Human Rights

[BHRxRacer]

Not exactly. You already made the same statement, and I already corrected you. You're not even trying to comprehend.



Still choosing to ignore substance and comment on minutia. Yes, logic is either correct or it isn't. Mine is correct. I take it by your complete refusal to respond to my question that you don't actually disagree - you just like to talk.

I don't disagree with your opinion(regarding right to be free). I just refuse to label it logic, as you so arrogantly do.

 

[Danoff]

I don't disagree with your opinion(regarding right to be free). I just refuse to label it logic, as you so arrogantly do.

Non-responsive. There is no opinion.

Your actions demonstrate your own thinking to a sufficient degree that others can act based on it. No opinion, just fact. Let me give you an example:

- You choose to beat up a stranger and take their wallet.
- Your actions demonstrate your own values. You could internally choose to justify that action any number of ways, a popular one being "might makes right". This is a subjective framework for action. Every action where you initiate force against another individual is always a based on a subjective value system. You've chosen to suppress their will in favor of your own, and there is no objective reason to do so (including survival) despite there being about 1 million subjective ones.
- What logically follows from this is that if someone else uses a subjective value system to suppress your will in favor of theirs (for example, police officers handcuffing you), they are performing the same action that you yourself demonstrated that you accept - the suppression of one's will in favor of someone else's subjective values.

In otherwords, by initiating force against an innocent person, you announce that your values allow the use of force against you. There is no opinion here. And this is the last time I will explain this to you until you demonstrate that you're willing to, for one second, actually think about what I'm writing.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Non-responsive. There is no opinion.

Your actions demonstrate your own thinking to a sufficient degree that others can act based on it. No opinion, just fact. Let me give you an example:

- You choose to beat up a stranger and take their wallet.
- Your actions demonstrate your own values. You could internally choose to justify that action any number of ways, a popular one being "might makes right". This is a subjective framework for action. Every action where you initiate force against another individual is always a based on a subjective value system. You've chosen to suppress their will in favor of your own, and there is no objective reason to do so (including survival) despite there being about 1 million subjective ones.
- What logically follows from this is that if someone else uses a subjective value system to suppress your will in favor of theirs (for example, police officers handcuffing you), they are performing the same action that you yourself demonstrated that you accept - the suppression of one's will in favor of someone else's subjective values.

In otherwords, by initiating force against an innocent person, you announce that your values allow the use of force against you. There is no opinion here. And this is the last time I will explain this to you until you demonstrate that you're willing to, for one second, actually think about what I'm writing.

I thought about it, I know what you're saying, but it's not logic.

By initiating force against an innocent person, I'm not announcing anything but my fist to your face. People that initiate force on others often have double standards. It's not their intent to announce that they're open for you to fight back, or even expect it. Your right to initiate force back (eye for an eye), would only be logical if it can apply to everyone. In other words, if every human that ever punched anyone, or will punch anyone, is consciously open to and accepting the idea that he's going to get punched back, and thinks it's fair, then and ONLY then is your "right" purely logical. And logic isn't logic if it's not purely logic.

I hope this is clear.

 

[Imari]

This is exactly my problem with you, @Danoff and others.

You make a distinction between one's own logic, and objective logic. There should be no such distinction, there is only pure objective logic. If you can make your own logic (even one I agree with), it's not logic, it's made up.

Nuh uh. You started that one, with your insinuation that Danoff was using his own brand of logic to arrive at his reasoning. By implication, there is then at least one more kind of "logic", DanoffLogic. See below.

Where does logic define that? That's not logic logic, that's YOUR logic

I believe that there is only one kind of logic, but I was responding to you on the basis that you've already stated belief in personal logic systems.

In other words, if every human that ever punched anyone, or will punch anyone, is consciously open to and accepting the idea that he's going to get punched back, and thinks it's fair, then and ONLY then is your "right" purely logical. And logic isn't logic if it's not purely logic.

I hope this is clear.

Did you just say something is only logical if someone thinks it's fair?

Where is your objectivity now? That's the least objective use of logic I've ever seen.

Logic works for Danoff because his system doesn't take any feelings, emotions or intentions into account. It only considers facts observable by anyone, objective facts. Those can then be operated on by logic to produce some sometimes unexpected conclusions.

There's no point in trying to use logic to prove "fair", because that's not objective and never will be.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I believe that there is only one kind of logic, but I was responding to you on the basis that you've already stated belief in personal logic systems.

I don't make-believe that BHRlogic, or Xlogic is (pure) logic. I don't equate it to 1+1=2. @Danoff did. Apparently you do, too.

Did you just say something is only logical if someone thinks it's fair?

No you did not. I didn't say someone, I said everyone that ever existed and will exist. There's a difference.

There's no point in trying to use logic to prove "fair", because that's not objective and never will be.

In a way, it's why rights will never be objective/logic.

 

[FoolKiller]

Lol. Okay.

See, these things are why others are making statements like this:

they indicate to me that you haven't begun to think about this sincerely.

If you want others to think you are being serious and worth their time don't throw in smilies and txt speak in place of responding to certain points. Could you imagine a political debate where some just started laughing at a serious point, or they just suddenly blurted out, "LOL!"

It is acceptable to say you think it is laughable and why, but just "LOL. Okay," isn't constructive nor does it appear sincere. I've been reading through this debate and some of your posts make me wish you would actually sign out, just because it feels like you got talking points from a Dave Chapelle sketch.

 

[Imari]

I don't make-believe that BHRlogic, or Xlogic is (pure) logic. I don't equate it to 1+1=2. @Danoff did. Apparently you do, too.

Again, point out where his logic fails.

You say that there's only one sort of logic. I agree. Danoff agrees. We're all using the same system.

Point out exactly where his logic is flawed.

I should point out that I don't necessarily like the idea of "natural" rights, they make me vaguely uncomfortable. But I can't deny the logic of them.

No you did not. I didn't say someone, I said everyone that ever existed and will exist. There's a difference.

Great.

So that sentence basically boils down to a very long-winded version of "is not logical". You could have just said that.

Now all you have to do is explain why the concept of fairness needs to be included in a definition of rights (and the rest of the stuff in that huge sentence, like consciously open to and accepting of the concept of reciprocation for use of force, etc.).

In a way, it's why rights will never be objective/logic.

Only if you assumed that you needed to use the concept of fairness to define rights.

Danoff has shown you how it can be done with no reference to fairness.

 

[BHRxRacer]

See, these things are why others are making statements like this:

If you want others to think you are being serious and worth their time don't throw in smilies and txt speak in place of responding to certain points. Could you imagine a political debate where some just started laughing at a serious point, or they just suddenly blurted out, "LOL!"

It is acceptable to say you think it is laughable and why, but just "LOL. Okay," isn't constructive nor does it appear sincere. I've been reading through this debate and some of your posts make me wish you would actually sign out, just because it feels like you got talking points from a Dave Chapelle sketch.

Then how come @Famine is worshipped here? He did the same thing to me 2 days ago and this is his response when I called him out:

Sometimes, laughing is all you can do -

So all that's left is laughter.

Double standards. Double standards everywhere.

You say that there's only one sort of logic. I agree. Danoff agrees. We're all using the same system.

Point out exactly where his logic is flawed.

Sigh. It's not logic if different people can have different logical interpretations of rights. I'm not arguing a specific "right".

But I can't deny the logic of them.

Again, for the millionth time, that proves my point.

Just putting the ability/possibility to deny a logic means it's not logic in the first place.

Now all you have to do is explain why the concept of fairness needs to be included in a definition of rights (and the rest of the stuff in that huge sentence, like consciously open to and accepting of the concept of reciprocation for use of force, etc.).



Only if you assumed that you needed to use the concept of fairness to define rights.

Danoff has shown you how it can be done with no reference to fairness.

Let me remove the word fair from my earlier post.

Now what?

 

[Imari]

Sigh. It's not logic if different people can have different logical interpretations of rights. I'm not arguing a specific "right".

If he's using logic to prove that these rights exist, and he is incorrect, you should be able to show the flaw in his logic.

Either you agree that his derivation of the rights is correct, or you point out the flaw in the logic, or you make a case that logic is not the correct tool to establish whether naturally derived rights exist.

Those are your choices. Pick one, or outline another choice, if you can.

Again, for the millionth time, that proves my point.

Just putting the ability/possibility to deny a logic means it's not logic in the first place.

You're not understanding me. It's not a choice that I'm making.

Refer to the three choices above. I cannot find any flaws in his logic, and I do think that logic is the correct tool for establishing whether naturally derived rights exist. Therefore, I agree that his derivation of rights is correct, although I don't like it that much.

But whether I like it or not has absolutely no effect on whether his logic is correct or not. I have to agree, because I cannot find fault with his logic.

Let me remove the word fair from my earlier post.

Now what?

It's a lot easier if you just quote or rewrite it. Doing this sort of retconning is exactly how people get confused as to what you mean. I'm going to quote it and make the amendment, and you're going to tell me if I've got it wrong.

"By initiating force against an innocent person, I'm not announcing anything but my fist to your face. People that initiate force on others often have double standards. It's not their intent to announce that they're open for you to fight back, or even expect it. Your right to initiate force back (eye for an eye), would only be logical if it can apply to everyone. In other words, if every human that ever punched anyone, or will punch anyone, is consciously open to and accepting the idea that he's going to get punched back, then and ONLY then is your "right" purely logical."

I'll go through and find as many points as I can that would need further explanation or justification.

Why do double standards affect a person's rights?
Why does intent affect a person's right?
Why do potential future actions affect a person's rights? (This is in reference to "or will punch anyone".)
Why does someone who initiates force have to be open to and accepting of the idea of reciprocation?
What happens if they are not open to and accepting of the idea of reciprocation?

"Natural" rights, as described by Danoff and others, have answers to these questions and situations, at least as far as I understand them. If you're interested people are probably willing to go through them with you, but do not use that as a reason to deflect away from your own philosophy (which is what I'm called what you've stated above, for want of a better name).

I'm interested in what your philosophy says about these situations. Give some clear answers, and then we can deviate into comparing with the logically derived rights.

 

[BHRxRacer]

If he's using logic to prove that these rights exist, and he is incorrect, you should be able to show the flaw in his logic.

Not if I agree with his "rights", but others may not so in that case it's not logic. It's just our opinion.

Either you agree that his derivation of the rights is correct, or you point out the flaw in the logic, or you make a case that logic is not the correct tool to establish whether naturally derived rights exist.

Those are your choices. Pick one, or outline another choice, if you can.

Again, I happen to agree with the principle but I don't call it logic because others would disagree. If it's subject to agreeing/disagreeing it's not logic.

It's a lot easier if you just quote or rewrite it.

Losing energy, sorry.

Why do double standards affect a person's rights?

Because the right violator can believe it is his right to violate your right, and that you don't have the right to violate back.

Why does intent affect a person's right?

He brought up intent, not me. He says you're announcing that you forfeited your right by doing a certain action. That's(forfeiting) not the intention of the person that made that action, so he didn't forfeit anything. See above.

Why do potential future actions affect a person's rights? (This is in reference to "or will punch anyone".)

Because only if people all react the same way, that the right is considered derived from logic or equated to 1+1=2.

Why does someone who initiates force have to be open to and accepting of the idea of reciprocation?

Because if he's not, then he didn't forfeit his own right (of not getting revenge force). He has double standards. The right isn't derived from logic in that case, it's subjective and based on common human behavior.

I'm just repeating what I said a million times now.

What happens if they are not open to and accepting of the idea of reciprocation?

Then they're called hypocrites and assholes. It also violates the basis on which danoff says. That they forfeit etc etc etc.

I'm interested in what your philosophy says about these situations. Give some clear answers, and then we can deviate into comparing with the logically derived rights.

Ask me specific questions (starting to like that) and I'll answer tomorrow or whenever I'm back. I don't dislike you as much as I dislike others here

 

[Famine]

Then how come @Famine is worshipped here? He did the same thing to me 2 days ago and this is his response when I called him out:

You're not capable of reasoned debate. Across three completely different threads this week you have demonstrated over and over again that you are not capable of it, instead completely reinventing reality and language to filibuster some utterly bizarre views. If you weren't so earnest about it, it'd be almost trolling.

When faced with someone so completely detached from reality, laughter is all that is left - precisely because it's impossible to make a serious point to you since you absolutely will not accept nor engage with it.

I doubt I am worshipped anywhere.

 

[dddsprayshop]

@BHRxRacer and @Famine
Hi, I'm member for 1,5 months, not very long.

Then how come @Famine is worshipped here? He did the same thing to me 2 days ago and this is his response when I called him out:

I don't know or can confirm or refute if @Famine is worshipped.
I'm 45yrs old ( so not a kid, to relax you), i read both your postings at some topics ("homosexuality" and "god")
I do not worshipp any of you two, but i can see that @Famine is very educated and probably very experienced in debating or discussions.

What i do know, is that one of you, sometimes or often deviates from the real point of discussion.
And my feeling is, that all hell breaks loose after that point and the main fact isn't visible anymore.

I get the feeling when you two start discussing, almost all small posts from other members are a blurr to both of you.
But this is what i believe to see, i believe @Famine debates like a politician, when someone deviates from the main fact, he pushes that person even more from the main fact, but i think that is the point if you want to win a debate.

You don't need to defend yourself, but that's my observation.

T0 stay ontopic

What rights do human beings have and why?

Guidelines:
1) Try to prevent your list of rights from being inherently conflicting. Example: "I think human beings should have the right to kill people, but also have the right not to be killed"
2) The US bill of rights might help get you started
3) Be sure not to forget the "why" portion of this - which is what makes this question difficult.
4) Be sure to examine the impact of your reasoning on whether animals also have rights.

-1: Should be simple, the right to defend yourself and other people and only kill when there is no other option.
But if you have criminal intent with means for killing, you gained the right to be killed.
-2: US bill of rights does not apply in my country.
-3: The right to live a proper life, but to explain that, it would take me lots of text.
Small example: people lie, so it is a difficult point to have the right "not lied to".
Everybody, in high placed positions, must lie ( politicians), it is a unwritten rule, make promises even when it is possible that they can't become fullfilled. Now what?
-4: Animals have rights but can conflict with human rights, a tiger kills in india, the tiger has the right to survive or defend, but the human must defend against the tiger.No winner there.
Yes the human wins, but the tiger lost his right because he/she has not the same tools to defend.

Right, there should be new season events.<- no, that's tomorrow
I'm off, goodbye.

 

[Danoff]

By initiating force against an innocent person, I'm not announcing anything but my fist to your face.

That action demonstrates facts about your own system of values whether you want it to or not.

People that initiate force on others often have double standards. It's not their intent to announce that they're open for you to fight back, or even expect it. Your right to initiate force back (eye for an eye), would only be logical if it can apply to everyone. In other words, if every human that ever punched anyone, or will punch anyone, is consciously open to and accepting the idea that he's going to get punched back, and thinks it's fair, then and ONLY then is your "right" purely logical.

No... "incorrect" if you prefer.

Nothing about what I said indicated that they needed to be conscious of it, or think it was fair, or invite it. All I said was that their actions demonstrated enough about them that others can act accordingly. Doesn't matter what they think or how they justify it. That it is inherently subjective is all that matters.

I hope this is clear.

It's very clear to me that you did think about it for a second - thank you. Now recognize that you still don't quite understand it before you march off claiming your desired conclusions.

Because the right violator can believe it is his right to violate your right, and that you don't have the right to violate back.

Totally irrelevant to anything I posted. His belief is subjective, that is as far as you need to know.

He brought up intent, not me. He says you're announcing that you forfeited your right by doing a certain action. That's(forfeiting) not the intention of the person that made that action, so he didn't forfeit anything.

That would be you bringing up intent.

 

[BHRxRacer]

That action demonstrates facts about your own system of values whether you want it to or not.

It does, but your problem is what that system of values consists of. You seem to think that the same action, represents the same system of values regardless of who performs that action. That's where you're wrong, that's why it's not logical.

 

[Danoff]

It does, but your problem is what that system of values consists of. You seem to think that the same action, represents the same system of values regardless of who performs that action. That's where you're wrong, that's why it's not logical.

Nope!

I believe I addressed that earlier:

Your actions demonstrate your own values. You could internally choose to justify that action any number of ways, a popular one being "might makes right". This is a subjective framework for action. Every action where you initiate force against another individual is always a based on a subjective value system. You've chosen to suppress their will in favor of your own, and there is no objective reason to do so (including survival) despite there being about 1 million subjective ones.

I start this quote with "your actions demonstrate your own values", but I think it's clear that the intended meaning is "your actions demonstrate ENOUGH about your own values for others to act".

 

[Touring Mars]

This is all well and good, but implying that one's rights are defined by one's actions rather flies in the face of the concept that rights are inalienable, innate or universal. Clearly, they can't be any of those things if they are determined purely by one's actions. I recall that @Danoff said some time ago that newborn babies have as many rights as a puppy, but newborns are bestowed with certain rights arbitrarily because 'it's better than the alternative'... this also seems somewhat at odds with the idea that rights are purely the result of the application of logic. Also, there's the question of how one can tell whether or not an individual is or ought to be arbitrarily deemed in possession of a 'full set' of rights - when exactly does a child become furnished with a full set of rights, given that people begin life without rights? It all seems rather subjective to me, or at the very least, not entirely dependent on the application of logic. While I understand and accept that rights can be based on the 'logic' of what stems from one's actions in most circumstances, I don't think this is universally true, nor does it explain the origin of human rights for those not capable of recognizing the consequences of their actions e.g. children. One need not look far on the internet for some horrifying examples of things that children are being allowed to do (for example in the Middle East), but one cannot reasonably expect a child combatant who has executed/murdered someone to be guilty of a crime or a human rights violation in the same way that an adult might be, purely on the basis that they are incapable of recognizing the consequences of their actions - nor can their actions reflect non-existent 'values'. In situations like this, the origin and nature of human rights becomes very hazy indeed.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I start this quote with "your actions demonstrate your own values", but I think it's clear that the intended meaning is "your actions demonstrate ENOUGH about your own values for others to act".

Still false. It may not be enough in some cases, and others would misinterpret what that action demonstrates. If it's not enough, if it one can misinterpret that action, it is not universal and thus not logic.

 

[Danoff]

This is all well and good, but implying that one's rights are defined by one's actions rather flies in the face of the concept that rights are inalienable, innate or universal. Clearly, they can't be any of those things if they are determined purely by one's actions.

That's true, and certainly when we incarcerate criminals they have lost their right to freedom. Otherwise we are infringing on their rights. Human beings have a biological mental capacity that is capable of understanding rights, and so capable of acting in accordance. That's why, once you reach an age where that statement can be said to be true, you have rights. Once you prove that you are willing to violate the rights of others (or are otherwise incapable of observing those rights), you forfeit your rights and may end up in prison.

I recall that @Danoff said some time ago that newborn babies have as many rights as a puppy, but newborns are bestowed with certain rights arbitrarily because 'it's better than the alternative'... this also seems somewhat at odds with the idea that rights are purely the result of the application of logic.

Bestowed with certain legal rights.

Also, there's the question of how one can tell whether or not an individual is or ought to be arbitrarily deemed in possession of a 'full set' of rights - when exactly does a child become furnished with a full set of rights, given that people begin life without rights?

Philosophically the answer to that question is once they have reached the cognitive threshold of being able to observe the rights of others and understand the implications of not doing so. Pragmatically the answer is that we draw a legal line in the sand and make assumptions about people's brainpower.

One need not look far on the internet for some horrifying examples of things that children are being allowed to do (for example in the Middle East), but one cannot reasonably expect a child combatant who has executed/murdered someone to be guilty of a crime or a human rights violation in the same way that an adult might be, purely on the basis that they are incapable of recognizing the consequences of their actions - nor can their actions reflect non-existent 'values'. In situations like this, the origin and nature of human rights becomes very hazy indeed.

Children who have freely committed rights violations have lost their rights. What does a compassionate society do when that happens? Try to educate the child so that when they are old enough they can avoid doing so in the future. When a person violates the rights of another, society is not compelled to act in any particular way.

 

[Danoff]

Still false. It may not be enough in some cases,

Then it's not a rights violation.

and others would misinterpret what that action demonstrates.

Irrelevant.

If it's not enough, if it one can misinterpret that action, it is not universal and thus not logic.

See above.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Then it's not a rights violation.

Then the right is not logic.

How long are we going to keep going back and forth with this?

 

[Danoff]

Then the right is not logic.

How long are we going to keep going back and forth with this?

If you're going to make totally unsupported statements like that, a very long time.

 

[BHRxRacer]

If you're going to make totally unsupported statements like that, a very long time.

What you called irrelevant is relevant. If it was indeed irrelevant, then "rights" shouldn't work, and will never work in a human society and there'd be no point in discussing them.

 

[Danoff]

Still false. It may not be enough in some cases,

If the action is not enough to determine that someone is not observing the rights of others, then it is by definition not a rights violation.

What you called irrelevant is relevant. If it was indeed irrelevant, then "rights" shouldn't work, and will never work in a human society and there'd be no point in discussing them.

So you are going to keep making totally unsupported statements... I could explain why you're wrong, but I'd rather you gave me an example so that I can be sure to dismantle your particular misunderstanding.

 

[BHRxRacer]

If the action is not enough to determine that someone is not observing the rights of others, then it is by definition not a rights violation.



So you are going to keep making totally unsupported statements... I could explain why you're wrong, but I'd rather you gave me an example so that I can be sure to dismantle your particular misunderstanding.

Ok let's start over.

Why do you argue about rights?

 

[Danoff]

Ok let's start over.

Why do you argue about rights?

How about instead, you respond.

 

[BHRxRacer]

How about instead, you respond.

My response depends on your answer to that question.

 

[Danoff]

My response depends on your answer to that question.

I'll humor you.

I argue about rights - or rather, there is disagreement about the nature of rights - because most people do not understand the logic behind them. This causes people to mistakenly believe that some rights exist which are not logically supported, and other rights do not exist which are logically supported. And no, disagreement does not indicate that there is no answer.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I'll humor you.

I argue about rights - or rather, there is disagreement about the nature of rights - because most people do not understand the logic behind them. This causes people to mistakenly believe that some rights exist which are not logically supported, and other rights do not exist which are logically supported. And no, disagreement does not indicate that there is no answer.

So basically you're doing this whole pro-rights thing just to argue? To point out flaws in people's logics/reasoning? Or is there more to it than that?

 

[Danoff]

So basically you're doing this whole pro-rights thing just to argue? To point out flaws in people's logics/reasoning? Or is there more to it than that?

I argue it because it's the truth, and there is a lot of confusion on this subject. Same reason I argue with people who believe in God.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I argue it because it's the truth

Okay, but that is not an end. That is means...to what end? Unless the end is arguing (for the sake of arguing). Is it?