Name something good religion has caused

that I was not referring to "rights" other than what you had earlier posted as a definition of natural rights.

Again, it was yourself that defined rights as 'freedom to act'. I merely expanded on what freedom meant, ie to act according to will and capability.
 
I say AnyOldIron must be forced to change his name to "obscurum per obscurius". That seems to be his guiding principle.

Nothing decent to contribute, Vitriol boy?
 
AnyOldIron said:
that I was not referring to "rights" other than what you had earlier posted as a definition of natural rights.

Again, it was yourself that defined rights as 'freedom to act'. I merely expanded on what freedom meant, ie to act according to will and capability.
Click to expand...
No, I defined them in that way accordingly to your "there are no natural rights other than capability in nature" and expanded on the idea. I said I was doing as much from the beginning by stating so. Making me repeat it as if you don't understand what I was doing from the beginning makes me wonder if it is worth a 400 post thread if what I write will have no impact longer than three posts or so.

And, as I stated, in reality and as applied in reality, I found this stance to be amazingly easy to support as rights appear to be an extension of this and a will to work out a balance between ethics and morality as well as natural rights...

I found that I could apply it in every case presented and see how it fit in with that particular view. Even such things as a right to a lawyer, in nature you defend yourself, in this case working within the framework of morality, and the creation of a contract, we have replaced that mano a mano battle with one in a room full of people and the battle of words.... We place an outside value to actions, we use that to determine whose rights will apply in every situation. Society's rights, the individual's rights, the 'victim's' rights... then as a group assert the rights of the group/person that has been deemed the proper right to assert.

And all within the context of will and capability. I'm amazed that you don't already have this view as it fits very neatly into a nihilistic view. The assigned values, the actual reality of some other societies who assert the societal rights over individuals in almost every case...

The ability of such a system to work within many different ethical and moral systems to create the consensus framework on which it is all built. When it comes right down to it, the system merely is a way to determine whose will and capabilities will be asserted by agreement over the other.
 
Damocles said:
No, I defined them in that way accordingly to your "there are no natural rights other than capability in nature" and expanded on the idea. I said I was doing as much from the beginning by stating so. Making me repeat it as if you don't understand what I was doing from the beginning makes me wonder if it is worth a 400 post thread if what I write will have no impact longer than three posts or so.

And, as I stated, in reality and as applied in reality, I found this stance to be amazingly easy to support as rights appear to be an extension of this and a will to work out a balance between ethics and morality as well as natural rights...

I found that I could apply it in every case presented and see how it fit in with that particular view. Even such things as a right to a lawyer, in nature you defend yourself, in this case working within the framework of morality, and the creation of a contract, we have replaced that mano a mano battle with one in a room full of people and the battle of words.... We place an outside value to actions, we use that to determine whose rights will apply in every situation. Society's rights, the individual's rights, the 'victim's' rights... then as a group assert the rights of the group/person that has been deemed the proper right to assert.

And all within the context of will and capability. I'm amazed that you don't already have this view as it fits very neatly into a nihilistic view. The assigned values, the actual reality of some other societies who assert the societal rights over individuals in almost every case...

The ability of such a system to work within many different ethical and moral systems to create the consensus framework on which it is all built. When it comes right down to it, the system merely is a way to determine whose will and capabilities will be asserted by agreement over the other.
Click to expand...

It's not worth it damo. This is all these philosopher types do, purposefully misunderstand and corrupt the meainings of words, as if that indicates intelligence.
 
No, I defined them in that way accordingly to your "there are no natural rights other than capability in nature" and expanded on the idea. I said I was doing as much from the beginning by stating so. Making me repeat it as if you don't understand what I was doing from the beginning makes me wonder if it is worth a 400 post thread if what I write will have no impact longer than three posts or so.

I wouldn't have claimed that there are natural rights at all, let alone in will and capability, because I don't subscribe to the notion of natural rights????

Where on Earth did you get this from? I stated that in the state of nature, there are no rights, that all there is is will and capability and that rights and duties only come into play when we suspend certain freedoms in exchange for other freedoms.

It was you that stated rights are the freedom to act????

And, as I stated, in reality and as applied in reality, I found this stance to be amazingly easy to support as rights appear to be an extension of this and a will to work out a balance between ethics and morality as well as natural rights...

And I have argued that as a definition this is hollow, because it is simply replacing the term freedom to act with rights. If you look around of course you will see that people have freedom to act, but calling that a right doesn't fit. It is simply using another term to describe freedom to act.

I found that I could apply it in every case presented and see how it fit in with that particular view. Even such things as a right to a lawyer, in nature you defend yourself, in this case working within the framework of morality, and the creation of a contract, we have replaced that mano a mano battle with one in a room full of people and the battle of words.... We place an outside value to actions, we use that to determine whose rights will apply in every situation. Society's rights, the individual's rights, the 'victim's' rights... then as a group assert the rights of the group/person that has been deemed the proper right to assert.

If you simply state that a right is the freedom to act, of course you can apply it to any situation where people have freedom to act.... But that's a tautlogy.

My point is that replacing the term 'freedom to act' with 'rights' doesn't fit. It becomes a pointless term, every action becomes a 'right'. Hence my reductio per absurdum stating 'I have the right to go to the toilet'. This is absurd because all I am stating is that I can go to the toilet.

And all within the context of will and capability. I'm amazed that you don't already have this view as it fits very neatly into a nihilistic view. The assigned values, the actual reality of some other societies who assert the societal rights over individuals in almost every case...

In the state of nature, Darwinian nature, all man has is will and capability. What you are doing is simply stating that this is a 'right'. In fact I will go further inasmuch as to state that you are simply claiming will to be right. The societies you mention above are merely asserting will over individual's will.

Why call the term 'right', when we have the term 'will', that actually describes it?

When it comes right down to it, the system merely is a way to determine whose will and capabilities will be asserted by agreement over the other.

In the true contractual sense of rights and duties, as opposed to using the term 'right' to mean 'will', the 'system' sets down rights that are universal across the society (that doesn't mean absolute). For example the right to life consists of a duty not to kill, and a right not to be killed.
 
It's not worth it damo. This is all these philosopher types do, purposefully misunderstand and corrupt the meainings of words, as if that indicates intelligence.

Nothing to contribute?
 
I wouldn't have claimed that there are natural rights at all, let alone in will and capability, because I don't subscribe to the notion of natural rights????
Click to expand...

Except you did, you said, "There is no natural rights, other than the will and capability to act."

I took that and ran with it.
 
In the state of nature, Darwinian nature, all man has is will and capability. What you are doing is simply stating that this is a 'right'. In fact I will go further inasmuch as to state that you are simply claiming will to be right. The societies you mention above are merely asserting will over individual's will.
Click to expand...

What I stated at the beginning was that "right" is an artificial construct all based on this basic understanding. That we take our morals and understanding, relate our world accordingly through contracts. That no "rights" can be applied in any other context than that. Then I applied it to history, and found that it worked, I then applied it to present time and it worked there too. "Rights" is just another way of saying, "This is what we will allow."
 
AnyOldIron said:
It's not worth it damo. This is all these philosopher types do, purposefully misunderstand and corrupt the meainings of words, as if that indicates intelligence.

Nothing to contribute?
Click to expand...

to the contrary, ass-o-phyle. I contributed my opinion that discussion with you is basically not worth it. Because you redefine terms, and create strawman arguments in a whimsical and foolish fasion.
 
"There is no natural rights, other than the will and capability to act."

I said that there are no rights in nature, only will and capacity to act..

What I stated at the beginning was that "right" is an artificial construct all based on this basic understanding. That we take our morals and understanding, relate our world accordingly through contracts. That no "rights" can be applied in any other context than that. Then I applied it to history, and found that it worked, I then applied it to present time and it worked there too. "Rights" is just another way of saying, "This is what we will allow."

'Rights' are another way of saying 'We agree to frustrate certain freedoms (duties) that would make it unconducive to exist in society, and from that gain other freedoms (rights).

If rights were simply the freedom to act, and 'what is allowed' then this creates an obvious contradiction.
 
to the contrary, ass-o-phyle. I contributed my opinion that discussion with you is basically not worth it. Because you redefine terms, and create strawman arguments in a whimsical and foolish fasion.

Fashion, moron.

If you see a strawman, point it out....

It seems whenever you don't understand a debate, you simply accuse the other person of redefining terms etc etc. or you simply call them a cunt, or a fool etc Its pretty obvious.

Ha ha ha! You're a funny guy, who debates with your emotions rather than your intellect...
 
AnyOldIron said:
to the contrary, ass-o-phyle. I contributed my opinion that discussion with you is basically not worth it. Because you redefine terms, and create strawman arguments in a whimsical and foolish fasion.

Fashion, moron.

If you see a strawman, point it out....

It seems whenever you don't understand a debate, you simply accuse the other person of redefining terms etc etc. or you simply call them a cunt, or a fool etc Its pretty obvious.

Ha ha ha! You're a funny guy, who debates with your emotions rather than your intellect...
Click to expand...

To the contrary, subtard, I accuse people of redefining terms and using strawmen when they're redefining words and using strawmen. It's pretty obvious. I debate with my intellect, and honest attempts at understanding what the other person is saying, instead trying to pin them to positions they don't hold by adding or subtracting meanings to/from words.
 
AnyOldIron said:
"There is no natural rights, other than the will and capability to act."

I said that there are no rights in nature, only will and capacity to act..

What I stated at the beginning was that "right" is an artificial construct all based on this basic understanding. That we take our morals and understanding, relate our world accordingly through contracts. That no "rights" can be applied in any other context than that. Then I applied it to history, and found that it worked, I then applied it to present time and it worked there too. "Rights" is just another way of saying, "This is what we will allow."

'Rights' are another way of saying 'We agree to frustrate certain freedoms (duties) that would make it unconducive to exist in society, and from that gain other freedoms (rights).

If rights were simply the freedom to act, and 'what is allowed' then this creates an obvious contradiction.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, enumerated rights are just a list of "this is what we will allow". It lists what are allowed to the individual and where Society will be allowed to advance their will over that list. It is simply a separation of where society will advance its "rights" (as defined by myself earlier notice the quotations) over the individuals. This is based on their understanding of morals and ethics of the time period.
 
To the contrary, subtard, I accuse people of redefining terms and using strawmen when they're redefining words and using strawmen. It's pretty obvious. I debate with my intellect, and honest attempts at understanding what the other person is saying, instead trying to pin them to positions they don't hold by adding or subtracting meanings to/from words.

What are you blathering on about?

I haven't tried to pin anyone to a position they didn't hold. If you think I have, show it...

Damo and I are debating the nature of rights, which by its nature involves discussing what such terms as 'rights', 'duties' and 'freedom' mean.

The truth is, this debate is a little over your head and so all you do is sit on the sidelines and hurl vitriol.
 
Rubbish, enumerated rights are just a list of "this is what we will allow". It lists what are allowed to the individual and where Society will be allowed to advance their will over that list. It is simply a separation of where society will advance its "rights" (as defined by myself earlier notice the quotations) over the individuals. This is based on their understanding of morals and ethics of the time period.

If this is rights, then all rights are is the exercise of will of the individual, with a codified list of things on which 'society' will take vengence. It is simply might equating to right. If this is the case, there is no social contract between the individual and society to ensure that the individual retains sovereignty. Any despot can create a list of acts to which they will reap vengence. Your only duty is to submit to stronger will (ie societies), your rights are simply to act.

In reality, any codified list carries corresponding rights and duties. The right to life, for example, is two sided, it contains a right not to be killed and a corresponding duty not to kill. It frustrates the will to kill, in exchange for the freedom to live.

Without such contractual rights and obligations, the notion of rights is just the law of the jungle.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Rubbish, enumerated rights are just a list of "this is what we will allow". It lists what are allowed to the individual and where Society will be allowed to advance their will over that list. It is simply a separation of where society will advance its "rights" (as defined by myself earlier notice the quotations) over the individuals. This is based on their understanding of morals and ethics of the time period.

If this is rights, then all rights are is the exercise of will of the individual, with a codified list of things on which 'society' will take vengence. It is simply might equating to right. If this is the case, there is no social contract between the individual and society to ensure that the individual retains sovereignty. Any despot can create a list of acts to which they will reap vengence. Your only duty is to submit to stronger will (ie societies), your rights are simply to act.

In reality, any codified list carries corresponding rights and duties. The right to life, for example, is two sided, it contains a right not to be killed and a corresponding duty not to kill. It frustrates the will to kill, in exchange for the freedom to live.

Without such contractual rights and obligations, the notion of rights is just the law of the jungle.
Click to expand...
My point has been throughout, that is exactly what is happening. You can look throughout history and find that this is true. I also pointed out that as society progresses, it almost always works towards a less restrictive list than before (not always, but almost).

The right to life is just another way of writing murder laws. Society comes up with a consensus of where it will be allowed and where it won't be allowed, then writes up a list of where your will and theirs will overlap, or society will express their will upon you.
 
My point has been throughout, that is exactly what is happening. You can look throughout history and find that this is true. I also pointed out that as society progresses, it almost always works towards a less restrictive list than before (not always, but almost).

This is only true where no social contract exists, in autocracies.

In an autocracy, the person holding sovereignty (monarch, dictator etc) creates a list of what they deem will be allowed and exercises vengence if that list is transgressed.

Where a social contract exists, and the individual holds their own sovereignty, an individual agrees to suspend certain freedoms, in exchange for their respective freedoms. It is in this that rights are seperated from simply the power of will. I still have the freedom (ie will and capacity) to, say, kill, but it isn't the vengence of society that prevents me from doing so, but an uncodified (and to a degree codified) contractual agreement that I will not kill in the exchange for the right not to be killed.

As to whether societies tend to move towards moving the contract to allow more freedom, I'd say it cycles. Society goes through a period of liberalism, and then panics that we have too much freedom, cycles back into slightly more authoritarian, realises it has too little freedom and cycles back....
 
AnyOldIron said:
My point has been throughout, that is exactly what is happening. You can look throughout history and find that this is true. I also pointed out that as society progresses, it almost always works towards a less restrictive list than before (not always, but almost).

This is only true where no social contract exists, in autocracies.

In an autocracy, the person holding sovereignty (monarch, dictator etc) creates a list of what they deem will be allowed and exercises vengence if that list is transgressed.

Where a social contract exists, and the individual holds their own sovereignty, an individual agrees to suspend certain freedoms, in exchange for their respective freedoms. It is in this that rights are seperated from simply the power of will. I still have the freedom (ie will and capacity) to, say, kill, but it isn't the vengence of society that prevents me from doing so, but an uncodified (and to a degree codified) contractual agreement that I will not kill in the exchange for the right not to be killed.

As to whether societies tend to move towards moving the contract to allow more freedom, I'd say it cycles. Society goes through a period of liberalism, and then panics that we have too much freedom, cycles back into slightly more authoritarian, realises it has too little freedom and cycles back....
Click to expand...
No, the societal contract is exactly the same thing. It lists the same things.

It calls them by different names, but it is the same lists. One can be more benevolent than the other.

As for societies tending to swing on a pendulum, yes, but in the end it tends to swing for even more freedoms along the way. And, as I said, it doesn't in all cases. We can see what happened in the USSR and know that not all societal contracts tend to lead to more freedoms in all cases.
 
AnyOldIron said:
To the contrary, subtard, I accuse people of redefining terms and using strawmen when they're redefining words and using strawmen. It's pretty obvious. I debate with my intellect, and honest attempts at understanding what the other person is saying, instead trying to pin them to positions they don't hold by adding or subtracting meanings to/from words.

What are you blathering on about?

I haven't tried to pin anyone to a position they didn't hold. If you think I have, show it...

Damo and I are debating the nature of rights, which by its nature involves discussing what such terms as 'rights', 'duties' and 'freedom' mean.

The truth is, this debate is a little over your head and so all you do is sit on the sidelines and hurl vitriol.
Click to expand...

You, warping meaning to call enumerated rights a form of despotism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top