Human Rights

[Dotini]

and fixed them multiple times to make sure they got it right.

That is both hilarious and true!👍

 

[drivehard]

If there is no solution, then is there truly no problem?

High regards,
Dotini

Not one I'll be worrying much over.

 

[Azuremen]

Not one I'll be worrying much over.

The why discuss it? Your lack of interest contradicts your continued posting.

 

[drivehard]

The why discuss it? Your lack of interest contradicts your continued posting.

I should've predicted this.

How often do you wonder about the right way a martian would look?

And in another form: That statement was made in a direct response to near unanswerable question.

 

[Dotini]

That statement was made in a direct response to near unanswerable question.

I'm sorry. My fault. It was a riddle intended as an exit line.

 

[Danoff]

I really think it's the opposite. If I have taken an effort to say "it's all pointless" and you can't show that it is "?pointful?" how could we get any further. As if I had successfully subverted what you say and how you say it but what you were doing prior to the truth was much funner. If I've made any claim whatsoever it would be hard to say that it was empty considering your course of action. Using words as numbers is a mistake.

It's not all pointless. Just the majority of it. And since you're bored I resign. Will check back in later and post if something is so majestic that it needs to be torn to the ground.

Nihilism is the natural state of man according to Heidegger. As much as would like to it's hard for me to dispute that. Either way it seems you have to accept this truth before venturing off into any belief, which is difficult after accepting, otherwise you could argue you're just a product of circumstance.

God it's so boring. Nihilism is not an answer, it's a failure. It's throwing up your arms and yelling "this is too haaard". I've already responded to nihilism with previous posts, I won't repeat myself just to listen to you chant your mantra. Honestly, it's like being in a freshman philosophy class. These defeated notions you bandy about are a natural and logical path in philosophy. It's not a destination. Rarely have I seen someone give up so thoroughly.


One more thing... don't flatter yourself. You'd have to substantively respond in order to "tear" something to the ground. I'd love to see you actually take an honest run at it.

 

[drivehard]

God it's so boring. Nihilism is not an answer, it's a failure. It's throwing up your arms and yelling "this is too haaard". I've already responded to nihilism with previous posts, I won't repeat myself just to listen to you chant your mantra. Honestly, it's like being in a freshman philosophy class. These defeated notions you bandy about are a natural and logical path in philosophy. It's not a destination. Rarely have I seen someone give up so thoroughly.


One more thing... don't flatter yourself. You'd have to substantively respond in order to "tear" something to the ground. I'd love to see you actually take an honest run at it.

It's not my fault nihilism is boring or even nausea inducing. Nor did I ever say I was a nihilist. And nihilism is a "real challenge" according to Dr. Cornell West, a very well respected public intellectual, who has made the decision to be a Christian.

And what's so hard about overcoming nihilism is that rationallity brings you to nothingness and requires faith - as far as I can tell maybe you have a better solution - in order for you to progress, at least with a good conscience.


Like you said: It's a natural and logical philosophical path - or a failure! And that is precisely what your reasoning runs into, which I've pointed out in previous posts, yet you just run further along insisting you are correct because you have "good will towards men" on your side. I wish it was that easy. Unfortunatley, truth does not yield for peace, kindness, goodness, etc. And it could be argued that this is precisely the reason for todays human rights violations.

It is what happens when people just "make things up"!

 

[Danoff]

It's not my fault nihilism is boring or even nausea inducing. Nor did I ever say I was a nihilist. And nihilism is a "real challenge" according to Dr. Cornell West, a very well respected public intellectual, who has made the decision to be a Christian.

And what's so hard about overcoming nihilism is that rationallity brings you to nothingness and requires faith - as far as I can tell maybe you have a better solution - in order for you to progress, at least with a good conscience.


Like you said: It's a natural and logical philosophical path - or a failure! And that is precisely what your reasoning runs into, which I've pointed out in previous posts, yet you just run further along insisting you are correct because you have "good will towards men" on your side. I wish it was that easy. Unfortunatley, truth does not yield for peace, kindness, goodness, etc. And it could be argued that this is precisely the reason for todays human rights violations.

It is what happens when people just "make things up"!

Maybe you don't know what I mean when I say that you need to have a substantive response. I'll elaborate. Saying "you're wrong", is not a meaningful response. Saying "other people thing you're wrong too", is also not a meaningful response. Saying "I wish you were right, but you're not"... same boat.

This:

Unfortunatley, truth does not yield for peace, kindness, goodness, etc.

Doesn't apply to anything even remotely close to what I argue - which is unfortunate because it's the closest thing to an actual response that you've come up with in a long time. You're arguing against a strawman who isn't here.

Let me cut to the chase:

It's a natural and logical philosophical path - or a failure! And that is precisely what your reasoning runs into, which I've pointed out in previous posts

No you have not. You've asserted it, but you haven't explained this position in the slightest. Where? How? Why does "my" reasoning run into this failure? You've never attempt to answer these questions. That is what I mean when I say I need something substantive.

 

[drivehard]

It's not my fault nihilism is boring or even nausea inducing. Nor did I ever say I was a nihilist. And nihilism is a "real challenge" according to Dr. Cornell West, a very well respected public intellectual, who has made the decision to be a Christian.

And what's so hard about overcoming nihilism is that rationallity brings you to nothingness and requires faith - as far as I can tell maybe you have a better solution - in order for you to progress, at least with a good conscience.


Like you said: It's a natural and logical philosophical path - or a failure! And that is precisely what your reasoning runs into, which I've pointed out in previous posts, yet you just run further along insisting you are correct because you have "good will towards men" on your side. I wish it was that easy. Unfortunatley, truth does not yield for peace, kindness, goodness, etc. And it could be argued that this is precisely the reason for todays human rights violations.

It is what happens when people just "make things up"!

If this wasn't substantiave? enough of a reply I don't know what is.

"Doesn't apply to anything even remotely close to what I argue "

This is the entire child psychology behind your argument considering you could just posit anything into your formula and it would work out.

I've asserted it! Do I really need to do more. Beyond any doubt you couldn't oppose what I say in the least yet you want me to take your form so that you could go about saving face.

One more time please, think hard now, what are you saying then so that I can be done with this.

 

[Danoff]

If this wasn't substantiave? enough of a reply I don't know what is.

That's what I thought.

Hint:

Where? How? Why does "my" reasoning run into this failure? You've never attempt to answer these questions. That is what I mean when I say I need something substantive.

 

[drivehard]

What have I said that needs further clarification?

Please, one more time, what are you claiming?

 

[Danoff]

Please, one more time, what are you claiming?

Last time.

There is no objective basis for initiation of force, and there is an objective basis for self defense.

 

[drivehard]

And because there is no objective basis for the initiation of force it is not justified?

 

[Joel]

And because there is no objective basis for the initiation of force it is not justified?

Yes, because there's no objective basis, initiating force is unjustified. To initiate force against someone, you are making a judgement that what they're worth less than you, and that you're objectively superior to them.

 

[drivehard]

Danoff,

Do you agree with everything noob616 just said?

 

[Azuremen]

Danoff,

Do you agree with everything noob616 just said?

Considering noob616 basically repeated what Danoff said, just worded more obviously, I'd imagine yes.

 

[drivehard]

I just want to make sure because he words his arguments so complex sometimes.

Danoff?

 

[Danoff]

I just want to make sure because he words his arguments so complex sometimes.

Danoff?

Yup. Lack of objective basis = lack of justification. It's not the main point, but it's correct.

 

[drivehard]

I just want to be sure I have this down.

What's the main point?

 

[Danoff]

I just want to be sure I have this down.

What's the main point?

Nope. Last time was the last time.

 

[drivehard]

You're kidding?

 

[Keef]

What's the main point?

There is no objective basis for initiation of force, and there is an objective basis for self defense.

That's the main point.

 

[drivehard]

That's the main point.

He just said it wasn't.

 

[Dotini]

Continuous use of the term "objective" is made in these posts. It is well to remember the definition - "relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence."

Also of key importance is "objectivism" - "any of various theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience, especially realism."

In other words, realism, empirical evidence and real-life experience are of zero importance in the current discussion. It is all about building castles of logic in the air based on premises which are not discussed and not agreed upon by all parties to the discussion.

Much of the argument is beautiful, self-consistent and logical as far as it goes. But at the end of the day, it is a philosophical backwater, lacking application in the real world when it actually comes down to attaining, having, holding and exercising real human rights.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[hambone8611]

Continuous use of the term "objective" is made in these posts. It is well to remember the definition - "relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence."

Also of key importance is "objectivism" - "any of various theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience, especially realism."

In other words, realism, empirical evidence and real-life experience are of zero importance in the current discussion. It is all about building castles of logic in the air based on premises which are not discussed and not agreed upon by all parties to the discussion.

Much of the argument is beautiful, self-consistent and logical as far as it goes. But at the end of the day, it is a philosophical backwater, lacking application in the real world when it actually comes down to attaining, having, holding and exercising real human rights.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

My thoughts exactly, but I call it mental masturbation.

 

[Keef]

He just said it wasn't.

No he didn't.

He said this was not the main point:

Yup. Lack of objective basis = lack of justification. It's not the main point, but it's correct.

If you were actually reading and paying attention to what he's been saying, you would see that he previously said this:

Last time.

There is no objective basis for initiation of force, and there is an objective basis for self defense.

And by paying attention you should have recognized that there is a difference between those two statements. I'm going to test your reading skills now by asking you to tell me the difference between those two statements, the first of which he said was not the point, and the second of which he said is the main point. Hint: They're completely different statements.

 

[Famine]

Rights - and morality - have to be objective or they cannot exist. Your right to life isn't forfeit at the whims of others.

 

[Danoff]

He just said it wasn't.

Now you're kidding right?

Continuous use of the term "objective" is made in these posts. It is well to remember the definition - "relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence."

Also of key importance is "objectivism" - "any of various theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience, especially realism."

In other words, realism, empirical evidence and real-life experience are of zero importance in the current discussion. It is all about building castles of logic in the air based on premises which are not discussed and not agreed upon by all parties to the discussion.

Much of the argument is beautiful, self-consistent and logical as far as it goes. But at the end of the day, it is a philosophical backwater, lacking application in the real world when it actually comes down to attaining, having, holding and exercising real human rights.

This is the same thing drivehard is doing - making a claim without substantiating it. Where is the premise that's not agreed upon? Where is the reliance on real life experience? Where is the reliance on arbitrary values?

This has everything to do with real life practice of human rights, it just doesn't rely upon real-life practice as a basis for its existence. The philosophical basis of human rights - which is the only legitimate basis for government - is not mental masturbation or lacking in real-world significance (precisely because it's the only legitimate basis for government).

 

[FoolKiller]

Continuous use of the term "objective" is made in these posts. It is well to remember the definition - "relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence."

Convenient to pick one of many definitions:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

–adjective
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).

8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

And I believe it is clear the use of objective here matches definition number 5. Perhaps also number 8, to a degree.

Also of key importance is "objectivism" - "any of various theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience, especially realism."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectivism

From the World English Dictionary:

2. philosophy
a. the meta-ethical doctrine that there are certain moral truths that are independent of the attitudes of any individuals

In other words, realism, empirical evidence and real-life experience are of zero importance in the current discussion. It is all about building castles of logic in the air based on premises which are not discussed and not agreed upon by all parties to the discussion.

When comparing relevant definitions it seems more like it is saying that personal emotions,feelings, and attitudes have little bearing on morality as it is independent of them. Human Rights should be considered in the same way. Otherwise you allow laws and majorities to determine that slavery and/or genocide is legitimate and moral.

 

[drivehard]

Objective basis justifies nothing. We may want it to but it dosen't.

There is an objective basis for survival would you agree?

If not what is there a purely objective basis for?