Jump to content

BrickHorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    5909
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by BrickHorn

  1. 9 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Just because you got called out on your BS, don't take it out on me.

    You know damn well you were talking about modern times...unless you meant the rights in the US and Russian that existed in antiquity.  

    The record speaks for itself, no matter how badly you wish to put words in its mouth after the fact. 

    Regardless, I’ll make it crystal clear: my point is not limited to nation states. Any societal authority that has ever existed, down to mutual agreement and respect for custom, will suffice. 

    Now please tell us how it’s important to note that 99.9% of modern political entities are nation states, for some weird reason.

  2. 2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Perhaps if you're going to try to have a gotcha moment you should consider the entire conversation.  We were clearly discussing the modern world, not ancient times.

    Notice you are using the present tense in each of your posts?  So unsurprisingly I was replying based on the way things are today.

    Good lord what a pile of nonsense. You stated that my point only existed in the present, given a relatively recent political development. That is a fucking temporal distinction, and it’s entirely irrelevant as I noted. 

    Have fun continuing to confuse yourself. I appreciate your posts on other threads, so I’m going to politely withdraw from this weird Who’s on First? routine I seem to be in with you here.

  3. 1 minute ago, troph said:

    I don’t have a natural right to be a lawyer, to make money, fly on a plane, drive a car, etc etc etc. 

    Why not? Who says so? What law of nature draws that line?

    And the serial etceteras are doing some work there…

  4. 5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    No my argument was about the modern world...and the modern world is 99% controlled by nation states.  

     

    Can you please pay attention to what you post? What you wrote was:

    24 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Only in terms of a nation state, which is a relatively recent human invention.

    Emphasis mine. Your point was that my argument only applies since nation states emerged. And when I rebutted that, you got confused about what your original point was. But it’s there in black and white for everyone to see, so I don’t see the sense in debating it further. 

  5. 3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Because today 99% of the world is ruled by nation states.

    Right but your point was that my argument didn’t apply until nation states emerged. In other words, you argued that my argument did not apply in the past because there were no nation states at that time. When I noted that nation states were not necessary to the point and thus it still held in the past, you retorted with “yeah but it’s all nation states now.” 

    Are you acting confused on purpose?

  6. 4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Only in terms of a nation state, which is a relatively recent human invention.

    Why do you assume a nation state is the only authority that can enforce a right? It could be tribe or clan or family or whatever. The point is that a right is some behavioral limitation on members of a society, which is enforced by the authority that presides over that society.  And mankind has lived in societies from the outset. /Costanza

  7.  

    3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    I think you're conflating rights with laws.  Just because nation states trample on your rights, doesn't mean they are not natural rights.  It just means they have the "might" to take them away.  Again, you're arguing might makes right.

    The version of rights you and troph advocate is useless crap. They can be trampled. No one has to respect them. No one is punished then they violate them. They might not even know about them. But you have them and no one can ever take them away (except all the times they do so without consequence of even knowledge)!!!

    Magical little elves was an unfair comparison. Elves have more relevance to our lives than this impotent concept of rights. 

  8. 15 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    I guess the right for you to miss the other 2 times I've posted the specific rights would be a natural right.

    If you posted them, I missed it. Even after a quick read back through the thread, I didn’t see any specific list of natural rights from you. Link?

  9. 3 minutes ago, troph said:

    You said it is gray why are you making it black and white? 

    You’re confusing two different issues. Human behavior and morality is gray. Whether natural rights exist is a black and white question. And the grayness of human morality resolves the question cleanly: because natural rights require a black and white morality independent of time and place, the grayness of human morality in fact demonstrates that natural rights do not exist.  

    1 minute ago, troph said:

    You have a right to free speech regardless so do Russians.

    Well I’m sure Navalny and his surviving family will be relieved to hear that.

  10. Just now, DixonHur said:

    No, it doesn't.  

    If this were the case there would be no such thing as a "right" because as you point out not all cultures agree on what the rights are.

    No. I have the right to free speech. That is a right that exists, because it is enforceable by the relevant authority that applies to me. Russian citizens do not.

    The point you make actually shows that free speech is not a natural right, because its existence is jurisdiction-dependent.

  11. 4 minutes ago, troph said:

    A right does not mean it cannot be interfered with. I think the morality of it is due to the fact that these rights or instincts even are universally respected as desired and core to the human experience.

    Okay. To be clear: what you’re talking about is not a “right;” it’s a moral principle. A right is a very specific thing. It must be enforceable and recognized by the relevant authority (whatever form that may take). 

    And to address your substantive point: I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the moral principles you listed are universally respected. For each, there are examples of time periods and societies in which that was not true. For some, it may not even be true today in our own society (e.g., the right to live is not recognized in all cases, as there are many, many exceptions).

    • Like 1
  12. 34 minutes ago, troph said:

    Just spitballing but I think there are natural rights but they are quite limited and not immune from interference. The right to live, consume, procreate, move about, decide for ourselves, the right to create, and frankly to die.

    Thanks for being the first participant in this thread to attempt to list the natural rights. Kudos. But now let’s examine the claim. 

    Many of the alleged natural rights you listed have not been recognized or respected as rights at all in various cultures and periods throughout history. For example, human sacrifice (a common facet of life most recently in Mesoamerica) rejects living as a right. Even in the modern era, we deny the alleged “right” to life during wartime. There is no recourse for killing enemy combatants or inadvertently killing civilians in a conflict. Many societies throughout history have castrated slaves, reflecting a rejection of the supposed natural right to procreate. 

    So what makes any of these things a natural right? I would argue it’s clear that they have at many points not been rights at all; that is, there was no authority protecting them or punishing their infringement. You might argue that murder and castration were always immoral. But even granting that premise for sake of argument, these moral principles do not amount to a right because there was no enforcement recourse. 

    The idea of a “natural right” is defensible, at most, as a shorthand for certain moral principles that seem obvious to most people. But even then, their inviolability quickly crumbles on close inspection. What you end up with is a series of nuanced, context-dependent guidelines. Our shared moral instincts developed through evolutionary processes and are almost never as simple and idealistic as we would like to believe.

    The world is gray. If you wish it were not and invoking the magical little elves of naturalism help you sleep at night, so be it. But you’ll forever be fighting paradoxes of your own making. It’s more useful to recognize human behavior for what it is and understand morality and legal regimes as tools for guiding that behavior in the most positive direction possible. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 18 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    So you're arguing for the might makes right philosophy?  

    It's ok, if you are, it's certainly a legitimate point of view.  

    No. I’m asking you what, specifically, are these natural rights that totally exist but nobody knows about or respects and we probably wouldn’t know them because they live in Canada. 

    • Haha 2
  14. 1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

    Again, that's a modernist view that discounts the facts of human existence prior to the present.  

    In the modern world, I tend to agree, but my point is that it hasn't always been the case...ergo, natural rights exist, they are simply not practiced in modern society.

    If natural rights exist but are not practiced in modern society, what are they? And how are they in any sense a “right” if not enforceable? Comprehensive list, please.

  15. 5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Neither of those things are rights unless man labels them as such. 

    …and takes measures to enforce them or punish their violation.

    Many posters on this thread muddle the distinction between morality (guidelines for how humans should behave) and rights (rules defining how humans are compelled, by agreement or authority, to behave).

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 34 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Natural rights had existed in many cultures around the globe for 1,000s of years

    Ancient Naturalist: I’m being persecuted for exercising my natural rights!

    Modern Naturalist: Which rights? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

    Ancient Naturalist: No, not those natural rights.

  17. 12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

    I understand the theory, but when your theory of rights means that in a society where child rape is legal and common nobody is doing anything wrong and nobody's rights are being violated then your theory is questionable at best. 

    And natural law predates Christ and the originators didn't believe in the Abrahamic God so attempting to reduce it to Sky Man logic is facile.

    Sky man or no, it’s magical thinking. I’m kind of shocked you of all posters are promoting it.

    And it’s far easier to declare child rape a “natural right” than it is to justify it on utilitarian grounds. How do you think the societies where such odious practices are legal justify it? They claim it as a right, naturally or divinely derived.

    I’m not sure why yall seem to believe natural rights are some sort of solution to evil. Maybe it’s because the ones you focus on are generally good. But you have to ignore all the horrible, immoral shit that societies have justified on the basis of some natural right claim, like slavery, rape, genocide, the divine right of moron offspring of kings to do whatever the fuck they want, etc. You can argue now that those who believed such practices were natural rights were wrong, but such claims don’t do anything for those victimized by the exercise of such rights for millennia.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  18. 1 hour ago, safe sex said:

    I don't follow

    He’s saying we must pretend there’s a ghost in the machine for the sake of controlling overgrown children incapable of behaving themselves without fearing the judgment of a bearded sky god. Which is idiotic, because (a) reality isn’t defined by the delusions of the lowest common denominator; and (b) naturalism is far more malleable to the nefarious aims of christofascism than is positivism. Pretending natural rights exist and are handed down to us from on high only fuels abuse by theocratic assholes. One can claim any moral edict as a command from God. It’s far more productive to discuss rights as merely a means to achieve positive outcomes for society. 

    • Hook 'Em 7
    • Haha 1
  19. Natural rights do not exist. Absent the state or another form of governance that agrees to enforce them, rights are just moral propositions. You can argue that you should have the rights to do x, y, and z. Unless the rest of us agree to or are compelled to behave in such a way that you may do x, y, or z (or to punish those who prevent you from doing x, y, or x), however, you have no such rights.  

    • Hook 'Em 8
  20. 1 hour ago, Ten Bears said:

    While lyrics are very important to me the first time or two listening to a song I barely pay attention to them.  If there is no good hook, melody ect then I couldn't care less about the words. 

    +rep for the rare correct use of “couldn’t care less.” Although I considered deducting points for the rare misspelling of “etc.”

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
    • Drool 2
×
×
  • Create New...