The Glade 4.0

Diamondeye:

Really? That's your response? Well, I dunno, since you wanna play it that way. You're a **** idiot. You're neither half as educated nor a third as well read as you think you are. More to the point, when you call the OED an irrelevant authority without considering the actual conversation taking place because Aizle, Arathain, and yourself keep shifting the goal posts and domain of the conversation away from Elmo's line of argumentation, it's not our fault things aren't being communicated.

It IS evident from Elmo's initial question, "Do you own yourself?" which political and philosophical perspective he's taken on the matter. Indeed, since the concept of "self ownership" with regard to inherent rights and natural law is explicitly and decided Lockean, to suggest that a definition of rights concerning 17th Century philosophers and the use of the term in their works and discussions resulting from their works is "irrelevant and wrong" is both laughable and the height of ignorance.

But, you keep trying to blow smoke up the forums *** by pretending your some intellectual, political, military, and practice authority figure on everything (you know, that accusation you make of anyone who disagrees with you), without considering the fact that Elmo framed his question specifically and has continued along a line of reasoning well established by the individuals he's been paraphrasing, summarizing, and quoting the entire time. It doesn't matter if he's "right" in some abstract Platonic sense of Ideal Forms, he's right with regard to the framework he's chosen. And if you can't accept, then go **** yourself with your ego, you pedantic little ****.

Because, you know, lumping me in with Elmo when I've not made an argumentative statement of any sort since I defended the right of free association obviously means you have my number, right? No, of course not, you're just trying to bully your way through this conversation because a significant portion of this community thinks your opinions on the police, authority, military, and government are **** stupid. You're entitled to them, but they're not correct, they're not factual, and they're not based in any philosophical or common context pertinent to the discussion ELMO was having with other people.

_________________

Wierd conversation, guys. This discussion is irrelevant without the might to back it up, anyway, so where a particular right comes from matters not. you say you have a right to life? That can be taken from you at any time by some thug with a gun or club. Of what use is it to you that the rights denier may be punished after the fact? None at all, you are still just as dead.

No right or law is worth a hill of beans without some means (might) to enforce it. The source of the right does not matter.

Your life is taken away, your right to it was not.

Philosphy is the impetus of human action. I suppose one could say that only reckless action is then real but the motive force behind all action is usually more important than the force itself because the motive reasoning can be spread or tamed since it controls that action.

_________________
"...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

A distinction that is utterly and completely useless to the dead person, even so to the person still alive but dying. Absolutely useless distinction.

Considering Aizle started the conversation, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.



Nothing's evident other than his refusal to answer the question. He merely deflects with another.



Who gives a **** what the term means? Demonstrate how why anything must be "inherent", or STFU.



And that's what we're questioning. His framework is inconsistent with Aizle's. Hence the discussion. So you're "definition" is irrelevant.

Possibly but not likely. If that ideal of rights is used to caputre and punish the individuals who deprived them of the right to life thus protecting their loved ones I am sure it matters (up to the point where things did matter) to the dead person, I am sure it would matter to their loved ones.

Do the philosophy of rights not matter to us now because they are useless? Or did it usher in a golden age of mankind seeing the largest rise in quality of life, and age expectancy, and safety that our species has ever known? I would very much like to see you take the position that that does not matter.

_________________
"...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

Ara:

Or you could let Aizle and I discuss it between ourselves without distraction or insult.

_________________
"...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

Then take it to tells. Until then, I'll respond. If you don't think you can support your position in a discussion with me, then by all means, duck, deflect, or ignore my posts. But rest assured, if you approach the conversation in a sincere manner, I will of course be respectful and polite.

Actually, I need do no such thing. Since you and Diamondeye have taken it upon yourselves to arbitrate Elmarnieh's argument using some set of standards you've neither stated nor adequately defended, I simply get to point out that relative to the position he's taken, Elmarnieh is correct, indeed, "right". I don't have to prove anything as "inherent" or "universal", because I've made no such arguments or taken no such position. I do, however, have a vested interest in preventing you and Diamondeye from bullying Elmarnieh with your refusal to actually engage the conversation.Again, my definition isn't irrelevant unless you want to categorically state that Aizle's framework is the only framework allowed in this discussion. To which I refer you to the unanswered question I placed earlier in this thread. But, you know, that would actually require you to read the thread, consider the conversation at least two parties are trying to have, and actually participate in good faith, which both you and Diamondeye seem incapable of doing.

As for Aizle's framework, discussing that requires an answer to the question I posited early: does indeed "might" (force) actually create "rights"? It's actually a rather simple question, but none of you want to answer it either. I suspect, quite honestly, that's because none of you are interested in the real metaphysics behind the issue at hand; or, as is also probable, none of you have stopped long enough to consider it. You're too busy in a mob feeding on Elmo to actually consider the discussion that could be taking place.

As for being sincere and polite, I should point out that you're continuing to dismiss the usage of the word "rights" that Elmarnieh has chosen as irrelevant, have attacked me for posting said definition, and then had the audacity, like Diamondeye, to tell the OED it's wrong. And, yet, I see no counter lexicon, no counter dictionary, no posts or links or references to the various philosophers in question regarding Elmarnieh's post. He's not deflecting anything; he's asked a question you refused to answer; he's attempted to make an argument you're dismissing a priori without even stating why.

If you want to be sincere, then kindly explain why any discussion of Lockean philosophy and Enlightenment theories on liberty is irrelevant.

_________________

I highly doubt that Arathain as I haven't seen it occur in this thread or many others. Attemps at exchange of information by asking questions or even coming to agree on the common definitions results in you ranting about something or other and distracting.

Hell right now we are 3 or so pages from what I was originally discussing and I forget with whom and have a slight recollection of what. What I can tell you in detail is that multiple individuals cannot define the terms rights or ownership, and many don't seem to grasp how language itself is used. (Of course this happens in many threads so no surprise there.)

I am sure in certain conversation on certain topics with certain people you can be level-headed. I think its been demonstrated that in this one on this topic with the parties involve you cannot.

_________________
"...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

I do take that position. In your so-called "golden age', there are still thugs who kill old ladies for their SS checks. There are still drunk drivers who kill people. Rapists and muggers and gang activity can be found in every city across this land. There are drug cartels in places like Mexico and the like where killing people may happen on a daily basis. There is still poverty and disease and famine in various parts of the world. And to all of these victims, this philosophical discussion is utterly useless. They are still dead, and dying, and where their right to life comes from matters not in the least. Without the might to enforce that right, you may as well not have the right.

You and I probably have a vastly different definition of a "golden age".

We're both bulldozing, just in different ways. I have no illusion that either of them are goign to give up these tactics; like with Monty it's for the benefit of anyone reading that might not catch on to what they are up to.

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

Because there's a gal in Michigan being sued and Lockean philosophy and Enlightenment theories doesn't alleviate her suffering. All your claims to the right of association are noise.

What "good" are rights if they're just impotent words? "Might makes rights" though... there's the recipe one can use to alleviate suffering, if one actually wishes to alleviate suffering and one focuses on reality instead of 17th century tradition.

Yeah, it can bite the hand that feeds it... real things can have that effect.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

He's "right" because it's a tautology. "Elmo, why must rights be inherent?" "Because my philosophy defines them to be."

Well, great. So what?



No, I'm asking that his framework be justified. Not "accepted without discussion" or "correct because it's his philosophy".

Aizle has justified his.

If he can't, that's fine too. He just believes it. He consistently declares his philosophy to be correct, so I'm looking for clarification.



Do I own myself? Nobody has asked me that. Is that the question you are referring to? I believe I do, but it's just as justifiable to take the other side, and say that only free men own themselves.



Actually, no - that's exactly what we're complaining about from Elmo.



You're an idiot. If you want to have a discussion, go for it.



Wrong, learn to read. I said "for the sake of this discussion, let's accept that."



Did no such thing. You're making **** up.



Of course not. 1) I agree. 2) I've accepted the definition as part of my posts, and 3) it's irrelevent.



It's not. Quibbling over the definition of a word is. If you want to discuss the philosophy, have at it. That's what I've been suggesting for a while now. Learn to read, buddy.

Yes that will always be among us without any change in human nature. However we have seen for the first time the eradication of an entire disease, the ability to grant long term immunity to many others. Over thirty percent of the world's population lives better than the highest class of individual living 200 years prior did. Is there any other time our species could say this?

Tell me how would the might to enforce anything come if not from those willing to use might to support that philosophy? You've still done nothing (even within your might makes right framework) of dismissing philosophy as the motive force of that might. Go be a soldier - I'll be the person giving you orders.

_________________
"...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

duck, dodge, deflect.

You haven't yet started the discussion as far as I'm concerned. Justify your philosophy.

If folks actually posted their positions and made positive statements about what they believed and why instead of asking questions in some pedantic attempt at the socratic method, we might experience different results.

I'll go ahead and start.

My position is that all "rights" regardless of how they are defined are man-made creations. They do not exist in nature. As such, there really is not such thing as "natural rights" or "inherent rights" other than in someone's philosophy. At the end of the day, it was man who created all of these concepts. In a somewhat odd way, I do believe that "might" makes "right", but not in the common understanding of that phrase. Most certainly physical/military might has made "right" over the years for periods of time. But I take a broader view of the term might. Martin Luther King used the might of peace and concience and logic to create rights for minorities in the US. Philosophers and thinkers over centuries of time have helped craft and create what we believe to be rights. Our own Founding Fathers came together and collectively created rights with both their intellect and then their ability to rouse the country into a physical might to be reconed with. Now there are some rights that are commonly agreed upon. In general most folks believe it's bad to kill people. That they have a right to live. However, there are some places where that isn't the case, even today. Why is that? Because different people have often regionally come to differing conclusions on what things should and should not be considered rights.

I think you've explained your view well, but you don't say why you feel that way. You start at "man-made" construct and go from there. What do you base "man-made construct" on?

Again, it does not matter where the right comes from if you don't have the ability to enforce that right, whatever the source of that right.



Not really. You'll be the victim. If X and Y argue and X has philosophy but Y has a Remington, Y wins.

I've considered the actual conversation just fine Khross. Quite frankly, you're in no position to make any evaluations of anyone else's education or readin since despite your intellectual pretensions, all you do is make pronouncements and ask people socratic questions instead of actually bothering to take and defend a position.

No one is shifting the goalposts here. On the contrary people are contesting Elmo's habit of simply putting them whereever he wants, standing 5 yards away and claiming hes kicked a field goal.



What's laughable and the height of ignorance is for you to think anyone will be fooled by your nonsense. As any fool can see from reading this thread, not to mention 5 years of Elmo being a fanatical little moron, he has repeatedly claimed that the term "rights" can only be used in the way that Locke and a few other select philosophers use it, and he insists on injecting this into any and all discussions that even peripherally relate to the concept.



It doesn't matter if he's right with respect to any framework he's chosen, you **** fool, becuase he doesn't get to choose that framework for everyone else, nor does he get to jump into the middle of a thread with a question based ont hat framework and make everyone else dance to his asinine little tune.

As for being an authority, when it comes to military matters I am a **** authority. Your protest is no different than Monty claiming I'm not because he doesn't understand the difference between a WP round and a smoke round. As for everything else, I state my opinion like everyone else does. The fact of the matter is that you think sitting in academia and reading a lot of nonsense makes you some sort of authority on practically everything on earth, shooting your mouth of on topics you don't understand and constantly referring to reading you've supposedly done.

The only pedantic **** here is you, Khross. All you **** do on this board is lecture everyone else and periodically throw a hissy fit like this one when anyone points out that you're full of ****, or when someone expresses an opinion that doesn't match the way you want the world to work. You're notihng but a pretentious teenager dressing up as an intellectual.

Don't waste your time trying to pretend the problem is me Khross; you go into a **** coniption fit over video games. This is simply you getting pissy that people aren't accepting YOU as the authority, and going into Monty-tactics against me because if you aren't the authority on a topiuc, by jove, nobody is!



Because somehow my opinions on the police or military are relevant to this matter? Wow, you really are desperate aren't you? Is it hard to type with your fingers shaking with rage like that?

You're the biggest **** bully on this board Khross. The hilarity of you callign me a bully for disagreeing with most of the board on certain topics is classic. That's the opposite of being a bully Khross, on the contrary I refuse to be bullied by you, and a number of other people here who think if they jsut agree with each other enough and get outraged enough at differing opinions, they can shout down those who disagree. I'm the opposite of a bully Khross; I realize my opinions are unpopular and yet I stick up for them anyhow. You, on the other hand, are interested in nothing more than quashing disagreement. You can claim my opinions aren't "correct" all you want; appealing to the popularity of the board hardly establishes that.

Oh and when it comes to military matters? Yes, I am, generally, correct, and I always carefully separate my opinions and evalutations from my facts. Period. I have been taking great care to do that for years, and despite its TOTAL IRRELEVANCY to this topic, you find it necessary to bring it up.. and make false claims in the process.

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

You seem to think every question is an attempt at the Socratic method, when, in point of fact, both questions asked of you in this thread are merely attempts to establish your position. I asked you if you agreed with the statement, "Might makes rights"; and I did little more. You're falling int Monte's trap of ascribing intent before engaging a conversation in good faith.
That's a valid position to take, even if Elmo disagrees with it. The problem here, however, rests in the concept of self-ownership. Even if "rights" are constructs, who is the ultimate possessor of your person and the final arbiter of your decisions? That's a rather complex question any way you look at it.The phrase in question wasn't "might makes right"; I have no interest in making this a moral discussion; the question was "might makes rights". That is to say, as you have finally answered my question, that the construct of rights/entitlements/obligation/duty (what have you) exists only inasmuch as an individual, system, or system of individuals can exert the force necessary to make said things true.

But, that's neither here nor there, because any objections/questions I've had since I asked you a question were about the treatment of Elmo. I've not really advocated anything on the matter, because people have been too busy trying to pre-emptively game other posters instead of taking the conversations in good faith.

_________________

I believe "rights" (in a loose definition sense) are both inherent and man-made constructs. I believe there is a natural tendency for property ownership, self preservation, religion and speech, as well as the need to defend oneself and family, and pursue a better life. There are also man-made “rights”, such as the right to be free from discrimination, vote, etc. While I certainly differentiate between the two, I recognize that both are not free from society. Society can grant conflicting “rights” that may infringe on inherent rights of others, such as slavery. It is both naïve and ideal to suggest that government can/should not infringe on inherent rights.
Why do I believe this? Because I have been given free will, and have again seen this natural tendency in humans to push for/take/assume these natural rights.

If society grants ownership of your person to another, then they are the ultimate possessor of your person, are they not? Your decisions are therefore approved or disproved by your owner.

Or, from another possible viewpoint, why is it not legit to say you own yourself, but the government, or monarch, or whatever, is your caretaker? Such as a parent to a child? Thus you are legitimately subservient to your gov?

Not as much as you might think; slaves still ultimately possess an ability to choose a course of action against the wishes of their owner. They can attempt to flee or refuse to perform as instructed, regardless of the force exerted upon them by society or another individual. The outcome of such decisions does not preclude those decisions from being made.

_________________

There's no real argument that said position isn't valid except the existence of free will. Individuals must choose to act in accordance with any structure that is in place. This even holds true for most children, even if newborns are incapable of manifesting their thoughts into action for the most part.

_________________