Human Rights

[Famine]

Yes, they violated rights, rights we have HERE and NOW, otherwise, how would it have happened?

Then, by your argument, they didn't violate rights because they didn't have any. Thus the acts, in context or not violating right, were right.

Or the societal recognition and codification of rights are irrelevant to the rights themselves and the acts of murder and slavery were wrong. Take your pick.

We evolved, nature stays the same, the laws of physics have been consistent with then, we didn't. So what changed? There's your answer, that's where to look for evidences.

I value your well being, I believe we should protect you as much as we can from pain and suffering, both psychological and physical. Nature don't care about you. Ask a rock.

This seems to be a rant and I don't quite follow the point of any of it in relation to the discussion.

But if I read between the lines, I did addressed what you may refer to. I said that, even if we weight what we ought to value objectively (we can measure human flourishing, peace is objectively better than war), it still is subjective to the human experience. I think it is shortsighted to attribute what I am entitled to by nature's design, I believe I ought my peace and tranquility to the Canadian society, not the maple leaf. Even if we decided the rules on empirical evidence, they correlate to mind states.

This doesn't seem to be a rant, but again I don't quite follow the point of any of it in relation to the discussion.


History has shown us that when societies determine what rights are according to force and makes laws about them we get human enslavement and mass murder. By the argument that force and law determines rights, no act of force, if legal, can be wrong or against rights. By that argument, slavery was right and the holocaust was right. By the argument that rights are innate, no act of force or law can be right if it is against innate rights. By that argument, slavery was wrong and the holocaust was wrong.

Now it's your call which suits you - though please bear in mind that if your nation changed their law tomorrow to permit the mass execution of those with your eye colour, the former argument (the one you're pushing) says that you'd have no problem with it.

 

[homeforsummer]

They will tell you the only right they have is how they feel about it.

Because that the only natural right they had, how they felt about it.

Babies don't have any concept of rights. They don't know they shouldn't be rounded up and killed. Does that mean it's okay to kill babies? Do they have no right to life because they don't understand that the only right they have is how they feel?

 

[lalaurentide]

Then, by your argument, they didn't violate rights because they didn't have any. Thus the acts, in context or not violating right, were right.

Or the societal recognition and codification of rights are irrelevant to the rights themselves and the acts of murder and slavery were wrong. Take your pick.



This seems to be a rant and I don't quite follow the point of any of it in relation to the discussion.



This doesn't seem to be a rant, but again I don't quite follow the point of any of it in relation to the discussion.


History has shown us that when societies determine what rights are according to force and makes laws about them we get human enslavement and mass murder. By the argument that force and law determines rights, no act of force, if legal, can be wrong or against rights. By that argument, slavery was right and the holocaust was right. By the argument that rights are innate, no act of force or law can be right if it is against innate rights. By that argument, slavery was wrong and the holocaust was wrong.

Now it's your call which suits you - though please bear in mind that if your nation changed their law tomorrow to permit the mass execution of those with your eye colour, the former argument (the one you're pushing) says that you'd have no problem with it.

Again, missing my point and original post to Fiero.

My point is not whether it is right or wrong. I argued that rights are not absolutes, they are enforced and maintained by us, hence subjective to society. Gravity is objective, it doesn't need us to exist. If rights are objective only our own thoughts hold to that definition. In the natural order of things you are victim to your environment and your well being is not a right, it's a privilege we've given each other.

Therefore I argue this proves "natural" (objective) rights is nonsensical. I firmly believe in the concept of fundamental rights, but I do believe I have those rights because I am lucky to live in Canada in the 21th century. What use is a right if you don't benefit from it, seriously. A child sexual slave can have all the fundamental rights you want, he doesn't have those right until society comes in and give him those rights, until then he remains a slave with no rights.

Trying to twist my words to make me look like I am supporting slavery and genocide in an attempt to discredit me is a sad argumentative.

 

[dylansan]

Again, missing my point and original post to Fiero.

My point is not whether it is right or wrong. I argued that rights are not absolutes, they are enforced and maintained by us, hence subjective to society. Gravity is objective, it doesn't need us to exist. If rights are objective only our own thoughts hold to that definition. In the natural order of things you are victim to your environment and your well being is not a right, it's a privilege we've given each other.

Nobody ever said we have the right to well being. Rights mean we can hold people responsible for harming others. We can't hold nature responsible for anything, or punish nature in any way.

Therefore I argue this proves "natural" (objective) rights is nonsensical. I firmly believe in the concept of fundamental rights, but I do believe I have those rights because I am lucky to live in Canada in the 21th century. What use is a right if you don't benefit from it, seriously. A child sexual slave can have all the fundamental rights you want, he doesn't have those right until society comes in and give him those rights, until then he remains a slave with no rights.

The fact that these rights are universal means we are able to stop slavery by taking away the rights of the people who own slaves so they won't violate the slaves rights anymore. Without rights, you could never stop slavery because there would be no objective basis for doing so. You would have to prove that slavery is objectively wrong without using the concept of rights, which is impossible.

Trying to twist my words to make me look like I am supporting slavery and genocide in an attempt to discredit me is a sad argumentative.

I think he knows you don't support those things, he's just trying to show you that your reasoning is flawed because it would support those things.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

His reasoning isn't flawed simply because you do not agree with them.

However, I do agree with him since his reasoning is 100% on the money.

 

[Famine]

My point is not whether it is right or wrong. I argued that rights are not absolutes, they are enforced and maintained by us, hence subjective to society.

Thus your argument is that, where society permits something it is right. See the word "rights"?

If society permits slavery, slavery is right. This is your argument.

Gravity is objective, it doesn't need us to exist.

Poor example. Gravity requires more than one object upon which to act in order to exist.

If rights are objective only our own thoughts hold to that definition.

This makes no sense.

In the natural order of things you are victim to your environment and your well being is not a right, it's a privilege we've given each other.

Nonsense.

Therefore I argue this proves "natural" (objective) rights is nonsensical. I firmly believe in the concept of fundamental rights, but I do believe I have those rights because I am lucky to live in Canada in the 21th century. What use is a right if you don't benefit from it, seriously. A child sexual slave can have all the fundamental rights you want, he doesn't have those right until society comes in and give him those rights, until then he remains a slave with no rights.

You're arguing that laws and force generate rights. You're arguing that things that are legal are always right - even though law can be changed.

Trying to twist my words to make me look like I am supporting slavery and genocide in an attempt to discredit me is a sad argumentative.

Your words are not being twisted and no-one is suggesting you support anything. Your argument supports slavery and genocide, where slavery and genocide are legal. Subjective, mutable rights according to force and law means that if law permits it, might makes right. This means that if law permits you to treat a negro as property, it's not a breach of rights. This means that if your country changes its law tomorrow to execute everyone with your eye colour, it's not a breach of rights. Your argument supports this.

If you don't think this is the case, change your argument. If you think slavery is wrong or murdering you because of your eye colour is wrong, demonstrate where the breach of rights occurs even where it's legal - because your argument does not support this.


Incidentally, what would be a "sad argumentative" (umm... did you mean "tad"?) would be saying someone's username is silly in an attempt to attack them. Thank goodness no-one's done that yet.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Thus your argument is that, where society permits something it is right. See the word "rights"?

If society permits slavery, slavery is right. This is your argument.

You are twisting words around in order to make an argument. Poor tactic. He said it is a right, not right.

Poor example. Gravity requires more than one object upon which to act in order to exist.

He said gravity doesn't need us to exist... Hate to be the burden of bad news... But the universe existed before you were in it :shocked:

Nonsense.

Why?

You're arguing that laws and force generate rights. You're arguing that things that are legal are always right - even though law can be changed.

Your words are not being twisted and no-one is suggesting you support anything.

Really? You are twisting everything he has said. And, oh ya... see below...

Your argument supports slavery and genocide, where slavery and genocide are legal. Subjective, mutable rights according to force and law means that if law permits it, might makes right. This means that if law permits you to treat a negro as property, it's not a breach of rights. This means that if your country changes its law tomorrow to execute everyone with your eye colour, it's not a breach of rights. Your argument supports this.

Really?

If you don't think this is the case, change your argument. If you think slavery is wrong or murdering you because of your eye colour is wrong, demonstrateent where the breach of rights occurs even where it's legal - because your argument does not support this.

Incidentally, what would be a "sad argumentative" (umm... did you mean "tad"?) would be saying someone's username is silly in an attempt to attack them. Thank goodness no-one's done that yet.

Sad argument. Twisting someone's words and explicitly telling them you are not is just ridiculous.

 

[Famine]

You are twisting words around in order to make an argument. Poor tactic. He said it is a right, not right.

What is "a right" if it is not right?

He said gravity doesn't need us to exist... Hate to be the burden of bad news... But the universe existed before you were in it :shocked:

It still needs us to act on us.

Why?

Uhh... everything said so far?

Really? You are twisting everything he has said. And, oh ya... see below...

Nope. Any argument that supports society as being the origin of rights supports any act that society commits, if legal, as right.

Really?

Yes. Any argument that supports society as being the origin of rights supports any act that society commits, if legal, as right.

Sad argument. Twisting someone's words and explicitly telling them you are not is just ridiculous.

Nope. Any argument that supports society as being the origin of rights supports any act that society commits, if legal, as right. If you don't want to support that, don't argue it.


Feel free to tell us why slavery was not against the slaves' rights because the society said they weren't people.

 

[dylansan]

Sad argument. Twisting someone's words and explicitly telling them you are not is just ridiculous.

His argument supports slavery and genocide where slavery and genocide are legal. If he does not actually support these things (which we know he doesn't) then his beliefs are inconsistent with his own argument. Thus, his argument is flawed.

Famine's only pointing out what his argument suggests, not what lalaurentide thinks.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

What is "a right" if it is not right?

With recent events, the shooting in Colorado, the Right to bear arms will be called into question. A fragment of the population will question its morality and worthiness due to absurd media coverage. Now, in these individual's point of view this is not "right," but it is a Right. You have a right to defend your property; correct? But what exactly does this right encompass? Can you kill a human being, infringing on their right to live? Who decides? S...o...c.... see where this is going? You can also see how this applies across the spectrum of rights.

It still needs us to act on us.

Not the point. If you believe we are the only thing gravity acts on and that it never existed before we did and it can not exist without us then I strongly urge you to educate yourself on the laws of physics, evolutionary history, etc.

Uhh... everything said so far?

Specifically tell me why? Not just "nonsense" and "everything said so far." If you will enlighten me on your views of human history. Specifically, evolution and the existence of the universe before written history. This will shed a great deal of understanding, on my part, to your view.

Nope. Any argument that supports society as being the origin of rights supports any act that society commits, if legal, as right.

...

Yes. Any argument that supports society as being the origin of rights supports any act that society commits, if legal, as right.

You already said that. Also, you stated you weren't twisting words and suggesting what his argument supported... I do not understand why you would reiterate for a third time that this is what his argument supports when you specifically said: "Your words are not being twisted and no-one is suggesting you support anything."

Nope. Any argument that supports society as being the origin of rights supports any act that society commits, if legal, as right. If you don't want to support that, don't argue it.

Let us take a trip back in time to a point where the concept of "society" did not exist. Before hunter/gatherers and when Homo sapiens had recently split off from our shared ancestor with current day primates... If... you believe in that sort of thing. If not... humor me.

Where are the rights? There is no language, no society, no advanced logical reasoning, no rights. We are animals in the forest.

While you are here with me in the past let's also examine your "nonsense" reply to "In the natural order of things you are victim to your environment and your well being is not a right, it's a privilege we've given each other."

On the way back to my cave from a hunting expedition I come across several men who have ram-sacked my dwelling. They run towards me with sharpened rocks. Unable to communicate, due to them not having discovered language skills and inherently not being aware to the concept of society or human rights, I am immediately killed despite this "natural given right to live safely."

Why were they unaware of my rights?

The term "human rights" didn't even emerge in the English language until the mid-20th century. The precursors to this, you guessed it: multiple government documents from various democratic and/or "advanced" societies detailing the rights of their people.

If the concept of human rights had not even yet been addressed by society, or even conceived by philosophers years earlier, then why had they not existed prior to this? If they did exist... Why were they not universal?

Feel free to tell us why slavery was not against the slaves' rights because the society said they weren't people.

Which rights?

And again, no one is arguing that what happened in history, specifically slave history, was correct, humane, ethical, moral, however you want to put it.

They were given the rights that society granted them. When the majority of a society views something as a "right" then it becomes so. There is no codon in your DNA for "rights."

His argument supports slavery and genocide where slavery and genocide are legal. If he does not actually support these things (which we know he doesn't) then his beliefs are inconsistent with his own argument. Thus, his argument is flawed.

Famine's only pointing out what his argument suggests, not what lalaurentide thinks.

Where does he say in his argument that it specifically supports slavery and genocide at any point in time? His argument is that society is the origin of human rights. Without society human rights do not exist. Think. It. Through.

Famine is twisting words and suggesting what Lala...'s argument entails while explicitly stating no one is doing this; I can read through two pages and see nothing but this; including your quoted statement.

 

[lalaurentide]

Nobody ever said we have the right to well being. Rights mean we can hold people responsible for harming others. We can't hold nature responsible for anything, or punish nature in any way.The fact that these rights are universal means we are able to stop slavery by taking away the rights of the people who own slaves so they won't violate the slaves rights anymore. Without rights, you could never stop slavery because there would be no objective basis for doing so. You would have to prove that slavery is objectively wrong without using the concept of rights, which is impossible.
I think he knows you don't support those things, he's just trying to show you that your reasoning is flawed because it would support those things.

My original response was to someone who said "natural right to property".
Like you say, when you go the road of objective and absolute rights it makes no sense as nature is "indifferent".

All along I said that without society rights don't exist. Nature might gives us the opportunity and ability to be free, but it does not guarantee it. Society might not prevent all violations, but energy is being deployed to minimize the risk of theft, rape or murder, amongst other things. Therefore subjective to the society we live in.

It's one thing to walk free from harm on stateless (lawless) land, it's entirely another to walk free from harm in New York city. One is purely coincidental and circumstantial, the other is by design and worked for.

If someone torture you, on an animal level of experience it is objectively wrong, but the right to be free from torture is subjective to your society. Nature cannot shield us from torture, it will make us all hurt relatively the same way therefore objectively wrong, but nature does not protect from it, not a right. A right means your are entitled to something. Hence objective rights are a ridicule idea.

I think people misconstrued moral truths with rights, the ability to live without being beaten up in the street is morally objectively good, but the right to live without being beaten up is subjective to the society you live in. We all should be free from harm, "Moral Truth", but not everyone is free from harm, "Right".

 

[Famine]

With recent events, the shooting in Colorado, the Right to bear arms will be called into question.

Which is a law. Laws are not rights (even when they're correct).

You have a right to defend your property; correct?

Which is a law. Laws are not rights (even when they're correct).

Who decides?

You'll see in this thread, having been discussed before, the objective solution.

see where this is going?

Yes, you're confusing laws with rights again.

You can also see how this applies across the spectrum of rights.

Rights are not laws.

Not the point. If you believe we are the only thing gravity acts on and that it never existed before we did and it can not exist without us then I strongly urge you to educate yourself on the laws of physics, evolutionary history, etc.

Oh dear.

The objectivity of gravitation (not gravity) is not in question. However it acts only on multiple objects and it depends upon their masses and distances from one another (in Newtonian gravitation - in special relativity it acts according to the velocity of the mass in space-time). In other words, it depends on certain other things. You know, like subjectivity.

Specifically tell me why? Not just "nonsense" and "everything said so far." If you will enlighten me on your views of human history. Specifically, evolution and the existence of the universe before written history. This will shed a great deal of understanding, on my part, to your view.

You have got to be kidding. Read the thread man. Don't just wade in and demand a brief history of time from all participants.

You already said that. Also, you stated you weren't twisting words and suggesting what his argument supported... I do not understand why you would reiterate for a third time that this is what his argument supports when you specifically said: "Your words are not being twisted and no-one is suggesting you support anything."

The argument supports it. This is an wholly different concept from the individual supporting it.

Let us take a trip back in time to a point where the concept of "society" did not exist. Before hunter/gatherers and when Homo sapiens had recently split off from our shared ancestor with current day primates... If... you believe in that sort of thing. If not... humor me.

Where are the rights? There is no language, no society, no advanced logical reasoning, no rights. We are animals in the forest.

While you're busy reading the thread, read Danoff's posts about why animals do not have rights because they neither observe them nor are capable of doing so.

While you are here with me in the past let's also examine your "nonsense" reply to "In the natural order of things you are victim to your environment and your well being is not a right, it's a privilege we've given each other."

On the way back to my cave from a hunting expedition I come across several men who have ram-sacked my dwelling. They run towards me with sharpened rocks. Unable to communicate, due to them not having discovered language skills and inherently not being aware to the concept of society or human rights, I am immediately killed despite this "natural given right to live safely."

Why were they unaware of my rights?

Why does it matter?

The term "human rights" didn't even emerge in the English language until the mid-20th century. The precursors to this, you guessed it: multiple government documents from various democratic and/or "advanced" societies detailing the rights of their people.

If the concept of human rights had not even yet been addressed by society, or even conceived by philosophers years earlier, then why had they not existed prior to this? If they did exist... Why were they not universal?

Again, you're hung up on the codification of them.

Which rights?

Their rights.

It's funny. No-one who supports rights born from laws/observation of rights/force ever wants to say that slavery was not against human rights because the slaves were not human and had no rights according to the laws. I wonder why this is.

And again, no one is arguing that what happened in history, specifically slave history, was correct, humane, ethical, moral, however you want to put it.

"Right".

The argument that their rights were not breached (because they had no rights) is an argument that it was right.

They were given the rights that society granted them. When the majority of a society views something as a "right" then it becomes so. There is no codon in your DNA for "rights."

When the majority of a society views killing or enslaving people of certain extractions as right it does not become a right. It remains wrong, it just becomes legal.

Where does he say in his argument that it specifically supports slavery and genocide at any point in time? His argument is that society is the origin of human rights. Without society human rights do not exist. Think. It. Through.

Famine is twisting words and suggesting what Lala...'s argument entails while explicitly stating no one is doing this; I can read through two pages and see nothing but this; including your quoted statement.

The argument that society is the origin of human rights is the argument that slavery was not a breach of human rights because society deemed it so. Read. It. Again. No words are being twisted - except by people who cannot distinguish someone's argument from the person. This is the argument being advanced.


Feel free to tell us why slavery was not against the slaves' rights because the society said they weren't people. Before you demand I fill in all of time from the Big Bang to the present day for you.

 

[lalaurentide]

Famine if you cannot comprehend that what is [morally] right and what are Rights are two completely and different concept, just stop already. You may be surprised to learn that my "non sense" arise from a lack of understanding.

Have the humility to ask for clarification, don't dismiss everything you cannot wrap your head around.

Your Rights as an individual living in the UK are NOT the same as the rights of women living in part of the middle east. Are you telling me they don't have less rights than we do? The same can be said of homosexuals in America. And so on.

 

[Famine]

Famine if cannot comprehend

you cannot wrap your head around

If you cannot stop abusing people who don't agree with you, leave.

This is not a suggestion. You discuss the points, not the people making them. If you are not interested in that you do not belong here.

that what is [morally] right and what are Rights are two completely and different concept, just stop already.

The whole point is that rights and laws are two completely different concepts. You're arguing them to be the same thing.

Your Right as an individual in the UK is NOT the same as women in the middle east, what is non sense about that?

Laws. My protection under law is not the same. My rights are the same.

Are you telling me they don't have less rights than we do?

Correct. They have less protection under law.

 

[dylansan]

They have the same rights, but they aren't being observed and the laws there don't require them to be observed. The country is allowing the violation of their rights, which is wrong.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Which is a law. Laws are not rights (even when they're correct).

Which is a law. Laws are not rights (even when they're correct).

You'll see in this thread, having been discussed before, the objective solution.

Yes, you're confusing laws with rights again.

Rights are not laws.

Oh dear.

The objectivity of gravitation (not gravity) is not in question. However it acts only on multiple objects and it depends upon their masses and distances from one another (in Newtonian gravitation - in special relativity it acts according to the velocity of the mass in space-time). In other words, it depends on certain other things. You know, like subjectivity.

You have got to be kidding. Read the thread man. Don't just wade in and demand a brief history of time from all participants.

The argument supports it. This is an wholly different concept from the individual supporting it.

While you're busy reading the thread, read Danoff's posts about why animals do not have rights because they neither observe them nor are capable of doing so.

Why does it matter?

Again, you're hung up on the codification of them.

Their rights.

It's funny. No-one who supports rights born from laws/observation of rights/force ever wants to say that slavery was not against human rights because the slaves were not human and had no rights according to the laws. I wonder why this is.

"Right".

The argument that their rights were not breached (because they had no rights) is an argument that it was right.

When the majority of a society views killing or enslaving people of certain extractions as right it does not become a right. It remains wrong, it just becomes legal.

The argument that society is the origin of human rights is the argument that slavery was not a breach of human rights because society deemed it so. Read. It. Again. No words are being twisted - except by people who cannot distinguish someone's argument from the person. This is the argument being advanced.

Feel free to tell us why slavery was not against the slaves' rights because the society said they weren't people. Before you demand I fill in all of time from the Big Bang to the present day for you.

Not going to bother with multi-quoting.

Rights are granted to an individual within the society they exist. If there are no laws to support their rights then how are they enforced? The right to bear arms is what an individual could classify as a means to achieve the right to live safely. You take away their capability to protect themselves and you have infringed on that right.

I did not "wade in here and demand" anything. I asked, politely, to enlighten me on your views of existence so I could get a better understanding of your point of view . If you are expecting me to ask you with "pretty please times three with icing on top" because you are Administration then you are highly mistaken. You will not get that from me. If that is indeed what you are expecting then you might as well ban me now. Unfortunately, I do not have the time or care to read through every single post in this thread. But, I guess that is what you as Administration would like? I guess it is a good thing this is not the case. If it were, no new members would be signing up and posting in any thread before reading through every single post ever made. Please, forgive me for not having the time for read through thousands of posts on this site.

Considering Homo sapiens are indeed animals...

If you choose to deny science and state you are not that is your call. You didn't stop being an animal once the human population learned to communicate.

Logical reasoning didn't just appear out of thin air. Rights did not just magically spring into creation when the universe began to form.

Rights were only deemed "right" by individuals within a society when they were capable of doing so intellectually.

Hypothetically, I think it is a right that I can choose any mate from any species. Unfortunately, society views this as immoral and wrong so therefore I do not have his right. Not allowing me to do so has infringed on my free will and happiness.

Fast forward a couple hundred-thousand years and now society has significantly changed and individuals view selecting a mate from any species as a right.

And, again I did not state that slaves had no rights.

Going over your post reveals to me that you quickly dismiss anything you do not agree with by posting some smart comment and denying to actually converse the point. So, I am done. Good day to you.

 

[Famine]

Rights are granted to an individual within the society they exist. If there are no laws to support their rights then how are they enforced?

Again, you confuse rights with laws. Laws within a society guarantee the rights they have.

They can also deny them. This is why laws are not rights.

The right to bear arms

Which is a law.

is what an individual could classify as a means to achieve the right to live safely.

Is that a right? Can it be objective established as a right? If not, it's irrelevant, if so why is it not a right in other countries too?

This destroys the point that rights are laws.

I did not "wade in here and demand" anything. I asked, politely, to enlighten me on your views of existence so I could get a better understanding of your point of view.

My views on existence are irrelevant to the reality of existence.

If you are expecting me to ask you with "pretty please times three with icing on top" because you are Administration then you are highly mistaken. You will not get that from me. If that is indeed what you are expecting then you might as well ban me now. Unfortunately, I do not have the time or care to read through every single post in this thread. But, I guess that is what you as Administration would like? I guess it is a good thing this is not the case. If it were, no new members would be signing up and posting in any thread before reading through every single post ever made.

And now you've made it about me being a member of staff, for some reason.

Discuss the points, not the people making them. Or do not participate.

Considering Homo sapiens are indeed animals...

Which are capable of observing rights. Do yourself and your argument a favour and read Danoff's post as I suggested.

If you choose to deny science and state you are not that is your call. You didn't stop being an animal once the human population learned to communicate.

Logical reasoning didn't just appear out of thin air. Rights did not just magically spring into creation when the universe began to form.

As above.

Rights were only deemed "right" by individuals within a society when they were capable of doing so intellectually.

Rights are inherent to intelligence - the intelligence required to recognise and observe them.

Hypothetically, I think it is a right that I can choose any mate from any species.

Can you establish this objectively? If so it is a right. If not it is not.

Unfortunately, society views this as immoral and wrong so therefore I do not have his right.

Whether you have the right is irrelevant to the laws passed to prevent you from carrying on with it.

And, again I did not state that slaves had no rights.

Going over your post reveals to me that you quickly dismiss anything you do not agree with by posting some smart comment and denying to actually converse the point. So, I am done. Good day to you.

You have still not actually answered the question posed. Until you have, such accusations are laughable. But then even when you have they're still discussing the people making the point, not the point itself. This remains unacceptable.


Your argument is that society is what gives rights. Tell us why slavery was not against the slaves' rights because the society said they weren't people.

 

[lalaurentide]

If you cannot stop abusing people who don't agree with you, leave.

This is not a suggestion. You discuss the points, not the people making them. If you are not interested in that you do not belong here.



The whole point is that rights and laws are two completely different concepts. You're arguing them to be the same thing.



Laws. My protection under law is not the same. My rights are the same.



Correct. They have less protection under law.

In other words, slaves had the right to vote, but because laws didn't allowed them or prevented them they couldn't exercise their right to vote. Tomatoes, tamatoes. The end result is the same, they didn't had the right to vote.

Laws are there to protect rights by preventing violation or allowing their existence, like taxes for education, water, protection, etc. Essentially rights ARE laws. Every law in the book is in there because of a right, a moral value that made law, a right. They are indiscernible.

I guess I'll keep thinking laws and rights are the same, while you think rights and moral truths are the same.

"If you cannot stop abusing?" Am I being rude? I understand it's difficult to convey tone on a forum, but it is not meant to be aggressive.

It's not like I dismiss people's opinions without counter-arguments, a lot of my writing is attempting to prove my premise first and foremost. If people feel defensive don't point at me. I don't see why I should pity and infantilize the people I reply to, so far I was respectful, and when I did do a personal attack on someone I did it upfront, you called me on it in a passive aggressive manner. We all got our flaws.

 

[Famine]

In other words, slaves had the right to vote, but because laws didn't allowed them or prevented them they couldn't exercise their right to vote. Tomatoes, tamatoes. The end result is the same, they didn't had the right to vote.

Voting isn't a right, it's a privilege granted by law. If it was a right, 17 year olds would have it.

Laws are there to protect rights by preventing violation or allowing them, like taxes allows for education, water, protection, etc.

Yes...

Essentially rights ARE laws. Every law in the book is in there because of a right, a moral value that made law, a right. They are indiscernible.

No. There are thousands of laws that exist for no moral reason and thousands more that actively deny rights across the planet. Laws can both protect and deny rights. If they were indiscernible slavery would have been right until it was no longer legal and executing you tomorrow for your eye colour would be right if it was legal - both of which are tripe.

Laws are subjective. Laws vary on whim. Laws are different from state to state to country to continent and even to planet. Rights do not. When a law changes to deny a right, the right does not change. When a law changes to protect a right, the right does not change. Where laws deny rights they are wrong - and clearly different things.

I guess I'll keep thinking laws and rights are the same, while you think right and moral truths are the same.

If you can logically establish it, other people will think as you do. This requires you to demonstrate that slavery was not a violation of rights because it was legal.

"If you cannot stop abusing?" Am I being rude? I understand it's difficult to convey tone on a forum, but it is not meant to be aggressive.

It's not like I dismiss people's opinions without counter-arguments, a lot of my writing is attempting to prove my premise first and foremost. If people feel defensive don't point at me. I don't see why I should pity and infantilize the people I reply to, so far I was respectful, and when I did do a personal attack on someone I did it upfront, you called me on it in a passive aggressive manner. We all got our flaws.

You discuss the points. You do not move your subject to the people making them. You have done this with both me and with Foolkiller. It does not continue.

 

[arora]

Nobody ever said we have the right to well being. Rights mean we can hold people responsible for harming others. We can't hold nature responsible for anything, or punish nature in any way.The fact that these rights are universal means we are able to stop slavery by taking away the rights of the people who own slaves so they won't violate the slaves rights anymore. Without rights, you could never stop slavery because there would be no objective basis for doing so. You would have to prove that slavery is objectively wrong without using the concept of rights, which is impossible.
.

Good post.

 

[Keef]

Babies don't have any concept of rights. They don't know they shouldn't be rounded up and killed. Does that mean it's okay to kill babies? Do they have no right to life because they don't understand that the only right they have is how they feel?

Well that question doesn't cover it because cows don't know they shouldn't be slathered in ketchup either. You need to establish the fact that human beings have shown an ability to understand and respect their own rights and the rights of others while animals have not. Because a human baby is human it's safe to assume that it will develop the ability to understand and respect these concepts. A cow calf simply never will.

 

[homeforsummer]

Well that question doesn't cover it because cows don't know they shouldn't be slathered in ketchup either. You need to establish the fact that human beings have shown an ability to understand and respect their own rights and the rights of others while animals have not. Because a human baby is human it's safe to assume that it will develop the ability to understand and respect these concepts. A cow calf simply never will.

Thanks for adding that. You knew that's what I meant

 

[FoolKiller]

So if rights are only created through law does that mean that there is no such thing as malum in se, and only malum prohibitum, despite these being legally recognized concepts?

 

[lalaurentide]

Voting isn't a right, it's a privilege granted by law. If it was a right, 17 year old would have it.

It's a right, but their right to democratic involvement is ruled out by the same right of the greater population of adults to democracy. We have weigh in the impact of denying their right versus the negative impact of their immaturity in the democratic process. Although 17 might be open to discussion as being too old.

No. There are thousands of laws that exist for no moral reason and thousands more that actively deny rights across the planet. Laws can both protect and deny rights.

Give me ten laws that aren't centered around protecting our rights, individual or collective.

If they were indiscernible slavery would have been right until it was no longer legal and executing you tomorrow for your eye colour would be right if it was legal - both of which are tripe.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right (ADJECTIVE). It makes it their right (NOUN) although being wrong (ADJECTIVE). Seriously man. One is a noun, the other an adjective. Laws give me rights, the noun, but laws are not always right, adjective.

Laws gave slave owners the right to own slave, it didn't made it right.

Laws are subjective. Laws vary on whim. Laws are different from state to state to country to continent and even to planet. Rights do not. When a law changes to deny a right, the right does not change. When a law changes to protect a right, the right does not change. Where laws deny rights they are wrong - and clearly different things.

If you can logically establish it, other people will think as you do. This requires you to demonstrate that slavery was not a violation of rights because it was legal.

As I said, I use the term moral truth to define what is morally absolutely objectively right regardless of culture and period, you use the term right to describe that same concept. I believe laws are rights society voted on, agreed and wrote on paper so to be clear rules, and admissible in a court. To me laws are rights made official rules, even when morally wrong, they essentially describe our social obligations.

To me "rule of law" means "rule of what is your right, what is permitted and protected". You would probably change the wording and replace "right", but I think we share the same idea on a conceptual level.

You discuss the points. You do not move your subject to the people making them. You have done this with both me and with Foolkiller. It does not continue.

I speak french, this is where I do not understand at all what you mean.

I removed the color and bold, it was simpler than formatting it, it got messy halfway.

 

[FoolKiller]

I speak french,

Which might be the issue here.

As I said, I use the term moral truth to define what is morally absolutely objectively right regardless of culture and period, you use the term right to describe that same concept.

You are arguing semantics over your disapproval of a common usage term in English. In English there is a clear distinction between civil and innate rights. Because you do not like the common English usage does not make it incorrect.

Give me ten laws that aren't centered around protecting our rights, individual or collective.

1) Seatbelt laws. 2)Motorcycle helmet laws. 3) Required airbags. 4) Bans on trans fats usage in restaurants. 5) Smoking bans in private businesses. 6) New York's ban on sodas over 16oz. 7) No alcohol sales on Sundays (blue laws). 8) No left turns at intersections with a red light despite no traffic. 9) Front and rear license plates. 10) Ban on sales of clearly labeled and identified raw milk. 11) No buying health insurance across state lines. 12) No live Kona coffee beans may leave Hawaii. 13) No transporting of alcohol across state lines. 14) No selling of moonshine. 15) Paying property taxes even on items like a car that is 100% paid off and decreasing in value (so its not even a source of profit or income) for simply owning it.

There's 15. I can keep going.

 

[arora]

I love the list.

Not sure about the plate law though, I don't like it because I am a grumpy old man but if you have to have one in rear, why not front? I know it's for the camera speed deals but it still shows you paid tax on the rig for the right to passage?

 

[lalaurentide]

Which might be the issue here.


You are arguing semantics over your disapproval of a common usage term in English. In English there is a clear distinction between civil and innate rights. Because you do not like the common English usage does not make it incorrect.


1) Seatbelt laws. 2)Motorcycle helmet laws. 3) Required airbags. 4) Bans on trans fats usage in restaurants. 5) Smoking bans in private businesses. 6) New York's ban on sodas over 16oz. 7) No alcohol sales on Sundays (blue laws). 8) No left turns at intersections with a red light despite no traffic. 9) Front and rear license plates. 10) Ban on sales of clearly labeled and identified raw milk. 11) No buying health insurance across state lines. 12) No live Kona coffee beans may leave Hawaii. 13) No transporting of alcohol across state lines. 14) No selling of moonshine. 15) Paying property taxes even on items like a car that is 100% paid off and decreasing in value (so its not even a source of profit or income) for simply owning it.

There's 15. I can keep going.

It's not that I don't like or disapprove of the common English usage, but if I look at an encyclopedia or a dictionary the definition of right is the same across both language. Definition doesn't change my original argument that if one of your right is violated you no longer have that right until its restoration though. Even innate, if society decides to take your freedom away from you and put you in a cell, you may be entitled to it philosophically but you won't have the right of freedom realistically. In my opinion the most accurate description is the factual approach. People disagree with me, but I think we can put it to rest. No matter how we look at it, it would not change the reality of someone put in that situation.

The list:
All those laws are aimed at protecting you and others from harm, lessen the burden of invalidity and sickness on society, or provide for services like access to drinking water. Wealth [usually] equates to a higher standard of living, wasted resources is less well being, harm is self-explanatory and taxes do many helpful things one of them being fighting hurt.

As ridiculous as the moonshine and Sunday alcohol laws may sound, probably never did much and antiquated, they were thought of and put in to place for your nation's well being, or at least what was thought to improve it. You could keep going but I wouldn't ask you to, if you find one it's the exception. I'm telling you, laws are moral values that made it into the big leagues to become [civil] rights. Nothing in the law book is fortuitous or gratuitous, they all have the purpose of our rights and well being, why would we waste time and energy on laws that aren't related to the subjective experiment that is mankind or other sentient beings? Just like you won't find a law protecting something that can't hurt and flourish, chances are almost all of them are about the rights we gave each other.

 

[Keef]

It's not that I don't like or disapprove of the common English usage, but if I look at an encyclopedia or a dictionary the definition of right is the same across both language.

The definition of the word right depends on the context as FK implied. There are differences between innate/natural/inalienable rights and civil/legislated rights, the main difference being that one is a natural consequence of our unique ability to reason and the other is simply made up. Very different.

The list:
All those laws are aimed at protecting you and others from harm

How about this is America where we aren't weak bitches and are able to protect our own god damn selves? Yeah, that's what I thought.

I'm telling you, laws are moral values that made it into the big leagues to become [civil] rights. Nothing in the law book is fortuitous or gratuitous, they all have the purpose of our rights and well being, why would we waste time and energy on laws that aren't related to the subjective experiment that is mankind or other sentient beings?

Some laws are designed to provide for an organized justice system in order to protect our natural rights. Murder, for example, is illegal because it's a violation of one's right to life.

Most laws exist as nothing more than means of control and a source of revenue for the State. License plates for example. I recently paid $104 for two plates of galvanized steel, one of which has been confirmed to me by a state trooper to be nothing more than a target for highway patrol laser speed guns. So they force me to pay for two plates when I only need one and then they use the plates they forced me to buy to fine me for committing a victimless crime, speeding, which is testing their control over me. The State doesn't like to be tested.

 

[arora]

How about this is America where we aren't weak bitches and are able to protect our own god damn selves? Yeah, that's what I thought.

At the risk of looking 'murican' ......

 

[dylansan]

What about Sharia law? Whose rights does that protect?