Human Rights

[Danoff]

The burden of proof is on you, the semantics just further solidifies my point.

I've done it. You haven't even tried to address it.

My point is anti-philosophy.

I know. That's what I said.

Who is bailing out? Because your opinion is all you have, you then digress.

What exactly is my "opinion" do you think?

 

[Dapper]

What exactly is my "opinion" do you think?

I think that the reason human beings have rights is because we're self-aware.

You assume things to humans that do not exist. And all you have to back up what you think is what you think.

 

[Danoff]

You assume things to humans that do not exist. And all you have to back up what you think is what you think.

Two things:

First, you misunderstand. That's not the proof, that's a biological feature that enables us to take advantage of reason - which is where the proof lies.

Second, you don't think human being are self-aware?

Edit:

Here's where you should focus your attention.

-Might makes right is subjective
-force is not ojectively just
-right number 1, freedom from force

 

[Famine]

The logic is not logical.

It is both logical and objective.

Because most humans think differently than other beings doesn't not make you, or me, special with "rights".

Humans are generally inconsistent with how they think, both across the species and within individuals. Luckily, logic is objective.

No it's not. In context, prior to civilization, there were no laws, thus nothing was illegal. Yet we were the same species.

You have stated - stated, mark you - that an immoral act that is legal is "OK". This position is ludicrous because it requires you to believe (belief being subjective) that anything not legal is not "OK" and it requires your moral compass to be entirely guided by majority vote - you must always reject any minority opinion.

That's without visiting the internal conflict you must go through whenever something new is outlawed (suddenly becoming "not OK" from previously being "OK") or made legal (suddenly becoming "OK" from previously being "not OK") and it completely ignores the lawmaking process.

'Just' and 'moral' are subjective. Unjust and immoral are therefore inherently subjective. Please, use a true axiom, not subjective logic, to make your point.

Logic is not subjective. Logic is independent of the individual - so independent in fact that the device you're using to continue this discussion entirely runs on logic. It's free of bias, coercion or interest. Logic is pure objectivity.

Since you don't think morals are subjective, this isn't worth addressing. Your inability to understand people's morals are different, meaning subjective, is the underlying issue.

No - I know that an individual's morals are subjective. It's utterly irrelevant though - rights are objectively arrived at through logic and rationality and they define what is moral and immoral independent of the individual. This has been demonstrated. You choose to ignore this and operate on your own system of subjective beliefs - which include slavery being right because it was legal - despite it. You're using subjective belief as your moral guide and subjective legislation as your justification while decrying what can be objectively demonstrated as "subjective"


If they passed a law that said eight year old girls must be killed on sight, how would you react? Would you really be a perpetrator of or accessory to (by inaction) the death of an eight year old girl because it's legal and the law is always "OK"?

 

[Dapper]

I was wrong, your understanding of people's morals being subjective is not the problem, your understanding of what subjective means seems to be the problem. You don't know what subjective means. Logic, the study of reason, is solely encapsulated in one's brain. And is completely disagreeable by others. The two defining characteristics of the word subjective are in the word logic.

Once you get today's vocabulary lesson, and stop taking what I say out of context (which is the entire basis of your rather pathetic slavery argument) you might understand that when a human is born it has no rights (besides the right to gravity and other objective laws). I am pretty sure that is something Ayn Rand said actually. But for the fact that we live side by side and live under the laws that we make (right or wrong), humans have no rights that any other organism doesn't have.

 

[Famine]

I was wrong, your understanding of people's morals being subjective is not the problem, your understanding of what subjective means seems to be the problem. You don't know what subjective means. Logic, the study of reason, is solely encapsulated in one's brain. And is completely disagreeable by others.

Nope.

Logic is unbiased. Logic is disinterested. Logic operates independently of the brain or even of people at all. The device that you're using to insult and disparage rather than taking part in the discussion? That operates entirely on logic - and there's no brain involved.

The two defining characteristics os the word subjective are in the word logic.

Logic is objective. You can rant and rave all you want, it changes nothing.

stop taking what I say out of context

You stated that things that are legal are OK. You stated that.

(which is the entire basis of your rather pathetic slavery argument)

You stated that slavery was fine if it was legal. You stated that.

I note you didn't answer the question. Note how unshocked I am - even you know how unsound your foundations are if you'll happily kill or allow to be killed an 8 year old girl because the law says it's fine to.

 

[Dapper]

You stated that slavery was fine if it was legal. You stated that.

I note you didn't answer the question. Note how unshocked I am - even you know how unsound your foundations are if you'll happily kill or allow to be killed an 8 year old girl because the law says it's fine to.

I never said anything about slavery. Just quote me.
About the ludicrous 8 year old girl hypothetical, I wouldn't vote for a law like that. I can't go further into speculation on such a silly idea than that.

 

[Famine]

I never said anything about slavery. Just quote me.

Right you are, squire:

It is an argument that, at its heart, says that there was nothing wrong with slavery and racism when they were legal because they were legal...

It is almost insulting that you can't comprehend that in any other way than slavery was right.

About the ludicrous 8 year old girl hypothetical, I wouldn't vote for a law like that. I can't go further into speculation on such a silly idea than that.

It doesn't matter. First, you don't get to vote for your laws - the people you voted to be your lawmakers do. Second, if they vote to pass it you have already defined the boundaries of your morality to be the boundaries of law:

If I wasn't born under these self imposed laws, it would be ok for someone to come kill me...

You have determined that law says what is OK and not. No law against killing you means it's OK to kill you. A law requiring you to kill 8 year old girls means it's OK to kill them. According to your own position.

Everything beyond that is just you dissembling. You have established that your position is that if something is not illegal, it is OK in all circumstances up to and including causing the death of another. It's an indefensible position and I'm unsurprised you have issue defending it - to the point of denying what you have said and pretending it is somehow out of context or due to my stupidity.

 

[Danoff]

I was wrong, your understanding of people's morals being subjective is not the problem, your understanding of what subjective means seems to be the problem. You don't know what subjective means. Logic, the study of reason, is solely encapsulated in one's brain. And is completely disagreeable by others. The two defining characteristics of the word subjective are in the word logic.

Logic is independent of the human brain. It exists whether or not we do (as do rights). Your computer, which is entirely the product of ojective logic, will run whether you are here or not, and whether you think it will or not. Mathematics, which is based on logic, will continue to function after humanity ceases to exist.

You might imagine another universe where logic and math as we know them do not function, but what bearing does that have on our universe? You might imagine a day in our universe when 1+1=3 and if a therefor b allows b to imply a, but what bearing does that have on our world today? Stephen hawking has suggested that if such a thing were possible in our universe or another, that universe may collapse. Is this worth conisdering when discussing human behavior in our universe today?

Clearly not. There is no point in trying to argue against logic. Even less to do so on an internet website about video games, which is massively ironic. Your best bet at this stage is to try to point out someplace I have missapplied logic. I'll remind you that I have directed your attention to a particular set of statements.

 

[Dapper]

It doesn't matter. First, you don't get to vote for your laws - the people you voted to be your lawmakers do. Second, if they vote to pass it you have already defined the boundaries of your morality to be the boundaries of law:

First, there would be some sort of referendum.
Second, I've never said anything about my morality. That is another thing you misconstrue. I am stating objective facts. Prior to civilization there was no punishment for murder. That means there were no "human rights," but humns had the same rights as every other organism. You incessantly and erroneously read that as I think murder is OK if laws permit it, but really I just said facts.

You have determined that law says what is OK and not. No law against killing you means it's OK to kill you. A law requiring you to kill 8 year old girls means it's OK to kill them. According to your own position.

You ascribe what you wish to what I have determined. Prior to law, via society, everything was OK. That is not my opinion, it is objective. Therefore, prior to the idea of society, everything was OK, not legal or illegal. Again, this has nothing to do with my morality, it is just the way things were.

Everything beyond that is just you dissembling. You have established that your position is that if something is not illegal, it is OK in all circumstances up to and including causing the death of another. It's an indefensible position and I'm unsurprised you have issue defending it - to the point of denying what you have said and pretending it is somehow out of context or due to my stupidity.

It is not my position. It is objective. My opinion, or position, is not based on what I think, it is based on how things use to be contrasted with how things are today.

There is no point in trying to argue against logic.

There is no point in arguing objectivity. No special human rights prior to society is objective.

 

[Famine]

First, there would be some sort of referendum.

Just like there is for every federal law, right..?

Second, I've never said anything about my morality. That is another thing you misconstrue. I am stating objective facts. Prior to civilization there was no punishment for murder. That means there were no "human rights," but humns had the same rights as every other organism. You incessantly and erroneously read that as I think murder is OK if laws permit it, but really I just said facts.

Nice wriggle, shame about the statement.

You said that if it were allowed by law for someone to just walk up to you and kill you, it would be "ok". Not "permitted", not "legal", but "ok". You stated that it is "ok" for laws to do this. That's a moral compass being guided by the most subjective of things - the fiat of man. If it's law, it's "ok".

Incessantly? Yep. Erroneously? Not a bit of it:

You incessantly and erroneously read that as I think murder is OK if laws permit it, but really I just said facts.

If I wasn't born under these self imposed laws, it would be ok for someone to come kill me...

Your original statement, unedited save for highlighting exactly that which you say I'm "erroneously" ascribing to you.

You ascribe what you wish to what I have determined. Prior to law, via society, everything was OK. That is not my opinion, it is objective.

It is both subjective - "OK" being a qualitative assessment - and wholly incorrect. Prior to law, everything may have been legal (or, more accurately, not illegal) but it certainly wasn't "OK". Moreover it's incredibly difficult to separate society from law - even the first, proto-hominid familial societies had laws. Non-codified until writing, I'll grant you, but certainly passed down orally. And of course the entirety of modern human history is defined as all human activity starting with the beginning of the written word...

What we know of societies is inextricably linked with rules governing those societies. Of course each society was - and is - different and the rules differ. Ah, the whims of subjectivity...

Therefore, prior to the idea of society, everything was OK, not legal or illegal.

There is no "prior to the idea of society". Even animals have societies governed by natural - behavioural - rules. These too are subjective.

There is no point in arguing objectivity. No special human rights prior to society is objective.

Which is a falsehood, arrived at by a lack of knowledge of the history of humanity and by an incorrect interchangeable usage of "legal", "OK" and "rights" - you're arguing for no special human laws prior to society (which, as discussed above, is untrue), not rights and the terms are not interchangeable.

 

[Dapper]

You said that if it were allowed by law for someone to just walk up to you and kill you, it would be "ok".
Incessantly? Yep. Erroneously? Not a bit of it:

You quoted what I said and you still didn't read it?

If I wasn't born under these self imposed laws, it would be ok for someone to come kill me...

The words "wasn't born under" means prior to civilization, or not living in a civilization. There were, or would be, no laws, or rights then. That is a succinct fact. Did you not see the n't part of wasn't? I explicitly said "it would be ok for someone to come kill me" if there "wasn't" laws, and, yes, you erroneously read that as "if it were allowed by law for someone to just walk up to you and kill you, it would be "ok"."

Please, stop saying I said things I didn't say. I never said it is OK to kill if a law allows it, I never even gave an opinion on the matter. No laws means no laws can be broken. No laws means no rights.

 

[Joel]

There would be no laws, sure. But that doesn't mean the rights don't exist. To say they come from law means that the governments of the world can just decide what is and isn't OK. There's countries in the world where women can't vote, is that OK just because it's the law?

 

[Danoff]

I am stating objective facts. Prior to civilization there was no punishment for murder. That means there were no "human rights," but humns had the same rights as every other organism.

This continues to be a hangup for you. I have no idea why you think that human rights only exist if they are enforced. You consistently seem to be of the opinion that if human rights are, at any point, not enforced, then they do not exist. This makes absolutely zero sense to me since since human rights would be meaningless if they could not be violated.

If there is no punishment for murder in any society at any time, that has no bearing on whether an allowed murder in that society is a rights violation. Furthermore it has no bearing on whether or not human rights exist. Rights are not some sort of magical force field that protects everyone from harm. Though, I will admit, that if they were a magical protective force field, if it didn't show up when someone got murdered, that would certainly lead me to question its existence.

 

[Dapper]

There would be no laws, sure. But that doesn't mean the rights don't exist. To say they come from law means that the governments of the world can just decide what is and isn't OK. There's countries in the world where women can't vote, is that OK just because it's the law?

That is what governments do though, whether it is right or wrong is up to you, or me.

This continues to be a hangup for you. I have no idea why you think that human rights only exist if they are enforced. You consistently seem to be of the opinion that if human rights are, at any point, not enforced, then they do not exist. This makes absolutely zero sense to me since since human rights would be meaningless if they could not be violated.

My opinion is that we have the same rights, since forever, as every other being. Furthermore, I am saying our specific "human rights" arose from organized civilization wherein the people decided to enforce punishment for breaking the "rights" of their neighbor. The enforcement is merely a by product.

 

[Famine]

You quoted what I said and you still didn't read it?

You posted it and are still denying it?

Is it just fine that someone can walk up and kill you? Of course it isn't.

Of course not, that is why we have artificial, self imposed laws which are not open to subjectivity. We follow the rules that we made, or we get punished in the way we say.

If I wasn't born under these self imposed laws, it would be ok for someone to come kill me...

You stated that if there was no law against your killing it would be okay for someone to kill you. Why do you keep denying this? It's there, in black and off-white.

Please, stop saying I said things I didn't say.

Please stop pretending you didn't.

I never said it is OK to kill if a law allows it

You stated that it is not OK for someone to kill you because there are laws against it, but that if there were not laws against it then it would be. If there were not laws against it, it would be OK for someone to kill you. You. Stated. That.

No laws means no laws can be broken.

Yes.

No laws means no rights.

No. Back to square one.

 

[Danoff]

My opinion is that we have the same rights, since forever, as every other being.

No fundamental disagreement there.

Furthermore, I am saying our specific "human rights" arose from organized civilization wherein the people decided to enforce punishment for breaking the "rights" of their neighbor. The enforcement is merely a by product.

Doesn't sound like it in the prior statement (and in most other statements you have made). The enforcement is a key component for you and I'll tell you why.

You have repeatedly defined human rights as something invented by society, determined in a representative government by the people. To you:

No laws means no rights.

...and an extension of that is that rights must then be determined by law (enforcement). If rights are determined by a majority vote, and especially if they can be determined differently in different countries, then they do not exist. So what you should be saying instead of "no laws mean no rights", is "human rights do not exist" - especially because I do not care about anything subjective in this discussion. If you want to reserve the possibility that something subjective and voted on can be called a "right", that's fine, but I don't need to hear about it because I'll never categorize anything subjective as a "human right".

So fundamentally your position is that human rights do not exist. Whatever people do to each other, if they can get away with it, is their business. We are just animals like every other animal.

Here's my beef with that. We're animals, but not just like every other animal. We have to capacity to reason, we have the capacity to understand that the law of the jungle is a subjective one. That "might makes right" is not correct. That the value of the thoughts and work of an artist are objectively indistinguishable from the value of the thoughts and work of the most powerful warlord. The law of the jungle says otherwise, but why? Nature values fitness and reproduction above all else, but we understand philosophically that there is no more reason to value the strong over the weak than there is to value red over blue or a big rock over a small rock.

What does this mean? It means that it is not just for man to use force against other men, or anything for that matter that is capable of understanding the things I wrote above.

- Might makes right is subjective
- The initiation of force cannot be considered a just action
- A system that permits the initiation of force is not a just system
- The only just government is that which seeks to protect individuals from force.

 

[Dapper]

You said that if it were allowed by law for someone to just walk up to you and kill you, it would be "ok".

You stated that if there was no law against your killing it would be okay for someone to kill you.

Yeah, allowed by law and no law are different, very different. Good wriggle though.

No. Back to square one.

Let's be clear, you are at square one. You have yet to identify anything besides your opinion, albeit reasoning by way of logic, which is therefore inherently subjective, and that means nothing.

This is no different than the question 'does God exist?'. My point of view is that nothing can prove a negative, or what isn't there, you are taking the positive pov, or that something is there to prove, and you having nothing but reason, reason is justification, justification is subjective.

 

[FoolKiller]

I have no idea why you think that human rights only exist if they are enforced. You consistently seem to be of the opinion that if human rights are, at any point, not enforced, then they do not exist.

Schrödinger's Rights.

 

[Dan_]

Everybody is the rightful owner of it's own demise, but yet, there are people ( mostly women ) who've been forced to marry or even denied the right to drive in some cultures.

Under the optic of a nation-A viewer that's an absurd, the laws in his country grant those rights to people regardless of gender and color.
Under the optic of a traditionalist nation-B viewer that's just about right, the laws in his country denies those rights to that specific group of people.

On the example above, law isn't the delimiting factor for the boundaries imposed to women, culture is to blame for that. Law is easily modifiable, culture is rooted on society and is passed through generations. Law is merely an instrument of governors and their supporters to impose their cultural views over a given group of individuals. Law is a snapshot, it merely reproduces (mostly non-consensual) views on a specific topic and specific timestamp.

Human rights are defined by cultural background and therefore almost exclusive to each individual. To me it is unnaceptable that death sentences exist, it is however a current practice in some developed countries. Even if our local goverment sanctioned death penalty, I won't change my position and I'll probably seed that insight into my children when they come.

See? Law has no bearing on what's perceived to be a essential human right, culture has.

 

[Keef]

Yeah, allowed by law and no law are different, very different. Good wriggle though.

How are they different? Seems effectively the same to me. Either way, you would be able to kill without penalty.

But besides that, I'm having trouble understanding your point, but it seems that you think taking the life of any person at a whim would be perfectly fine if there were no legal penalty for doing so. Is that correct?


...


It is generally understood by everybody that taking a person's life for no good reason is wrong. If it was acceptable behavior to kill on a whim, then logic dictates that we would all have to arm ourselves and be prepared to defend our lives at a moment's notice. If anybody could kill anyone for any reason, nobody would be able to go to the grocery store for fear of losing their life. And that's just no way to live.

Because humans of any upbringing or education level are capable of understanding - if too stubborn to do so - that killing people without reason is a ridiculous idea, because if it's okay to kill them then it must be okay for them to kill you. This problem of logic is where the right to life comes from. I have this life...and what the hell for if I can't use it? Makes sense that we should all probably not kill each other so we can live our lives for mutual benefit. That makes a lot more sense.

Maybe...maybe we can all come to agreements on rules based on this "right to life" that we just realized must exist for the peace and order of our species. Because, who knows what sort of penalty should be handed out when somebody purposely defies this unwritten rule and kills somebody? What an asshole, right? Maybe we can all sit at the table and gather opinions on what the punishment should be. Maybe we should write them down so they apply to everybody fairly. Maybe we should call them laws. These laws - covering things like murder and rape and whatever - are able to be created based on the understanding that every individual should be allowed to live their life as they see fit.

In order to make laws that govern the orderly conduct of society, you must have an understanding of the basic principle upon which they are derived. This principle is that every individual has three inalienable rights - life, liberty, and property. Laws are created (ideally) to clarify procedures to be followed and justice to be handed down if any of an individual's three rights are ever broken.

I'm talking about a most basic scenario of course. Obviously laws in pretty much every country are very thorough, and sometimes there are laws that dole out punishment for victimless crimes (speeding for instance). We can probably all agree that various countries' system of laws is way more complex than it needs to be.

 

[Famine]

Yeah, allowed by law and no law are different, very different. Good wriggle though.

Jebus.

You incessantly and erroneously read that as I think murder is OK if laws permit it, but really I just said facts.

If I wasn't born under these self imposed laws, it would be ok for someone to come kill me...

In your fantasy "it's ok" situation, do laws permit you to be killed? Yes, there are no laws preventing it. Is it "ok" to kill you if laws do not prevent it? According to your own opinion, yes it is.

Let's be clear, you are at square one.

No, the discussion is. At least it is so long as you absolutely refuse to accept anything else can be possible than your own erroneously arrived at notions of legality (and legality begetting morality) and so long as you decry others opinions as subjective when your own is absolutely subjective.

You have yet to identify anything besides your opinion, albeit reasoning by way of logic, which is therefore inherently subjective, and that means nothing.

Oh look, we're back to "logic is subjective" again. It's almost as if you don't want to listen - as if you think you can say something often enough and it becomes true.

This is no different than the question 'does God exist?'. My point of view is that nothing can prove a negative, or what isn't there, you are taking the positive pov, or that something is there to prove, and you having nothing but reason, reason is justification, justification is subjective.

You're trying to prove the non-existence of rights. You are trying to prove the negative. Meanwhile other people are pointing out to you, using wholly objective logic, their existence.

So in essence, you're right. You're believing in the non-existence of something and refusing to listen to rationality that shows its existence. Belief vs. logic. Sure sounds like there's a god in there for you somewhere.

 

[Dapper]

In your fantasy "it's ok" situation, do laws permit you to be killed?

No. How can one thing, a law in this case, allow, or permit, something else, a murder, if the first thing is not there? You are really making no sense. A local law allows two yard sales(replace with 0 murders) per year, if there were no yard sale (replace with murder) laws it would be "OK" to have a yard sale(replace with murder) every day.

Oh look, we're back to "logic is subjective" again. It's almost as if you don't want to listen - as if you think you can say something often enough and it becomes true.

By your own admission all you have is logic by way of reason and rationale. Yet you never used an external set of rules. So you used logic, but it is subjective. If you use a set of external rules to figure something out, then whatever find is objective. You haven't done that.

You're trying to prove the non-existence of rights. You are trying to prove the negative. Meanwhile other people are pointing out to you, using wholly objective logic, their existence.

So in essence, you're right. You're believing in the non-existence of something and refusing to listen to rationality that shows its existence. Belief vs. logic. Sure sounds like there's a god in there for you somewhere.

Keep digging your subjective hole. I did give an opinion, just like you did. My opinion can't be proven (neither can yours), but my opinion doesn't need to be proven because I am not saying there was something there when there wasn't, I just rationalized why there are no "natural human rights."

...it seems that you think taking the life of any person at a whim would be perfectly fine if there were no legal penalty for doing so. Is that correct?

Not correct by any means. I just said how it is, and use to be. I am a pacifist.

 

[Famine]

No. How can one thing, a law in this case, allow, or permit, something else, a murder, if the first thing is not there? You are really making no sense. A local law allows two yard sales per year, if there were no yard sale laws it would be "OK" to have a yard sale every day.

Here we go again.

Permitted by favourable law = permitted by absence of law. You keep denying you said it would be OK to kill you if there were no law to prevent it, yet that's exactly what you said:

If I wasn't born under these self imposed laws, it would be ok for someone to come kill me...

By your own admission all you have is logic by way of reason and rationale. Yet you never used an external set of rules. So you used logic, but it is subjective. If you use a set of external rules to figure something out, then whatever find is objective. You haven't done that.

Logic is an external set of rules! It's wholly independent of the thinker.

Keep digging your subjective hole. I did give an opinion, just like you did. My opinion can't be proven (neither can yours), but my opinion doesn't need to be proven because I am not saying there was something there when there wasn't, I just rationalized why there are no "natural human rights."

No, you are seeking to prove the nonexistence of something (which cannot be done). There is no rationality in such a thought process - only belief. You believe that there are no human rights and you will, as a result, keep on believing it and twist and ignore reality to suit your belief.

You're pretty much done here. You're using a belief set to justify your abhorrent position in the face of internally consistent and proveable logic and rationality contradicting it.

 

[Danoff]

By your own admission all you have is logic by way of reason and rationale. Yet you never used an external set of rules. So you used logic, but it is subjective. If you use a set of external rules to figure something out, then whatever find is objective. You haven't done that.

I've supplied a logical, objective rationale for human rights in direct dialogue with you at least three times now. You have yet to respond. Until you do so, these kinds of accusations are pointless.

 

[Dapper]

I've supplied a logical, objective rationale for human rights in direct dialogue with you at least three times now. You have yet to respond. Until you do so, these kinds of accusations are pointless.

Danoff, your rationale is just your opinion. Besides, most words you supplied are subjective.

Logic is an external set of rules! It's wholly independent of the thinker.

No, not always. You use your brain to come up with reason, and rationale. That is not objective.
Logic defined in the manner you are using it- reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions. No matter what you say, that is subjective.

No, you are seeking to prove the nonexistence of something (which cannot be done).

No, I said the opposite two times. You are doing what you accuse me of, the impossible. I've been saying prove your point the whole time, all you do is give subjective thoughts (like reason, rational etc...).

The problem is that it has been established with logic and rationality.

The impossible ^

 

[W3H5]

Human Rights?

You're human, right?

There. Problem solved.

I've just run out of beer and my opinions on this are best saved for a sober day. I do live in a place where HR are not recognised to the same extents as they are else where so will definitely chime in with a few posts once I've regained conciousness.

Waiting for after-sleep-ness to respond.

:kanyewest:

 

[Famine]

No, not always.

Yes, always. People can subvert logic and misapply it - but then it isn't logic any more.

No, I said the opposite two times.

Horseapples. Your entire point is built on the nonexistence of rights - which you've failed to prove.

The impossible ^

Apparently it is to you, because for some reason you believe logic to be subjective when it is not. But then your whole position is based on unproveable belief. You ignore and reject off-hand anything that doesn't fit with your belief, including direct questioning that you know will destroy your foundations if answered (which is why you've ignored it stoically since the start).

You're done. Your entire belief set rests on ignoring and redefining reality to establish proof of nonexistence.

 

[Dapper]

Horseapples. Your entire point is built on the nonexistence of rights - which you've failed to prove.

Your entire point is built on what doesn't exist.

Apparently it is to you, because for some reason you believe logic to be subjective when it is not. But then your whole position is based on unproveable belief. You ignore and reject off-hand anything that doesn't fit with your belief, including direct questioning that you know will destroy your foundations if answered (which is why you've ignored it stoically since the start).

You're done. Your entire belief set rests on ignoring and redefining reality to establish proof of nonexistence.

You never began. All you've done is claim I've said things I clearly didn't say. And you don't have a basic understanding that if you think then it is subjective... even logic sometimes.

There is never a need for negative proof of something for which no positive, unfalsifiable proof exists.

Thanks, niky.

Use an external set of rules. And good luck.

 

[Famine]

Your entire point is built on what doesn't exist.

It has been proven objectively - you merely reject it because it does not sit with your beliefs. You cannot prove nonexistence objectively, which is what you have been trying to do.

You never began. All you've done is claim I've said things I clearly didn't say.

Not only have you sought to redefine reality to fit your own beliefs, you have sought to redefine your own words after being caught out. It doesn't wash now just as it didn't wash then. Denying you said it at all is hopeless.

And you don't have a basic understanding that if you think then it is subjective... even logic sometimes.

Logic is never subjective. Logic is always objective. If it is subjective it is not logic, merely philosophy. Logic can be misapplied - to be no longer logic. Logic can be misused - to be no longer logic. It cannot be subjective.

This has been patiently explained to you again and again. Danoff has even invited you to point out where logic is misapplied and given you an example to directly challenge. You declined both.

You seek to prove nonexistence to fit with a predetermined belief set at the expense of reality. You're done. Go to a religion thread and espouse your beliefs to all and sundry - it's better suited for the task.

Use an external set of rules. And good luck.

Logic is an external set of rules! It's wholly independent of the thinker.