The Glade 4.0

This is not a formal debating society, this is the worst part of an internet forum. You are still an idiot who tries to make other people play by rules that do not apply here DFK!

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

"Communal rights" exist in-so-far as the individual members who make up that community's natural rights exist, as those rights aren't separated from the individual man when he associates. They do not, however, combine like Voltron to make super-amazing-extra rights.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Blazing Sword!

_________________
"...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

The reason "might makes rights" is so compelling and the concept of "natural rights" is so lacking in reason is the fact that there is empirical evidence for the former and none for the latter.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No, not yet. You have to spend five minutes getting your *** kicked before you hit the win button.

_________________

Perhaps those who argue for "natural rights" are mistaking the overwhelming implied force of a large body of people who happen to subscribe to the same ethos.

_________________

You're operating under the assumption that rights are natural. So you're starting off on the wrong foot for this discussion.

Oh look, we're having a civil conversation and you come along. Nice of you to fail to contribute anything except wasteful paternal scorn.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I am in said camp.

However, in a discussion such as this, regarding the impact and consequence of rights, one must concede that the ability to create (communal rights) or protect (inherent rights) lies solely with the ability to do so; it lies with "might," be it through strength of arms, diplomacy, economy, whathaveyou.

If one wants to discuss the nature of rights itself, that comes down to raw belief, essentially. At that point the might makes rights discussion becomes less of a given, but still retains large import in practical reality and the implications of it become more a matter of belief/faith.



I suppose that would depend on the context of "morality." Many people believe or push the idea of an objective morality or of a universal (or common) morality. The impact and outcome of this morality, despite being objective or universal, is still largely dependant upon the capability to defend/uphold that morality through "might."



In the end, the bottom line is this: I have not, ever (to my recollection), seen a proponent of communal rights make a clear case as to why they believe such as system would be superior to a system of inherent rights.

Furthermore, given a belief that a community should make their own rights, I have not seen any logically and/or morally consistent justification to date of forcing other communities to follow our community's rights system.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Practically speaking? Of course not.

Logically and morally speaking? Sure it does.


Utilizing a weak analogy:

The following is not logically and morally consistent:
I believe that all parents should raise their children as they see fit. If, however, "how they see fit" does not include teaching them to accept gay parents and understand gay sex by age 5, I am going to force them to teach their children those things.

The following is:
I believe that all parents should raise their children as they see fit. If, however, "how they see fit" does not include teaching them to accept gay parents and understand gay sex by age 5, I am going to lament how they raise their children.


This can be extended to all larger levels of "community," up from the familial level to the national or alleged "global" community.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Nor, likely, will you ever. As you say above, people either believe they are inherent or made by man.

It's equivalent to making a case as to whether Islam is or is not better than Christianity.

Hmm, fair enough.

I guess I'm speaking more to the systems and policies that arise from those beliefs than the belief themselves.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I'm confused why anyone would even try and make that argument DFK!. From my perspective, all I'm doing is relating the world as I see it, not trying to advocate for some "better" process or utopian system.

Except that you have regularly derided systems based on inherent rights in this thread. Calling them "silly," "out of touch," and other things I can't remember off the top of my head that indicate inferiority.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Others do the same (Elmo, for example) the other direction. Holding our own views as superior is only natural. No, that doesn't excuse it.

I agree entirely. But since Aizle (and others) hold the opposing viewpoint to me on this, I'm trying to understand their viewpoint.

At minimum, I'd like them to defend it more logically than with, essentially, "my advocated system is better because the other choice is silly."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Reality is always superior to fantasy. Reality has more warts, but it's something that one can build on. A "bird in the hand", so to speak.

By themselves, dreams don't come true. It takes effort, sweat and determination... it takes that and a firm grasp of where you are to get you to where you want to be.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No, might enforces or infringes on rights, it does not create them. Brutality has no innate creative process.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Yes, might does make rights. The bill of rights, for instance, had to be fought for and won before folks could enjoy them. Civil rights - same thing. etc, etc, etc, since the beginning of time.

And what's with this "innate creative process"? Is that how you dress up your imaginary rights now? Show any evidence of these "natural" rights, please, other than your (and others) constant assertion that they exist.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Was it the fight that formed the rights, or the ideas which preceeded the fight?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Yes, the fight formed the rights. Any assertion that they formed prior to the fight confuses "rights" with "desires".

Folks may want to be free, but they have to break chains to actually BE free and claim it as a right, and those chains still sit there waiting for folks to forget it takes a fight to keep them off.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

So you're saying that rights aren't ideas then, and that instead they are the consequence of the natural actions of people?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Rights are codes folks that win fights write.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Can you clarify then, because that really seems like what you are saying. Also, I'd be interested in knowing exactly how these rights come into existence if they are simply birthed from nothingness through simple successful and often mindless brutality.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Do they write them before or after the fight? Is the fight ever because of those codes?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20