being the Single Voice of Reason in an Angry Mob, having the Courage to Speak, altering the outcome through the Power of Reason. Ultimately, be it based in Religion or Humanist, when the Moral and Ethics are known, they have effect.

The Ultimate Decision and Power from My Personal Perspective, lies first with God, Next with the Government as the Controlling Authority, and Always with the Individual Through Conscience, or Higher Self, though the Individual may be penalized.

 

[Intense]

That is absolutely false and a lie of the damnabale variety...

You asserted AS FACT: That inalienable rights are alienable... you were chellenged to demonstrate such, to support the assertion and you FAILED!

I asserted no such thing. I said they have ne3ver been demonstrated to exist.

Do try to pay attention.

DUMBASS!

If you're going to act like a child, kindly excuse yourself from the discussion.

You answer from your perspective, I answer from mine. My problem with this argument is that the very reason that Individual Perspective exists is a Proof of Inalienable Rights.

To Prove Inalienable Rights Exist or Not.

To Prove that Good or Evil Exist or not.

What is Superstition?

How many things even in Science turn previous claims on their head?

These are matters of Faith, and yet translate around the World to most of the different Societies and Cultures. Most of them having certain, similar characteristics. Those are worth exploring. Moral Values, Ethical Values.

 

[Intense]

This is exactly what the Constitution does. It grants and denies rights to a government. Notice the language of the first amendment ("shall not abridge"). What is there to "abridge" if the Constitution is defining peoples' rights. The rights defined by the first amendment must already exist if they are not abridged by the Constitution.

Wrong. The Fed is granted no rights, only powers and authority. Read the document carefully.

Hamilton the Power Monger would have argued that when Government has the Power Government Assumes the Right.