The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:24 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:42 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Taskiss wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
No false dichotomy was presented.

Your sloppy at it, but this looks like an "all or nothing" fallacy to me. Sure, there's implication used, but apparently that's how you roll. You never appear to clearly state that which you can twist, from what I can tell.
Elmarnieh wrote:
Now that you've shown all communication to be a logical fallacy what shall we do?


I would really like to see you logically present your argument without all the crap you ordinarily interject, just to see if you can do it. Not that I expect you to, you understand; yours is an indefensible position, after all. Still, it would be interesting.



All agreement on the meaning of words is done by majority agreement - in fact thats how the definitions of words change. Since you threw out that such is a logical fallacy (and you're right) then we can't use any words at all. Not a false dichotomy at all - its just the natural result of saying that common agreement on the meaning of words shouldn't be a basis for what they mean because its a logical fallacy.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:45 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Taskiss wrote:
I would really like to see you logically present your argument without all the crap you ordinarily interject, just to see if you can do it. Not that I expect you to, you understand; yours is an indefensible position, after all. Still, it would be interesting.


Well since you've assumed the conclusion, and I've never noted you to be the type of person to change their mind by argument - you'll have to wait till RD and I finish ours since its the only discussion relevant to me at the moment. You can then naturally ignore the argument and cling to your assumed conclusion - it'll be easier for you and save time.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Elmarnieh wrote:
All agreement on the meaning of words is done by majority agreement - in fact thats how the definitions of words change. Since you threw out that such is a logical fallacy (and you're right) then we can't use any words at all. Not a false dichotomy at all - its just the natural result of saying that common agreement on the meaning of words shouldn't be a basis for what they mean because its a logical fallacy.

Bullshit. You started off trying to lead a discussion with an appeal to emotion, but I answered honestly.
Elmarnieh wrote:
So are rights good ideas?

Taskiss wrote:
Depends on which ones, who you ask and when you ask them.


Then you continued leading with more fallacies...

Elmarnieh wrote:
Do you own yourself DE?

If yes then it is a yes or no question, if no then who does?


Then I got fed up with the crap and called you on it. You apparently NEED the argument twisted into a particular shape first before you can cut the crap and present your position.

Just make a point, put it on out there, warts and all. Quit coming at it sideways and stop trying to lead everyone else into some freaking trap you've imagined makes you look clever just so you can declare victory yet again in your own mind.

Elmarnieh wrote:
You want to answer the question so I can show you DE or are you too afraid that I will (again)?

Why does he need to answer ... and how does your explanation rely on his answer? Do you have a point or not? I'm still waiting.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Rynar wrote:
This statement is entirely untrue given any historical context. Rights are, and have always been, protected, or not, by those who are more powerful. They have never had licence over language, and it's meaning. If they did, then there would be no words in existance such as "oppression", "plight", or "subjugation".


So, then, since the definition and origin of "rights" are ruled by language, and language is a human construct, then rights are a human construct?

Hypothetically speaking, had rights been originally defined as "whatever the majority wants" then rights would cease to be inherent?

Yes. Because "whatever the majority wants" is not inherent. However, there would be another term for what we (rather than the people in this hypothetical reality) call rights; say the term is thlim. Thlim would still be inherent.

A rose by any other name, you see.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:43 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Stathol wrote:
Something has been nagging at me about this case, and I finally realized what it was -- how did The Fair Housing Center of West Michigan (a private NPO, not an government agency) even find out about this in the first place? The article is quite short on details:

Quote:
Haynes said the person who filed the initial complaint saw the ad on the church bulletin board and contacted the local fair housing organization.

Does that strike anyone else as really bizarre? I mean, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the complaint is entirely correct, and that you agree with it. Even so, under the circumstances, would your first course of action be to go launch a legal battle by proxy using the FHC? I think not. I'd really like to know how this went down. I don't feel like we're getting the whole story.


I suspect that the FHC sent people around to a bunch of churches looking for this general sort of advertisement.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:59 am 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
That's what I suspect as well, but I can't find any details about where the complaint originated.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:01 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Stathol wrote:
That's what I suspect as well, but I can't find any details about where the complaint originated.


I'm sure they're keeping that tightly under wraps, and I doubt the press is pushing too hard.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Elmarnieh wrote:
All agreement on the meaning of words is done by majority agreement - in fact thats how the definitions of words change. Since you threw out that such is a logical fallacy (and you're right) then we can't use any words at all. Not a false dichotomy at all - its just the natural result of saying that common agreement on the meaning of words shouldn't be a basis for what they mean because its a logical fallacy.


This is where you fail. This began as a philosophical discussion about the nature of rights. The question is this: are rights inherent or are they a construct? Your argument, well, particularly Rynar's, boils down to "right are inherent because they are defined to be". Well, if we accept that, then it is USELESS information. Let's accept it. Thus, rights are inherent. That doesn't address the debate at all. Is "freedom of property" inherent or a construct? Are there any inherent rights at all? That's the question. Fine, "rights" may be defined as "inherent", but what if this refers to an empty box? You're focusing on language (that you ironically accept as true because it was produced by majority agreement), and avoiding the real question.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:26 am 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
boils down to "right are inherent because they are defined to be".

Image

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:41 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
All agreement on the meaning of words is done by majority agreement - in fact thats how the definitions of words change. Since you threw out that such is a logical fallacy (and you're right) then we can't use any words at all. Not a false dichotomy at all - its just the natural result of saying that common agreement on the meaning of words shouldn't be a basis for what they mean because its a logical fallacy.


This is where you fail. This began as a philosophical discussion about the nature of rights. The question is this: are rights inherent or are they a construct? Your argument, well, particularly Rynar's, boils down to "right are inherent because they are defined to be". Well, if we accept that, then it is USELESS information. Let's accept it. Thus, rights are inherent. That doesn't address the debate at all. Is "freedom of property" inherent or a construct? Are there any inherent rights at all? That's the question. Fine, "rights" may be defined as "inherent", but what if this refers to an empty box? You're focusing on language (that you ironically accept as true because it was produced by majority agreement), and avoiding the real question.


No, I am doing this because rights as a philosophical construct refers to things which are inherent. You cannot change that definition because you want to. You need to come up with a word that describes what you are saying without trying to co-opt an existing term that while related - is not what you want. This action would destroy the meaning for the original term rights (which leads to stupid side tracks like this because people want to make words they use want they want them to mean instead of what they do mean).

I don't care if it refers to an "empty box" or anything else - its a philosophical term and its ok if it doesn't refer to anything concrete - just like love, hope, angst, hell show me a box of pity. And it isn't useless information unless you consider all of philosophy to be useless. Just because it isn't useful to you in this particular discussion does not make the word useful when discussing - oh I don't know...rights.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Elmarnieh wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
All agreement on the meaning of words is done by majority agreement - in fact thats how the definitions of words change. Since you threw out that such is a logical fallacy (and you're right) then we can't use any words at all. Not a false dichotomy at all - its just the natural result of saying that common agreement on the meaning of words shouldn't be a basis for what they mean because its a logical fallacy.


This is where you fail. This began as a philosophical discussion about the nature of rights. The question is this: are rights inherent or are they a construct? Your argument, well, particularly Rynar's, boils down to "right are inherent because they are defined to be". Well, if we accept that, then it is USELESS information. Let's accept it. Thus, rights are inherent. That doesn't address the debate at all. Is "freedom of property" inherent or a construct? Are there any inherent rights at all? That's the question. Fine, "rights" may be defined as "inherent", but what if this refers to an empty box? You're focusing on language (that you ironically accept as true because it was produced by majority agreement), and avoiding the real question.


No, I am doing this because rights as a philosophical construct refers to things which are inherent. You cannot change that definition because you want to. You need to come up with a word that describes what you are saying without trying to co-opt an existing term that while related - is not what you want. This action would destroy the meaning for the original term rights (which leads to stupid side tracks like this because people want to make words they use want they want them to mean instead of what they do mean).


If we assume that philosophy. But, as I said, fine - let's accept that the term "rights" means "inherent". This should eliminate all semantic nonsense and allow you to get to the point of the discussion.

Quote:
I don't care if it refers to an "empty box" or anything else


Really, so you don't care whether or not we have any inherent rights, so long as the word "rights" means "inherent"?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:56 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
All agreement on the meaning of words is done by majority agreement - in fact thats how the definitions of words change. Since you threw out that such is a logical fallacy (and you're right) then we can't use any words at all. Not a false dichotomy at all - its just the natural result of saying that common agreement on the meaning of words shouldn't be a basis for what they mean because its a logical fallacy.


This is where you fail. This began as a philosophical discussion about the nature of rights. The question is this: are rights inherent or are they a construct? Your argument, well, particularly Rynar's, boils down to "right are inherent because they are defined to be". Well, if we accept that, then it is USELESS information. Let's accept it. Thus, rights are inherent. That doesn't address the debate at all. Is "freedom of property" inherent or a construct? Are there any inherent rights at all? That's the question. Fine, "rights" may be defined as "inherent", but what if this refers to an empty box? You're focusing on language (that you ironically accept as true because it was produced by majority agreement), and avoiding the real question.


There's a simple reason for that. People like having "rights". The word has all sorts of positive connotations attached to it. Simultaneously, if we accept that "rights" only refers to "inherent rights", and that "noninherent rights" are outside the definition of the word, any opposition is confronted with 3 disadvantages:

1) That there is no word for "noninherent rights"
2) That if the opposition refers to "noninherent rights" its easy to then complain they are creating a contradiction in terms, referring back to 1 and distracting the entire issue back onto semantics, thus avoiding actually discussing the issue.
3) The opposition is deprived of the positive connotations of the word "rights" which also allows for castigating people about "founding principles of the country" and other such things and generally attempting to win the argument through generally smearing other's positions

This is what the entire "specificity of language" thing is about, and why we see the silly "but then anyone can redefine a word to mean anything!" claims; so that opponents can simply be semantically argued out of existance, and so that it appears to unsophisticated onlookers (not necessarily anyone here) that any other position is "inconsistent" as if consistency with the ideal of inherent rights were some unassailably worthy goal in and of itself.

Rights in pont of fact, do not contain inhernecy as part of their definition as a noun.

Spoiler:
–adjective
1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
2. in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
3. correct in judgment, opinion, or action.
4. fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.
5. most convenient, desirable, or favorable: Omaha is the right location for a meatpacking firm.
6. of, pertaining to, or located on or near the side of a person or thing that is turned toward the east when the subject is facing north ( opposed to left).
7. in a satisfactory state; in good order: to put things right.
8. sound, sane, or normal: to be in one's right mind; She wasn't right in her head when she made the will.
9. in good health or spirits: I don't feel quite right today.
10. principal, front, or upper: the right side of cloth.
11. ( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to political conservatives or their beliefs.
12. socially approved, desirable, or influential: to go to the right schools and know the right people.
13. formed by or with reference to a perpendicular: a right angle.
14. straight: a right line.
15. Geometry . having an axis perpendicular to the base: a right cone.
16. Mathematics . pertaining to an element of a set that has a given property when placed on the right of an element or set of elements of the given set: a right identity.
17. genuine; authentic: the right owner.
–noun
18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
20. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
21. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.
23. Sometimes, rights. the interest or ownership a person, group, or business has in property: He has a 50-percent right in a silver mine. The author controls the screen rights for the book.
24. the property itself or its value.
25. Finance .
a. the privilege, usually preemptive, that accrues to the owners of the stock of a corporation to subscribe to additional shares of stock or securities convertible into stock at an advantageous price.
b. Often, rights. the privilege of subscribing to a specified amount of a stock or bond issue, or the document certifying this privilege.
26. that which is in accord with fact, reason, propriety, the correct way of thinking, etc.
27. the state or quality or an instance of being correct.
28. the side that is normally opposite to that where the heart is; the direction toward that side: to turn to the right.
29. a right-hand turn: Make a right at the top of the hill.
30. the portion toward the right, as of troops in battle formation: Our right crumbled.
31. (in a pair) the member that is shaped for, used by, or situated on the right side: Is this shoe a left or a right?
32. the right hand: Jab with your left and punch with your right.
33. the Right,
a. the complex of individuals or organized groups opposing change in a liberal direction and usually advocating maintenance of the established social, political, or economic order, sometimes by authoritarian means.
b. the position held by these people: The depression led to a movement away from the Right. Compare left1 ( defs. 6a, b ) .
c. right wing.
34. ( usually initial capital letter ) the part of a legislative assembly, esp. in continental Europe, that is situated on the right side of the presiding officer and that is customarily assigned to members of the legislature who hold more conservative or reactionary views than the rest of the members.
35. the members of such an assembly who sit on the Right.
36. Boxing . a blow delivered by the right hand: a right to the jaw.
37. Baseball . right field.
–adverb
38. in a straight or direct line; straight; directly: right to the bottom; to come right home.
39. quite or completely; all the way: My hat was knocked right off.
40. immediately; promptly: right after dinner.
41. exactly; precisely: right here.
42. correctly or accurately: to guess right.
43. uprightly or righteously: to obey one's conscience and live right.
44. properly or fittingly: to behave right.
45. advantageously, favorably, or well: to turn out right.
46. toward the right hand; on or to the right: to keep right; to turn right.
47. Informal . very; extremely: a right fine day.
48. very (used in certain titles): the right reverend.
–verb (used with object)
49. to put in or restore to an upright position: to right a fallen lamp.
50. to put in proper order, condition, or relationship: to right a crookedly hung picture.
51. to bring into conformity with fact; correct: to right one's point of view.
52. to do justice to; avenge: to be righted in court.
53. to redress, as a wrong.
–verb (used without object)
54. to resume an upright or the proper position: After the storm the saplings righted.
—Idioms
55. by rights, in fairness; justly: You should by rights have been asked your opinion on the matter.
56. in one's own right, by reason of one's own ability, ownership, etc.; in or of oneself, as independent of others: He is a rich man in his own right.
57. in the right, having the support of reason or law; correct: It pays to be stubborn when one is in the right.
58. right and left, on every side; in all directions: throwing his clothes right and left; members resigning right and left.
59. right away / off, without hesitation; immediately: She made a good impression right off.
60. right on, Slang . exactly right; precisely.
61. too right, Australian Slang .
a. (used as an expression of emphatic agreement.)
b. okay: “Can we meet tonight?” “Too right.”
62. to rights, into proper condition or order: to set a room to rights.


In point of fact, even if it did, that would not be its sole and exclusive commonly accepted definition. The entire exercise is simply picking one possible definition, claiming that it is the only correct one excluding all others, and then avoiding discussing the actual matter at hand (free association in this case) in favor of insisting on imposing a certain philosophy on the issue and discussing it in terms of that. Any objection is met with this absurd claim that by rejecting the preferred qualification of rights as inherent, one is rejecting language in general.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:03 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Elmarnieh wrote:
No, I am doing this because rights as a philosophical construct refers to things which are inherent. You cannot change that definition because you want to. You need to come up with a word that describes what you are saying without trying to co-opt an existing term that while related - is not what you want. This action would destroy the meaning for the original term rights (which leads to stupid side tracks like this because people want to make words they use want they want them to mean instead of what they do mean).


None of this is true. Rights do not have the quality of inherency as a philisophical construct. That depends entirely on whose philosophy one is referring to. No one needs to come up with a new word at all. This is simply taking certian people's words who are arbitrarily called "philosophers", "thinkers", or what have you, and allowing them to add qualifications to a word beyond its definition, and then claiming those qualifications must be included in the use of the word for no better reason than that you like them. These people have no special power to define anything.

It wouldn't "destroy the original meaning for the term rights" at all. There are over 60 definitions for the term. Multiple definitions can easily work alongside each other. What it would destroy is your claim to a monopoly on the term and its connotations, which, quite frankly is your problem, not anyone else's.

No one is obligated to discuss anything in terms of pre-existing philosophical constructs. Anyone can change those constructs and create their own any time they please, and they do not need to come up with a new word.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Apparently, health care is now a inherent right.

So is having socks. And bubble gum.

OK, I just made those last two up... or the last three, depends on who you talk to and when you ask.
Taskiss wrote:
Depends on which ones, who you ask and when you ask them.

Elmo should have just said "Exactly"! instead of going through the whole question and answer and never get to the point routine.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Taskiss, DE, Aizle, and others:

You know they will keep diverting the argument back to one of semantics if at all given the opportunity. Let's see if we can avoid this. Let's just stick to the ASSUMPTION, for this thread, that the term "rights" refers to "inherent rights". Now, let's focus the discussion on do "inherent rights" exist, or are there only man-made constructs?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:24 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Because people can't read, or choose not to read, I haven't decided which ...
THE GOD DAMNED OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY ... Yeah, that OED, the **** definitive lexicon of OUR **** common language wrote:
The rights commonly proposed by thinkers of the 17th cent. were natural rights, i.e. powers of acting in conformity with natural law. As belief in natural law fell away, moral rights and human rights, such as to life and liberty, came to be recognized as universal and to follow from being human.
It seems to me that when you go digging through the OED and find that "rights" as used in this very god damned discussion are inherently ... inherent ... "universal and follow from being human" ... that it really doesn't matter how much you want castigate Elmo for being crazy; he's actually **** right.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
All rights, regardless of if they are defined as inherent or not are man-made constructs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:56 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Khross wrote:
Because people can't read, or choose not to read, I haven't decided which ...
THE GOD DAMNED OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY ... Yeah, that OED, the **** definitive lexicon of OUR **** common language wrote:
The rights commonly proposed by thinkers of the 17th cent. were natural rights, i.e. powers of acting in conformity with natural law. As belief in natural law fell away, moral rights and human rights, such as to life and liberty, came to be recognized as universal and to follow from being human.
It seems to me that when you go digging through the OED and find that "rights" as used in this very god damned discussion are inherently ... inherent ... "universal and follow from being human" ... that it really doesn't matter how much you want castigate Elmo for being crazy; he's actually **** right.


**** you and your OED. The OED, "definitive lexicaon" or not, is not a definitive source on the history of philosophy, concepts, or anything like that. No one has any problem reading, nor is it a case of anyone not reading. No, he's not right and neither are you, and quite frankly, neither is the OED if its making that claim about the use of the term "rights". The term, as its commonly used, does not include any assumption of inhernecy or "following from being human"; if it did we wouldn't be having this **** converstion.

All you're doing is appealing to irrelvant authority (OED is a dictionary, not a soure of information on social and philosophical development) which is in turn appealing to popularity and to history ("came to be accepted"). Well guess **** what? It's not accepted that way any more.

Oh yes, there's also the fact that whether rights are universal or not has zero to do with whether or not they are created by and therefore changeable by humans.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Last edited by Diamondeye on Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:59 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Taskiss, DE, Aizle, and others:

You know they will keep diverting the argument back to one of semantics if at all given the opportunity. Let's see if we can avoid this. Let's just stick to the ASSUMPTION, for this thread, that the term "rights" refers to "inherent rights". Now, let's focus the discussion on do "inherent rights" exist, or are there only man-made constructs?


No, that's what we're trying to avoid. There's no point in even having the discussion then, as thats the issue that creates the contension here, and repeatedly for years: The attempts by the inherent rights crowd to monopolize conversation by insisting on gtting to make all the assumptions.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Khross wrote:
Because people can't read, or choose not to read, I haven't decided which ...
THE GOD DAMNED OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY ... Yeah, that OED, the **** definitive lexicon of OUR **** common language wrote:
The rights commonly proposed by thinkers of the 17th cent. were natural rights, i.e. powers of acting in conformity with natural law. As belief in natural law fell away, moral rights and human rights, such as to life and liberty, came to be recognized as universal and to follow from being human.
It seems to me that when you go digging through the OED and find that "rights" as used in this very god damned discussion are inherently ... inherent ... "universal and follow from being human" ... that it really doesn't matter how much you want castigate Elmo for being crazy; he's actually **** right.


Except the argument is IRRELEVANT. He's just focusing on this to dodge the issue.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Diamondeye wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Taskiss, DE, Aizle, and others:

You know they will keep diverting the argument back to one of semantics if at all given the opportunity. Let's see if we can avoid this. Let's just stick to the ASSUMPTION, for this thread, that the term "rights" refers to "inherent rights". Now, let's focus the discussion on do "inherent rights" exist, or are there only man-made constructs?


No, that's what we're trying to avoid. There's no point in even having the discussion then, as thats the issue that creates the contension here, and repeatedly for years: The attempts by the inherent rights crowd to monopolize conversation by insisting on gtting to make all the assumptions.


Ok, let's keep up the semantics argument then, and let them duck the real question.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:12 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4709
Location: Cincinnati OH
i choose to define Rights as the opposite of Lefts.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
TheRiov wrote:
i choose to define Rights as the opposite of Lefts.


And you would be...



wait for it...





wait for it...











wait for it...









... correct.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:41 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Taskiss, DE, Aizle, and others:

You know they will keep diverting the argument back to one of semantics if at all given the opportunity. Let's see if we can avoid this. Let's just stick to the ASSUMPTION, for this thread, that the term "rights" refers to "inherent rights". Now, let's focus the discussion on do "inherent rights" exist, or are there only man-made constructs?


No, that's what we're trying to avoid. There's no point in even having the discussion then, as thats the issue that creates the contension here, and repeatedly for years: The attempts by the inherent rights crowd to monopolize conversation by insisting on gtting to make all the assumptions.


Ok, let's keep up the semantics argument then, and let them duck the real question.


Or, we could, you know, stop having conversations where they get to turn it into a semantics argument and then get to answer the real question on their terms. Why you're encouraging this sort of intransigence is beyond me.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Diamondeye wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Ok, let's keep up the semantics argument then, and let them duck the real question.


Or, we could, you know, stop having conversations where they get to turn it into a semantics argument and then get to answer the real question on their terms. Why you're encouraging this sort of intransigence is beyond me.


You're trying to teach the child not to write on the wall with his crayons. I'm trying to bulldoze the **** house so he has no walls to write on. Because, let's be honest with ourselves, he's going to write on the God damned wall.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 270 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group