Can you point to a 'right'? The sun has no right, it can be destroyed by another star and is in the process of decaying, exploding and ceasing to exist. Humans disagree with murder, in their opinion, but the opinion doesn't create an object or force. Gravity can always be demonstrated to be acting and it's right that it pulls objects (until Earth terminates). There is no action of anything that creates any rights for humans to do any particular actions.  There is no right to express this post or to read it.

Something that should never be left out or left behind or left anything ........

Rights are codified as part of social structures and are set to protect life and liberty from unlawful constraint or interference ... things you discuss such as reading this strand are privileges....

One day, grasshopper, you will understand how social structures themselves often operate to bring down rights rather than supporting them..... but that is a story for another day or two.....

Welcome to Grappler Free Tibetan Monastery University In The Park...... where all are entitled to my opinion ....... which I have the right to hold and to expound but not force on you.... I identify as a Professor Of Life Studies - I have no right to force my professorship on you or others.... same as identifying as anything else...  Tibetan and other Buddhist monks are in reality walking universities.... passing on knowledge and understanding of the human condition....

Just a few examples for you to go on with...

You are welcome for the sake of all living things..... now save the Orang Utan Habitats..... they have the right to live their way in peace, same as koalas ...

https://static.tweaktown.com/content/4/1/4162_4_babe_pig_in_the_city_1998_blu_ray_movie_review_full.jpg

But they can be so they aren't..

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 7:53am:

But they can be so they aren't..

That, grasshopper - is why rights use formal language and are codified.... there is no 'right' to walk the streets unmolested - there is a right to have molestation scorned and punished and deterred if possible...

If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist.

Right?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 7:46am:

Something that should never be left out or left behind or left anything ........ Rights are codified as part of social structures and are set to protect life and liberty from unlawful constraint or interference ... things you discuss such as reading this strand are privileges.... One day, grasshopper, you will understand how social structures themselves often operate to bring down rights rather than supporting them..... but that is a story for another day or two..... Welcome to Grappler Free Tibetan Monastery University In The Park...... where all are entitled to my opinion ....... which I have the right to hold and to expound but not force on you.... I identify as a Professor Of Life Studies - I have no right to force my professorship on you or others.... same as identifying as anything else...  Tibetan and other Buddhist monks are in reality walking universities.... passing on knowledge and understanding of the human condition.... Just a few examples for you to go on with... You are welcome for the sake of all living things..... now save the Orang Utan Habitats..... they have the right to live their way in peace, same as koalas ... https://static.tweaktown.com/content/4/1/4162_4_babe_pig_in_the_city_1998_blu_ray_movie_review_full.jpg

freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 7:59am:

If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?

https://media.tenor.com/I1HPmBxIb6cAAAAM/talkin-to-me-you-talkin-to-me.gif

Robbie, BABY - that ain't no ex-Marine Recondo - not with that shave ....  Hollywood **face palms** - now you know why the director was NEVER a medic in any special forces unit... no idea...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 7:58am:

there is a right to have molestation scorned and punished and deterred if possible...

Grappler is a Tibetan monkey, who is punished by popular demand. That's right but is not a right.

It is an intersubjective reality.

The Yeti is an ape-like creature who inhabits the Himalayan mountain range in Asia, the Abominable Snowman.  Some of these are hoaxes. The Yeti is a large, bipedal ape-like creature that is covered with brown, gray, or white hair, and it is sometimes depicted as having large, sharp teeth and grapples with the innocent bystanders.

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 7:43am:

Can you point to a 'right'? The sun has no right, it can be destroyed by another star and is in the process of decaying, exploding and ceasing to exist. Humans disagree with murder, in their opinion, but the opinion doesn't create an object or force. Gravity can always be demonstrated to be acting and it's right that it pulls objects (until Earth terminates). There is no action of anything that creates any rights for humans to do any particular actions.  There is no right to express this post or to read it.

Rights point to the extent and limits (scope) of your individual freedoms among other individuals with the same scope of freedoms.




freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 8:49am:

It is an intersubjective reality.

That is why it is meaningless to speak of one's rights when alone on an uninhabited island or in the belly of a whale, or of the rights of the Sun.

A murder victim (which is a reality) has no freedom to live so it's not a 'right'. The freedom is only derived from judges, cops and jail guards thinking about an idea, which is variable. The sun is right to radiate heat due to physical facts. Gravity is also right but if Albanese announced a law giving Australians the right to gravity with a target of 9.8metres /sec^, he would lose his position and be referred to a shrink.

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 10:27am:

A murder victim (which is a reality) has no freedom to live so it's not a 'right'. The freedom is only derived from judges, cops and jail guards thinking about an idea, which is variable. The sun is right to radiate heat due to physical facts. Gravity is also right but if Albanese announced a law giving Australians the right to gravity with a target of 9.8metres /sec^, he would lose his position and be referred to a shrink.

You are confusing rights with physical attributes. A category mistake.

Rights can be violated, physical laws cannot.

'Rights' are in popular usage an immutable basis of existence. Extending the concept to physics shows the error.

The US is keen on 'rights' but has capital punishment to cancel 'right' to life, as a community right (in variable locations) as did Oz until recently. A 'right' may be given by politicians as an 'allowance' but the fact of giving ensures their capacity to delete a 'right'.

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 11:10am:

'Rights' are in popular usage an immutable basis of existence. Extending the concept to physics shows the error. The US is keen on 'rights' but has capital punishment to cancel 'right' to life, as a community right (in variable locations) as did Oz until recently. A 'right' may be given by politicians as an 'allowance' but the fact of giving ensures their capacity to delete a 'right'.

I dont think anyone has extended the concept of rights to be the same as physical attributes, apart perhaps from you.


Using words interchangeably even though they are not interchangeable is the error. Perhaps the root of the confusion is the use of 'physical laws' as if the physical phenomena were determined by humans like legal laws.

UN Rights. 'rights and freedoms to which every human being is equally and inalienably entitled'.
US. 'We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness,'.
And then:
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'.
That's getting into the realm of physics and eternity.

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 11:35am:

UN Rights. 'rights and freedoms to which every human being is equally and inalienably entitled'. US. 'We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness,'. And then: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. That's getting into the realm of physics and eternity.

Inalienable is not a physical attribute.

Alienate. 'transfer to the ownership of another', Latin alienatus 'to make another's, part with' from alienus 'of or belonging to another person or place' (from PIE root *al- (1) 'beyond'.)

Inalienable is 'permanent' which is objective and not subject to human policy. It's often observed among gun-men who always had a right to shoot, regardless of any outlaws in parliament.

This young bloke exercised his right to engage in murder. He was found not guilty by "Judge alone" court because he also had the right to be thirteen years of age

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/20/declan-cutler-murder-stabbing-melbourne-reservoir-court-case-trial-ruling


He walked free from court knowing that thirteen year olds have the right to help kill someone unlawfully if they can prove in court they weren't responsible

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 10:27am:

A murder victim (which is a reality) has no freedom to live so it's not a 'right'. The freedom is only derived from judges, cops and jail guards thinking about an idea, which is variable. The sun is right to radiate heat due to physical facts. Gravity is also right but if Albanese announced a law giving Australians the right to gravity with a target of 9.8metres /sec^, he would lose his position and be referred to a shrink.

The CCP's inability to comprehend what human rights are or how they are protected does not mean they don't exist outside of China. It's no different to you saying that elephants don't exist just because your government doesn't let you see one.

There are African bush elephant Loxodonta africana, forest elephant Loxodonta cyclotis and Asian elephant Elephas maximus and Mammoths Mammuthus. They are nearly bullet-proof, heavy and permanent.  Human rights are said to have a long memory but that's doubtful.

You can still see an influence on the geographic distribution of modern political rights going back to the Roman empire and the Americas prior to European contact.

If someone could not understand what you were saying about elephants, would that be evidence that elephants do not exist?

freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 1:13pm:

You can still see an influence on the geographic distribution of modern political rights going back to the Roman empire and the Americas prior to European contact. If someone could not understand what you were saying about elephants, would that be evidence that elephants do not exist?

How often do you think about the Roman Empire?

If there is a 'right' then it goes back to cave-women cooking mammoth meat and gossiping about Big Grunt bashing Little Boof and saying it's not right.  Size matters.

Do you think freedom would suddenly become real if you had a real piece of paper issued by the CCP saying that you are free?

Yes. Thank you Mr Xi for your real estate. Human rights that are inalienable and permanent are unreal. The argy bargy keeps lawyers fat. There's no money in disputing the reality of gravity but the ancient right to shoot keeps Sir Eoin O Fada and some Yanks busy.

CCP handbook say, if all else fails, start dribbling poo.

Name a human right.
When did it become that?

If no-one answers chimera's silly questions, do they cease to exist?

Gordon wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 1:21pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 21st, 2023 at 1:13pm: You can still see an influence on the geographic distribution of modern political rights going back to the Roman empire and the Americas prior to European contact. If someone could not understand what you were saying about elephants, would that be evidence that elephants do not exist? How often do you think about the Roman Empire?

Clever Gordo.

The USA's War of Independence was a rejection of the British Political way and they adopted a more 'Roman Republic' (Italy) and to a lesser extent Greek style of Politics. The Greeks know their 'ancient' politics was shyte and well, when it comes to Politics, the Italians can only shine as 'Mafia'.
Isaac Asimov via his Foundation novels predicts the fall of the American 'Roman Republic' in typical Sci-Fi 'insinuations' as his novels were also based on the Fall of Rome histories.

So the 'Right' way - is the British.
The German political way exploded via Nazism - so there's a Fail.
The French still think they're Politically superior to Britain, but they will soon 'implode' like a gay fart - so there's a Fail there too.
Then it will be Italy's turn (v Britain): Spagetti Western v Real Western politics. Italy will also Fail.

The whole American political system is not 'Right' in any manner. The Confederates were like the Germans. The Democrats are like the French and the Media is Italy.

...this is why we still 'hold fast' on the British political way.

One day, the USA will have to come back and join the Knights of the Round Table 'Commonwealth'.  ;)

Can't name a human right? The US Constitution didn't give any, so had another go in 1948. That's pretty late to discover an inalienable right in human creation, amen, thank you Einstein.

Also. Remember that 'Politics' in the Northern Hemisphere (regardless of what form, be it Communist, Democratic, Confederation, Republic, etc, etc) - is for the 'Political People' only. That is, the establishment, the political leader and those who participate in Politics in any way in support of empowering Politics as an industry over others.

Theresa May resigned with this realisation that although the 'people at large' voted No to Brexit. The establishment basically ignored it. So to in the voting system of the USA where the 'deepest pocket' wins, in buying the votes publicly and 'in-house'.

So the 'Rights' are only for the Politically empowered.
Not for those outside of the Political bubbles.

freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 5:21pm:

If no-one answers chimera's silly questions, do they cease to exist?

Forgive me. I'm too stupid to really understand them in the first place.

'Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings'. UN.
Inherent 'intrinsic'
Intrinsic 'interior, inward, internal'.
Your human rights are internal, like your right kidney or right lung. Your right hand is a human right.  Talking to freediver is not human, right or Roman. (I don't think Jasinner talks).

No I don't.
I type (Write).
Sorry, but you lose again (and need to come to your 'right' senses).

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 5:38pm:

Can't name a human right? The US Constitution didn't give any, so had another go in 1948. That's pretty late to discover an inalienable right in human creation, amen, thank you Einstein.

I think the preamble to the US constitution identified the "rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".


In 1948, the UN created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, spelling out 30 such rights.

But there was a fly in the oitment, in the form of the UNSC veto...which Zelensky railed against yesterday, during his speech in the UNGA.....

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 5:19pm:

Name a human right. When did it become that?

What are inherently human characteristics? Not biological components - kidneys, bones, skin - or biochemic elements - proteins, enzymes - as these are all found in their various versions in other creatures.

Whether you like it or not, human right have to do with God, the conception of God,  specifically the Judeo - Christian God. It is about what kind of God would create humans like us.
In so far as there are any universal rights, these are based of the Christian conception of God and of humanity. You will never hear a Hindu or Muslim or Orthodox Jew or animistic shaman speak about universal human rights and his own religion and philosophy in the same breath.

God created man in his own image - and each culture, in turn, creates its god in its own image. The Christian God created man with freedom without distinction, Allah created slaves, Yahweh created a chosen people with laws applicable only to them.

Frank wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 6:13pm:

What are inherently human characteristics? Not biological components - kidneys, bones, skin - or biochemic elements - proteins, enzymes - as these are all found in their various versions in other creatures.

Good start. 


Quote:

Whether you like it or not, human right have to do with God, the conception of God,...

Still on solid ground, (assuming "God" loves his Creation). 


Quote:

specifically the Judeo - Christian God. It is about what kind of God would create humans like us.

Oops! you jumped off a cliff there mate....all humans are attracted by the mystique of The Creator, however perceived by humans. 


Quote:

In so far as there are any universal rights, these are based of the Christian conception of God and of humanity. You will never hear a Hindu or Muslim or Orthodox Jew or animistic shaman speak about universal human rights and his own religion and philosophy in the same breath.

 

So...you are speaking about "Christ our Lord"....the 'Prince of Peace' who was nevertheless not God. 


Quote:

God created man in his own i m age - and each culture, in turn, creates its god in its own image.

And Europe has been as violent as any culture on the planet since Christ's time...and NATO and Russia (all "Christians") are still at it.

I think you will find "rights" are human inventions, NOT 'natural/inalienable',  and are instead desires mistaken for "rights".

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 6:29pm:

I think you will find "rights" are human inventions, NOT 'natural/inalienable',  and are instead desires mistaken for "rights".

What is the basis of that assertion?

'they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness,'.
And then:
'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,'.
So there they 'derive' it and it's 'endowed'. Which one? 'Inherent' is not 'unique', but it's 'within men'. How do they derive something and place it inside as a permanent fixture from the beginning? If it's endowed why bother to derive it, and where is it endowed? The US didn't give its people two eyes for each citizen, so how do they see?  Sure, show me the endowed derived rights and I shall believe. Maybe the right side of the brain?  Should show up on CT scan.

These 'political' rights only adhere to the Political world and people involved.
Those who promote gain to the Political industry or power, be it financial, etc - have more 'rights' than those who offer less and even more than those who live outside of the Political world and offer nothing for Political empowerment gain.

The UN 'rights' become a bit ridiculous in their complexity. If a right is an instinctive compulsion, then who naturally says to themselves :

'The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality'.?

wha......

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 6:43pm:

'they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness,'. And then: 'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,'. So there they 'derive' it and it's 'endowed'. Which one? 'Inherent' is not 'unique', but it's 'within men'. How do they derive something and place it inside as a permanent fixture from the beginning? If it's endowed why bother to derive it, and where is it endowed? The US didn't give its people two eyes for each citizen, so how do they see?  Sure, show me the endowed derived rights and I shall believe. Maybe the right side of the brain?  Should show up on CT scan.

1. On what grounds do you think you can make such statements?

2. On what grounds do you think you can make such statements if others disagree vehemently?

3.  on what grounds could someone imprison or kill you for making such statements?

4. Why would his grounds for killing you would override, or not, your grounds of speaking?

1. The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, with earlier draft.
2. Freediver allows speech, dribble and obfuscation.
3. The Russian demand that the armed forces not be humiliated.
4.  Putin said so.
5.  Have you been drinking again?

Quote:

What is a 'right'?

The opposite to a wrong ?

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 8:59pm:

1. The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, with earlier draft. 2. Freediver allows speech, dribble and obfuscation. 3. The Russian demand that the armed forces not be humiliated. 4.  Putin said so. 5.  Have you been drinking again?

Sorry, I assumed you were same.


Apologies. Won't happen again.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 9:04pm:

Quote: What is a 'right'? The opposite to a wrong ?

I was thinking the opposite to a left!

Frank wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 8:37pm:

1. On what grounds do you think you can make such statements? 2. On what grounds do you think you can make such statements if others disagree vehemently? 3.  on what grounds could someone imprison or kill you for making such statements? 4. Why would his grounds for killing you would override, or not, your grounds of speaking?

Possibly you are trying to express that rights are contradictory.
So people can be educated to oppose free speech and kill such speakers. Anyway, thanks.

A right is meant to be an obvious possession of a basis for activity.  Then 'wrong' or 'left' are absolutely opposite in that they're not a source for living processes, they are just adjectives for completed nouns.

If a human has a 'right' then it would be inbuilt so that the body uncontrollably asserts it : flesh would react by hardening to repel a weapon, all observers would rush in to destroy the killer and a body would overcome any bullet or knife damage. All education would be totally and instantly learned. Everyone would be expert, non-stop speakers. And the big one. Children would only be happy when armed, would all be expert shots and would be shooting continually at gun-teachers who never die or stop talking.   

freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 1:13pm:

You can still see an influence on the geographic distribution of modern political rights going back to the Roman empire and the Americas prior to European contact.

Democracy was limited in Greece and Rome. It went nearly extinct for a thousand years and slowly reappeared but is weakening again. Can that be a 'human right' that's 'inalienable' or is the 'right' a pretence?

A “Right” only exists when it is recognised in others. It could be unjust and therefore is a measure of civilisation. Children tend to be selfish, but as they mature they become more cooperative. At a certain level of intelligence, empathy develops, and personal rights become obvious. The framers of the US declaration of independence stated this in their “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Quite apart from rights, this idea of the self-evident is, to me, the most interesting part of the document.

chimera wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 6:50am:

freediver wrote on Sep 21st, 2023 at 1:13pm: You can still see an influence on the geographic distribution of modern political rights going back to the Roman empire and the Americas prior to European contact. Democracy was limited in Greece and Rome. It went nearly extinct for a thousand years and slowly reappeared but is weakening again. Can that be a 'human right' that's 'inalienable' or is the 'right' a pretence?

What do you think inalienable means?

https://twitter.com/Of_Bourke/status/1689131013098930176

👆 This is NOT a right. This is a wrong. God help us 😔😩

Frank wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 6:13pm:

chimera wrote on Sep 21st, 2023 at 5:19pm: Name a human right. When did it become that? What are inherently human characteristics? Not biological components - kidneys, bones, skin - or biochemic elements - proteins, enzymes - as these are all found in their various versions in other creatures. Whether you like it or not, human right have to do with God, the conception of God,  specifically the Judeo - Christian God. It is about what kind of God would create humans like us. In so far as there are any universal rights, these are based of the Christian conception of God and of humanity. You will never hear a Hindu or Muslim or Orthodox Jew or animistic shaman speak about universal human rights and his own religion and philosophy in the same breath. God created man in his own image - and each culture, in turn, creates its god in its own image. The Christian God created man with freedom without distinction, Allah created slaves, Yahweh created a chosen people with laws applicable only to them.

In traditional Greek and Roman thought, only the wealthy and powerful had rights in society. That’s how Nature intended it. But by the end of the fourth century, people like Basil and other Christian intellectuals were arguing that everyone has rights, including, and perhaps especially, the poor. That’s how God intended it.

The claim that all human beings have rights, regardless of birth, status, or creed, didn’t pop out of nowhere during the 18th-century Enlightenment. Its roots are biblical, and it was Christian thinkers from Basil onwards that shaped the Western concept of “human rights”.



https://www.publicchristianity.org/the-genesis-of-human-rights/

Frank wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 6:36pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21st, 2023 at 6:29pm: I think you will find "rights" are human inventions, NOT 'natural/inalienable',  and are instead desires mistaken for "rights". What is the basis of that assertion?

Observation and induction.

The "rights" to eg,  life and liberty are NOT observed in the natural world, though individuals desire life and liberty.

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 8:27pm:

The UN 'rights' become a bit ridiculous in their complexity.

A woolly statement.

1. The UNUDHR speaks of "Universal Rights", and attempts to define them.

2. The UN was created to "save Mankind from the scourge of war", believing a condition of permanent international commerce/cooperation  is achievable, without recourse to war.


Quote:

If a right is an instinctive compulsion, then who naturally says to themselves :

A "right"  is NOT an "instinctive compulsion", though the individual's (unconscious) survival instincts are.


Quote:

'The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures'.

The "will of the people" is a problematic concept; we know all people want to live and to be 'free', but beyond that, peoples' desires diverge.   

Elections infer government by 50% + 1.....meaning the "will" of the 49% is ignored. (Trump was/is  very angry about it...).


Quote:

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality'.?

Note: this statement refers to "everyone" having a 'right' to above-poverty paticiption (or "social security")  in the community, which is different to the "rights" that individuals might conceive of for themselves eg the right to follow the religious scripture  they choose.

But the latter can - and does - lead to conflict.   

[UNUDHR article 18 attempts to delineate the limits of religious freedom by noting the inadmissibility of violence in following a specific creed].


Quote:

wha......

Explained above for you.

Frank wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 9:12pm:

chimera wrote on Sep 21st, 2023 at 8:59pm: 1. The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, with earlier draft. 2. Freediver allows speech, dribble and obfuscation. 3. The Russian demand that the armed forces not be humiliated. 4.  Putin said so. 5.  Have you been drinking again? Sorry, I assumed you were sane. Apologies. Won't happen again.

It’s multi Mong LaughTilICry.

Frank wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 9:34am:

God created man in his own image - and each culture, in turn, creates its god in its own image. The Christian God created man with freedom without distinction, Allah created slaves, Yahweh created a chosen people with laws applicable only to them.

Frank, I already disposed of your 'Rights emanate from Jesus Christ' theory. As graps would say, we can "safely" say Jesus was a man, because we can observe:

1. all men forever have been seeking "god".

2. men have turned mortals into gods at least until Roman times...as Josephus wryly observed; "if indeed he (Christ) was a man" ....



Quote:

In traditional Greek and Roman thought, only the wealthy and powerful had rights in society. That’s how Nature intended it.

An opinion?

(quick google)

A right for Aristotle is essentially a just claim that a person has against other members of the same community, and a natural right is a just claim based in nature

But as I said, nature ensures the survival of life in the aggregate, not the lives of individual creatures - by observation; there are no "individual Rights" in nature's jungle, "rights' (, more correctly, desires) are the creation of men's cortex brains seeking "fairness".    


Quote:

But by the end of the fourth century, people like Basil and other Christian intellectuals were arguing that everyone has rights, including, and perhaps especially, the poor. That’s how God intended it.

An unrealized "intention"? The poor are still dying prematurely....


Quote:

The claim that all human beings have rights, regardless of birth, status, or creed, didn’t pop out of nowhere during the 18th-century Enlightenment. Its roots are biblical, and it was Christian thinkers from Basil onwards that shaped the Western concept of “human rights”.

I think your rejection of the Buddha, Confucius and Aristotle, thinkers who predated Christ, is problematic.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 10:31am:

Observation and induction. The "rights" to eg,  life and liberty are NOT observed in the natural world, though individuals desire life and liberty.

Ahhh, if individuals desire life and liberty, then those desires must be coming from the natural world ... where else would they come from?

"Life" and "Liberty' are the first order of natural rights. Even the UN recognizes inalienable rights ....

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,


https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Bias_2012 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 11:53am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22nd, 2023 at 10:31am: Observation and induction. The "rights" to eg,  life and liberty are NOT observed in the natural world, though individuals desire life and liberty. Ahhh, if individuals desire life and liberty, then those desires must be coming from the natural world ... where else would they come from?

In animals, from the survival instinct; and in humans, from that instinct plus awareness of motivation of self and others (based in the cortex brain). 

In the natural world, those desires** (of individuals) are in competition, and therefore cannot be "Inalienable". 

** or "rights" 


Quote:

"Life" and "Liberty' are the first order of natural rights. Even the UN recognizes inalienable rights .... Preamble Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights[/size]

Addressed in a previous post; the UN is concerned about UNIVERSAL RIGHTS (a human cortex-brain construct).

But as I said, the UN tripped over  the supposed  "freedom/right" of individual (nations)  to make war, versus the necessity for international law to ensure "freedom, justice and peace in the world". 

Hence the demand of the UNSC members for the veto, which crippled the UN's peace-keeping role from the start, voiding the "right" to life and liberty in practice (see Ukraine).

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 11:22am:

Frank wrote on Sep 22nd, 2023 at 9:34am: God created man in his own image - and each culture, in turn, creates its god in its own image. The Christian God created man with freedom without distinction, Allah created slaves, Yahweh created a chosen people with laws applicable only to them. Frank, I already disposed of your 'Rights emanate from Jesus Christ' theory. As graps would say, we can "safely" say Jesus was a man, because we can observe: 1. all men forever have been seeking "god". 2. men have turned mortals into gods at least until Roman times...as Josephus wryly observed; "if indeed he (Christ) was a man" .... Quote: In traditional Greek and Roman thought, only the wealthy and powerful had rights in society. That’s how Nature intended it. An opinion? (quick google) A right for Aristotle is essentially a just claim that a person has against other members of the same community, and a natural right is a just claim based in nature But as I said, nature ensures the survival of life in the aggregate, not the lives of individual creatures - by observation; there are no "individual Rights" in nature's jungle, "rights' (, more correctly, desires) are the creation of men's cortex brains seeking "fairness".     [quote]But by the end of the fourth century, people like Basil and other Christian intellectuals were arguing that everyone has rights, including, and perhaps especially, the poor. That’s how God intended it.

An unrealized "intention"? The poor are still dying prematurely....


Quote:

The claim that all human beings have rights, regardless of birth, status, or creed, didn’t pop out of nowhere during the 18th-century Enlightenment. Its roots are biblical, and it was Christian thinkers from Basil onwards that shaped the Western concept of “human rights”.

I think your rejection of the Buddha, Confucius and Aristotle, thinkers who predated Christ, is problematic.


[/quote]


I think the foggy, manic chaos in your head is problematic. You do not understand even basic concepts, have no sense of history or the development of ideas.


All ancient philosophies and religions posit a universal moral order. But only Christianity posits, in additional, a universal, equal moral worth to each human being.

freediver wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 8:15am:

What do you think inalienable means?

see #17

Frank wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 9:34am:

Basil and other Christian intellectuals were arguing that everyone has rights,

Yes, it takes time (three centuries) and effort to argue the case. So the term 'human rights' is suspect.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 10:57am:

chimera wrote on Sep 21st, 2023 at 8:27pm: The UN 'rights' become a bit ridiculous in their complexity. A "right"  is NOT an "instinctive compulsion", though the individual's (unconscious) survival instincts are.

Me: 'If a right is an instinctive compulsion, then who naturally says to themselves'.
Agreed that it's a false idea, which is why I argue against it. The argument is that complex UN statements can't be a natural human notion. The detail of the the statements is not my point.

chimera wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 7:54pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 22nd, 2023 at 9:34am: Basil and other Christian intellectuals were arguing that everyone has rights, Yes, it takes time (three centuries) and effort to argue the case. So the term 'human rights' is suspect.

YOU raised the point, YOU explain your suspicions.


I told you where it comes from.

Frank wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 2:02pm:

a universal, equal moral worth to each human being.

That's an external interaction. It's not giving an internal projection of self-enterprise that compels behaviour to be accepted.  If gravity stopped, a body wouldn't even have the right to stand on the ground.

chimera wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 8:24pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 22nd, 2023 at 2:02pm: a universal, equal moral worth to each human being. That's an external interaction. It's not giving an internal projection of self-enterprise that compels behaviour to be accepted.  If gravity stopped, a body wouldn't even have the right to stand on the ground.

Try again, this time by trying to make sense. Go on. Hard for you but do try.

A 'human right' contrasts with 'aspiration. value. protection'.
These 'rights' are self-evident, said the Yanks, which makes Basil's need to argue for them seem strange. A long laundry-list of 'rights' in bureaucratic PR talk is also strange. Certainly laws can declare what is a Good Idea (no tax without parliament votes) but a permanent, objective right within a human is gilding the lily. We can't even choose constipation or diahrrea, although freediver tries to stop it.

chimera wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 8:45pm:

A 'human right' contrasts with 'aspiration. value. protection'. These 'rights' are self-evident, said the Yanks, which makes Basil's need to argue for them seem strange. A long laundry-list of 'rights' in bureaucratic PR talk is also strange. Certainly laws can declare what is a Good Idea (no tax without parliament votes) but a permanent, objective right within a human is gilding the lily. We can't even choose constipation or diahrrea, although freediver tries to stop it.

You have chosen, unwisely, diarrhoea.

If democracy was a 'human right', like breathing, then everyone would have it in all past history.

chimera wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 9:05pm:

If democracy was a 'human right', like breathing, then everyone would have it in all past history.

Neither democracy nor breathing are human rights.


Somewhere along life's journey  you must have been given a severe bollocking that you are now grappling with, still. 

What was it?

chimera wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 9:05pm:

If democracy was a 'human right', like breathing, then everyone would have it in all past history.

Neither democracy nor breathing are human rights.


Somewhere along life's journey  you must have been given a severe bollocking that you are now grappling with, still. 

What was it?

chimera wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 7:32pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2023 at 8:15am: What do you think inalienable means? see #17

So that's a no.

You started by posing a question - what is a right. Are you attempting to argue that your ignorance of the answer to that question means rights don't exist?

My bollocking. That's a perceptive insight. There were ancestors who battled in the Reformation with some relatives being hanged in south Scotland in the 1600s on the issue of the principles of the rights in government. There was bollocking also with Vietnam conscription, backed by a bullet fired in front of my feet. 

Frank wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 9:19pm:

Neither democracy nor breathing are human rights.

The body obviously is built to breathe, even asleep, so the right is structured as our mechanism.

A 'right to democracy' is claimed, stated to be inbuilt by Nature.
US Declaration: ' the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, .
.. self-evident, . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, .--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,'

The US self-justification for shooting the Poms was projected onto the world, not as an ideal or working theory but a 'right'.
UN  'Article 21:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections'.

The issue is the attempt to assert a truth in the human condition by misusing a false concept. This makes that truth become untruthful.  Another form of it is misusing the Second Amendment for personal gun rights.  Also, signing the UN charter and acting opposite to it.

freediver wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 9:22pm:

your ignorance of the answer to that question means rights don't exist?

The question is posed to develop the enquiry. Yes there are 'rights' as laws but my answer is that these 'human rights' are not permanent, obvious attributes of people.  The US constitution doesn't even say that freedom of speech exists. It just says they won't limit it, which is a backhand acceptance and toleration. The borders of free speech are argued about and so it is limited in laws, but no-one discusses limiting the power of gravity.

chimera wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2023 at 3:35am:

freediver wrote on Sep 22nd, 2023 at 9:22pm: your ignorance of the answer to that question means rights don't exist? The question is posed to develop the enquiry. Yes there are 'rights' as laws but my answer is that these 'human rights' are not permanent, obvious attributes of people.  The US constitution doesn't even say that freedom of speech exists. It just says they won't limit it, which is a backhand acceptance and toleration. The borders of free speech are argued about and so it is limited in laws, but no-one discusses limiting the power of gravity.

So what you are saying is, freedom of speech is fundamentally different from a gall bladder?

freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 8:49am:

It is an intersubjective reality.

Correct.

And as such it changes over time and space.

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2023 at 7:05am:

, freedom of speech is fundamentally different from a gall bladder?

Freely speaking means healthy vocal chords, similar to a healthy gall bladder. Freedom of speech is a legal situation. The 'human right to freedom of speech' is different from a gall bladder, is Yankee hot air and Trump diahhrea with school shootings..

Frank wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 2:02pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22nd, 2023 at 11:22am: Frank wrote on Sep 22nd, 2023 at 9:34am: God created man in his own image - and each culture, in turn, creates its god in its own image. The Christian God created man with freedom without distinction, Allah created slaves, Yahweh created a chosen people with laws applicable only to them. Frank, I already disposed of your 'Rights emanate from Jesus Christ' theory. As graps would say, we can "safely" say Jesus was a man, because we can observe: 1. all men forever have been seeking "god". 2. men have turned mortals into gods at least until Roman times...as Josephus wryly observed; "if indeed he (Christ) was a man" .... Quote: In traditional Greek and Roman thought, only the wealthy and powerful had rights in society. That’s how Nature intended it. An opinion? (quick google) A right for Aristotle is essentially a just claim that a person has against other members of the same community, and a natural right is a just claim based in nature But as I said, nature ensures the survival of life in the aggregate, not the lives of individual creatures - by observation; there are no "individual Rights" in nature's jungle, "rights' (, more correctly, desires) are the creation of men's cortex brains seeking "fairness".     [quote]But by the end of the fourth century, people like Basil and other Christian intellectuals were arguing that everyone has rights, including, and perhaps especially, the poor. That’s how God intended it. An unrealized "intention"? The poor are still dying prematurely.... [quote]The claim that all human beings have rights, regardless of birth, status, or creed, didn’t pop out of nowhere during the 18th-century Enlightenment. Its roots are biblical, and it was Christian thinkers from Basil onwards that shaped the Western concept of “human rights”.

I think your rejection of the Buddha, Confucius and Aristotle, thinkers who predated Christ, is problematic.
[/quote]


I think the foggy, manic chaos in your head is problematic. You do not understand even basic concepts, have no sense of history or the development of ideas.[/quote]

In a proper debate you would need to  refute the points I made above. eg the quote re Aristotle's conception of "rights"  directly contradicts  your assertion only the wealthy had  "rights" in Greek society.



Quote:

All ancient philosophies and religions posit a universal moral order. But only Christianity posits, in additional, a universal, equal moral worth to each human being.

Maybe, but that is moving away from the idea of "rights".

And obviously if all people have the same "moral worth", (as opposed to 'Rights'),  Christ would be a supporter of the UNUDHR, since all people have the same "moral worth" (according to you).

Meanwhile chimera is on the right track (no pun intended); "rights"   are human constructs - hence the contention in defining "rights".

And I reckon both you and chimera are  supporters of the UNSC veto power which guarantees never ending wars (since very individual/nation has his/its own idea of "rights"), in the name of individual "freedom".

Greeks, including Aristotle and Plato, thought that some people were natural slaves, lacking the higher levels of the soul. 


I don't think anyone ever said that rights are not human concepts. F put is in a nutshell: interpersonal.

It is about human relationship, not physical attributes.

The US over-reach in declaring 'human rights' gave energy to creating the UN as a god in the image of the US Constitution. As they say, 'jaw-jaw not war-war'. Dunno about UN veto - it's a safety valve that keeps the Kremlin and Beijing in the room. The US Founding Fathers want the right to Holy Mother Russia. The right humans as US Secretaries of Defense, State and Commerce are unelected which gets Putin's and Xi's vote, except they veto.

chimera wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2023 at 8:05pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22nd, 2023 at 10:57am: chimera wrote on Sep 21st, 2023 at 8:27pm: The UN 'rights' become a bit ridiculous in their complexity. A "right"  is NOT an "instinctive compulsion", though the individual's (unconscious) survival instincts are. Me: 'If a right is an instinctive compulsion, then who naturally says to themselves'. Agreed that it's a false idea, which is why I argue against it. The argument is that complex UN statements can't be a natural human notion. The detail of the the statements is not my point.

The argument I (incorrectly?) gleaned  from you (re the UNUDHR) was that the 30 delineated rights in that document created "complexity" re 'rights', and therefore can be rejected on that ground.

Now you say the detail of the UNUDHR is not the point.

For my part, I like the UNUDHR because it posits a world of well-being and security for all.

I think we both agree "rights" are contested human constructs, not inalienable, inherent  and natural.

Whereas individuals' desires are very 'natural and inalienable', though perhaps amenable to education.....


   

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2023 at 11:02am:

Greeks, including Aristotle and Plato, thought that some people were natural slaves, lacking the higher levels of the soul.

Now THAT is debate....well done.



Quote:

I don't think anyone ever said that rights are not human concepts.

I think some of the founders (inter alia) of the US Constitution tried to assert that 'rights' (being "natural, inalienable" according to them) exist beyond human conception and hence beyond debate - "rights" even 'emanate' from God.


Quote:

F put is in a nutshell: interpersonal. It is about human relationship, not physical attributes.

Indeed...and relationships based on self-interest of the powerful lead to conflict/alienation/disempowerment for many.   

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2023 at 11:07am:

Now you say the detail of the UNUDHR is not the point. For my part, I like the UNUDHR because it posits a world of well-being and security for all.

It would be better expressed as:" 'the merits' is not the point".
A 'human right' if such existed would be simple and brief. A long definition makes it unlikely, and resembles a joke that needs to be explained. It doesn't work.

The ideals are useful for sure. If many governments ignore them, they are really pie-in-sky from Uncle Sam.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2023 at 11:18am:

Quote: I don't think anyone ever said that rights are not human concepts. I think some of the founders (inter alia) of the US Constitution tried to assert that 'rights' (being "natural, inalienable" according to them) exist beyond human conception and hence beyond debate - "rights" even 'emanate' from God.

I don't think you understand the concept 'natural right'. It does not mean 'beyond human conception', that would be paradoxical, even meaningless.
It certainly doesn't mean 'beyond debate'.   It means characteristically human, and only human (Apes or dogs have to rightful claims on each other) .

So the question, the nub, is 'what IS human nature'? That is at the root of any debate on human rights. Those who believed in the creator God obviously identified human nature as being god-created and therefore human rights, inherent in humans, as god-given.
But today even atheists believe in human rights even if they reject God, creation, createdness, even human nature. Why? Because human rights are about ( human ) relationships. Some people now attribute to animals in their relationship to humans (although still not among animals themselves).

chimera wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2023 at 7:33am:

freediver wrote on Sep 23rd, 2023 at 7:05am: , freedom of speech is fundamentally different from a gall bladder? Freely speaking means healthy vocal chords, similar to a healthy gall bladder. Freedom of speech is a legal situation. The 'human right to freedom of speech' is different from a gall bladder, is Yankee hot air and Trump diahhrea with school shootings..

Is that what it says in your CCP guide to talking to foreigners?

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2023 at 11:34am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 23rd, 2023 at 11:18am: Quote: I don't think anyone ever said that rights are not human concepts. I think some of the founders (inter alia) of the US Constitution tried to assert that 'rights' (being "natural, inalienable" according to them) exist beyond human conception and hence beyond debate - "rights" even 'emanate' from God. I don't think you understand the concept 'natural right'. It does not mean 'beyond human conception', that would be paradoxical, even meaningless.

I was struggling with that idea as I examined the classical Liberal concept  of "natural/inalienable, and God-given" 'Rights'; surely such "rights"  - if they existed - are beyond debate?


Quote:

It certainly doesn't mean 'beyond debate'.   It means characteristically human, and only human (Apes or dogs have to rightful claims on each other) .

Now we are back to the debate re the difference between humans who possess a highly developed cortex brain, in contrast with other creatures. 

So far you have couched your argument in what "Rights" are not, let's see if you can say what "Rights"  are, beyond being "human".  


Quote:

So the question, the nub, is 'what IS human nature'? That is at the root of any debate on human rights.

We have debated this before. Your "Man created in the image of God" argument is flawed, because men have their own self-interested desires.


Quote:

Those who believed in the creator God obviously identified human nature as being god-created and therefore human rights, inherent in humans, as god-given.

Yes. But they failed to account for the consequences of individuals' self interest in human affairs.



Quote:

But today even atheists believe in human rights even if they reject God, creation, createdness, even human nature.

I'm not an athiest, but I believe "rights" are delusional, an attempt to elevate 'rights' above individuals' desires.



Quote:

Why? Because human rights are about ( human ) relationships. Some people now attribute to animals in their relationship to humans (although still not among animals themselves).

Your meaning is unclear; you cannot deny humans have conflicting desires;  and you haven't defined the "rights" ("natural and inalienable/God-given" 'rights') you are talking about.   

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2023 at 11:34am:

human nature as being god-created and therefore human rights, inherent in humans, as god-given.

That's being circular. It needs an example of a godly constitution for a parliament. Maybe Zeus and the boys on Mount Olympus? But Daddy Zeus had divine right, not a popular plebiscite and has revival movements today which suggests that total power has totally corrupted Senator Zeus.

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2023 at 11:42am:

chimera wrote on Sep 23rd, 2023 at 7:33am: freediver wrote on Sep 23rd, 2023 at 7:05am: , freedom of speech is fundamentally different from a gall bladder? Freely speaking means healthy vocal chords, similar to a healthy gall bladder. Freedom of speech is a legal situation. The 'human right to freedom of speech' is different from a gall bladder, is Yankee hot air and Trump diahhrea with school shootings.. Is that what it says in your CCP guide to talking to foreigners?

Funny.... you are replying to chimera who believes in individual "freedom". 

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2023 at 11:42am:

Is that what it says in your CCP guide to talking to foreigners?

Yes, our American visitors are shown the human rights we discovered in the Qin Shi Huang royal tombs. They are ceramic and made by Madison, Adams and Amendment in the shape of gall bladders.

Are you trying to tell us that you have discovered why you cannot read about human rights in your biology textbook?

You have the right to operate a vehicle - your push-bike - at night without lights in a 110 kph zone by blocking both lanes..... I don't recommend it though.

Just keep stretching those 'rights' claims, boys and girls.... like any rubber band it will eventually either break or sling back and sting you.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2023 at 12:10pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 23rd, 2023 at 11:42am: chimera wrote on Sep 23rd, 2023 at 7:33am: freediver wrote on Sep 23rd, 2023 at 7:05am: , freedom of speech is fundamentally different from a gall bladder? Freely speaking means healthy vocal chords, similar to a healthy gall bladder. Freedom of speech is a legal situation. The 'human right to freedom of speech' is different from a gall bladder, is Yankee hot air and Trump diahhrea with school shootings.. Is that what it says in your CCP guide to talking to foreigners? Funny.... you are replying to chimera who believes in individual "freedom".

Personal Sovereignty is next to godliness....  now try, Grasshopper, to understand personal sovereignty - someone posted an article on exactly that in the past week.... any Cheer can choose to leave a bad background...... better him or her self..... or choose to remain mired in the 400th century BC .... (Before Civilisation - people say that our approach to civilisation and Law is based on a Judaeo-Christian approach to society and jurisprudence..... that is an aspect shared by Buddhism, Islam in certain manifestations, and all other civilised religions - ergo - it is more likely that religion is based on the concepts of civilisation.... cart and horse....)

Where ARE the boys who look after the sheep??  Out hunting down the roots of Heaven or something?  Who guards those guards while those guards fail to guard you?  Why - their massive super funds and salaries etc along with their connections with the 'better classes' - why would they want to awaken to the real world of the Great Unwashed and be forced to rub shoulders with the soiled classes!!!

Where is Task force 54 ... all the world wondered...... but not to worry boys, we're suckering them into 40mm range....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 24^th, 2023 at 8:59am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 23rd, 2023 at 12:10pm: freediver wrote on Sep 23rd, 2023 at 11:42am: chimera wrote on Sep 23rd, 2023 at 7:33am: freediver wrote on Sep 23rd, 2023 at 7:05am: , freedom of speech is fundamentally different from a gall bladder? Freely speaking means healthy vocal chords, similar to a healthy gall bladder. Freedom of speech is a legal situation. The 'human right to freedom of speech' is different from a gall bladder, is Yankee hot air and Trump diahhrea with school shootings.. Is that what it says in your CCP guide to talking to foreigners? Funny.... you are replying to chimera who believes in individual "freedom".  Personal Sovereignty is next to godliness....

Funny; once upon a time, government via the 'Divine Right of Kings'/'Mandate of Heaven' (hopefully a benevolent authority...)  was next to 'godliness', but an extreme reaction against this concept resulted in the madness of rule by the self-interested individual, or rather rule by 50%+1 of the most powerful self-interested individuals. 


Quote:

now try, Grasshopper, to understand personal sovereignty -

I just did, and explained it above.


Quote:

someone posted an article on exactly that in the past week.... any Cheer can choose to leave a bad background...... better him or her self..... or choose to remain mired in the 400th century BC ....

Self-interest and personal responsbility should co-exist; but you are confusing both with "choice"; Germans "chose" Hitler as leader because of the dire economic circumstances in Germany at the time.

Likewise,  blacks living in alcoholic and social dysfunction, and poverty, can't "choose" to "leave a bad background" because they don't have the necessary information and assistance to be able to do so, unlike people like Pearson and Thorpe and Price who did have access to those things.   


Quote:

Before Civilisation - people say that our approach to civilisation and Law is based on a Judaeo-Christian approach to society and jurisprudence..... that is an aspect shared by Buddhism, Islam in certain manifestations, and all other civilised religions - ergo - it is more likely that religion is based on the concepts of civilisation.... cart and horse....)

You are placing the cart before the horse: 'religion' existed among stone age cultures  before civilisation - and ofcourse before "civilized religion"(... if the OT's authorization of genocide by the bronze age Hebrew "god" is at all civilized...) 


Quote:

Where ARE the boys who look after the sheep??

Out there trying to earn a living, to support themselves and their families as best they can.  


Quote:

Out hunting down the roots of Heaven or something?

No, though 'god' has always demanded to be worshipped....


Quote:

Who guards those guards while those guards fail to guard you?

Ultimately, rule of law which has universal well-being and justice as its goal.  But many of the guards are corrupt.


Quote:

Why - their massive super funds and salaries etc along with their connections with the 'better classes' - why would they want to awaken to the real world of the Great Unwashed and be forced to rub shoulders with the soiled classes!!!

Good point; self-interest often destroys integrity.


Quote:

Where is Task force 54 ... all the world wondered...... but not to worry boys, we're suckering them into 40mm range....

Why bother with well-being and security for all, when you can call in the army...?

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2023 at 7:15am:

Are you trying to tell us that you have discovered why you cannot read about human rights in your biology textbook?

Yes, I was mistaken. It should have been in Anthropology and Confucius. Egyptian Archaeology and Book of the Dead were also in the running. Celts are useless with no writing and they used to strangle their kings which is a dead end.

chimera wrote on Sep 24^th, 2023 at 6:15pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 24th, 2023 at 7:15am: Are you trying to tell us that you have discovered why you cannot read about human rights in your biology textbook? Yes, I was mistaken. It should have been in Anthropology and Confucius. Egyptian Archaeology and Book of the Dead were also in the running. Celts are useless with no writing and they used to strangle their kings which is a dead end.

Is that it?

I ask, because you asked the question, ignored the answers, and proceeded to make a big deal of you lack of knowledge or understanding, and this "great insight" you have come to.

You like Englishy, you speaky? A couple of posters (their names I won't tell you) and I agree about the nature of the concept. It's hidden among the Anglo words which seem foreign to a fisherman like you.  You say you dive below the surface? I don't believe it.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 24^th, 2023 at 12:13pm:

Self-interest and personal responsbility should co-exist; but you are confusing both with "choice"; Germans "chose" Hitler as leader because of the dire economic circumstances in Germany at the time. Likewise,  blacks living in alcoholic and social dysfunction, and poverty, can't "choose" to "leave a bad background" because they don't have the necessary information and assistance to be able to do so, unlike people like Pearson and Thorpe and Price who did have access to those things.

Did they chose alcoholic dysfunction?

Or did they parents chose it for them? Who chose their parent's choices?  Where does responsibility BEGIN?

Why should Aborigines or ANY dysfunctional alcoholic addict be treated as if he was fully functional? Why not treat them as totally irresponsible, unreliable people and take their kids away, but them in rehab, make them dry out and clean up. They are not equal, obviously.

Oh, it's culturally inappropriate!

Frank wrote on Sep 24^th, 2023 at 7:17pm:

TGD:Likewise,  blacks living in alcoholic and social dysfunction, and poverty, can't "choose" to "leave a bad background" because they don't have the necessary information and assistance to be able to do so, unlike people like Pearson and Thorpe and Price who did have access to those things.    Did they chose alcoholic dysfunction?

No-one "chooses" to experience alcoholic dysfunction, and nor do babies "choose" to be born with FAS (Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.)


Quote:

Or did they parents chose it for them? Who chose their parent's choices?  Where does responsibility BEGIN?

Responsibility lays with external systemic dysfunction as well as the individual ; the nation must prevent FAS by ensuring no woman (or man) succumbs to community-wide alcohol addiction.


Quote:

Why should Aborigines or ANY dysfunctional alcoholic addict be treated as if he was fully functional?

He shouldn't and isn't; he should  be treated as requiring health-restoring intervention.  (AA is for people who recognise they have a problem).   


Quote:

Why not treat them as totally irresponsible, unreliable people and take their kids away, but them in rehab, make them dry out and clean up. They are not equal, obviously.

Well - in extremis - some families might require that level of intervention.......but not based on "treating them as totally irresponsible", but based on  recognizing the addiction sickness which must be treated.


Quote:

Oh, it's culturally inappropriate!

That's a cheap shot; I already noted the misplaced concerns re "human rights"  which some point to, which hinders the necessary intervention. 

But here's the thing: unless people can see a clear pathway to employment, alcohol addiction is doubly difficult to shake off, because the individual can't see a future for himself.

This why the previous CDEP scheme was able to reduce crime and alcohol abuse in communities.

"The Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) program was established in 1977 to replace the unemployment benefits for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders living in remote areas. It aimed to provide work and on-the-job training, and to develop the culture and economies of Indigenous communities.

But free market ideologues argued against the development of the scheme, because it wasn't necessarily promoting employment in the private sector job market, hence the Thatcherite neoliberal goon John Howard wound down the scheme  c.2004.

Interestingly, today, Chalmers has recognised the importance of rebuilding TAFE, which has been run-down under Thatcherite "small government" ideology, in order to deal with the massive wastage of under-employment in Oz (3 million people mentioned today).

Perhaps he might be interested in re-institution of the CDEP in remote communities, to deal with massive black un/underemployment.


...in order to close the gap..... 

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 25^th, 2023 at 5:52pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 24th, 2023 at 7:17pm: TGD:Likewise,  blacks living in alcoholic and social dysfunction, and poverty, can't "choose" to "leave a bad background" because they don't have the necessary information and assistance to be able to do so, unlike people like Pearson and Thorpe and Price who did have access to those things.    Did they chose alcoholic dysfunction? No-one "chooses" to experience alcoholic dysfunction, and nor do babies "choose" to be born with FAS (Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.)

So who MAKES them go to the bottle shop against their will, buy the booze against their will and drink it all by midday, against their will?


Is there ANYTHING an Aboriginal person has personal agency in? Is there ANYTHING you can be responsible for while black?

Is Langton responsible for her idiocy about anyone thinking differently to her on the Voice is a stupid racist?


Did YOU make her say such a stupid thing?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 24^th, 2023 at 8:50am:

You have the right to operate a vehicle - your push-bike - at night without lights .

The bike and you will not be inalienable. The right won't be permanent. Possibly remaining human will be void.  The bike will cease its revolutions. The ambos will make declarations.

LTYC?

By definition: a right is a moral or legal entitlement.

👆 Has this been posted yet?

I think Chimera is still trying to convince everyone that it is not part of the human anatomy.

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 9:27am:

By definition: a right is a moral or legal entitlement. 👆 Has this been posted yet?

Yes and I agree with you.

freediver wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 9:36am:

I think Chimera is still trying to convince everyone that it is not part of the human anatomy.

Correct.  Also, that adjectives in US are overdone as with many Yank things.

chimera wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 10:09am:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2023 at 9:36am: I think Chimera is still trying to convince everyone that it is not part of the human anatomy. Correct.  Also, that adjectives in US are overdone as with many Yank things.

You are a clever boy.

Is that right? Do you have anything that's inalienable?

Yes.

Frank wrote on Sep 25^th, 2023 at 7:18pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 25th, 2023 at 5:52pm: Frank wrote on Sep 24th, 2023 at 7:17pm: TGD:Likewise,  blacks living in alcoholic and social dysfunction, and poverty, can't "choose" to "leave a bad background" because they don't have the necessary information and assistance to be able to do so, unlike people like Pearson and Thorpe and Price who did have access to those things.    Did they chose alcoholic dysfunction? No-one "chooses" to experience alcoholic dysfunction, and nor do babies "choose" to be born with FAS (Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.) So who MAKES them go to the bottle shop against their will, buy the booze against their will and drink it all by midday, against their will?

"The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak".

So the question is what causes community-wide addiction, of the type we see in black communites, and what can be done about it. 


Quote:

Is there ANYTHING an Aboriginal person has personal agency in? Is there ANYTHING you can be responsible for while black?

Not during an epidemic of community-wide addiction. 


Quote:

Is Langton responsible for her idiocy about anyone thinking differently to her on the Voice is a stupid racist?

Yes....but your thoughts on personal responsibility are also idiotic, unhinged from reality.


Quote:

Did YOU make her say such a stupid thing

No.

freediver wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 10:29am:

Yes.

Oh, how you do surprise me. Pray tell.
Is it testicles, frontal brain lobe, democratic voting, your beloved fishing back in China, logical analysis or some other permanent human attribute inherited from your dim past?

The sad and sorry state of "human rights" in a world in which war is 'legal' and poverty is endemic.

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc53-key-issues-on-agenda-of-june-2023-session-of-the-human-rights-council/

Key issues on agenda of June 2023 session of the Human Rights Council
The 53rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, from 19 June to 14 July 2023, will consider issues including sexual orientation and gender identity, violence and discrimination against women and girls, poverty, peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of expression, among others. It will also present an opportunity to address grave human rights situations including in Afghanistan, Belarus, China, Eritrea, Israel and oPt, Russia, Sudan, Syria and Venezuela, among many others. Here’s an overview of some of the key issues on the agenda.

Interestingly, a Chinese rep recently visiting a human rights conference in Geneva remarked on the 'rundown infrastructure' in European cities (a bit like Trump seeing Washington as a graffiti-covered slum "full of run-down buildings", during his arraignment for trial...all the result of 'Bidenomics').

The West's mantra about "Human Rights" in the face of chronic homelessness and deteriorating public infrastructure at home, is hypocrisy at its worst.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 11:05am:

The sad and sorry state of "human rights" in a world in which war is 'legal' and poverty is endemic. https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc53-key-issues-on-agenda-of-june-2023-session-of-the-human-rights-council/ Key issues on agenda of June 2023 session of the Human Rights Council The 53rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, from 19 June to 14 July 2023, will consider issues including sexual orientation and gender identity, violence and discrimination against women and girls, poverty, peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of expression, among others. It will also present an opportunity to address grave human rights situations including in Afghanistan, Belarus, China, Eritrea, Israel and oPt, Russia, Sudan, Syria and Venezuela, among many others. Here’s an overview of some of the key issues on the agenda. Interestingly, a Chinese rep recently visiting a human rights conference in Geneva remarked on the 'rundown infrastructure' in European cities (a bit like Trump seeing Washington as a graffiti-covered slum "full of run-down buildings", during his arraignment for trial...all the result of 'Bidenomics'). The West's mantra about "Human Rights" in the face of chronic homelessness and deteriorating public infrastructure at home, is hypocrisy at its worst.

👆 A multi MasterBaiter at “work”.

As such ... IT can be safely ignored.

chimera wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 11:00am:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2023 at 10:29am: Yes. Oh, how you do surprise me. Pray tell. Is it testicles, frontal brain lobe, democratic voting, your beloved fishing back in China, logical analysis or some other permanent human attribute inherited from your dim past?

Which of those do you think is inalienable?

None.
0
zero
Not China.

Do you think it is possible for me to sell myself into slavery?

Now that is a really sensible suggestion. EBay have excellent graphics with Qantas flight to Beijing tomorrow.

chimera wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 3:23pm:

Now that is a really sensible suggestion. EBay have excellent graphics with Qantas flight to Beijing tomorrow.

I expect even China does not allow slavery.

Dear Freediver,
The CCP at its special September Slavery Conference has decided that you are the right human to be a permanent slave, never alienated and inherent by nature. Please report to Mascot Baggage Handlers at 4.30 am with your bottle of Dettol for the flight.
Your Emperor, Right?
Mr Xi.

Why do you always resort to mindless gibberish instead of thinking about what you post?

If China decides to enslave people, who will prevent it? You, Albanese, Athos? Not Biden, his ships are rusty.

chimera wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 4:09pm:

If China decides to enslave people, who will prevent it? You, Albanese, Athos? Not Biden, his ships are rusty.

The men in white coats.

freediver wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 4:22pm:

The men in white coats.

?

chimera wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 4:39pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2023 at 4:22pm: The men in white coats. ?

They are out to get you.

chimera wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 7:43am:

Can you point to a 'right'? The sun has no right, it can be destroyed by another star and is in the process of decaying, exploding and ceasing to exist. Humans disagree with murder, in their opinion, but the opinion doesn't create an object or force. Gravity can always be demonstrated to be acting and it's right that it pulls objects (until Earth terminates). There is no action of anything that creates any rights for humans to do any particular actions.  There is no right to express this post or to read it.

Your rights come from Stalin -

only if he says it's right.

freediver wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 5:14pm:

They are out to get you.

So you really don't get the idea of the topic. Nor can you hold on to your opinion. It's worse than it first appeared.

freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2023 at 7:59am:

If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?

What doesn't exist?

We have established "inalienable, natural  rights" don't exist.

Try again.

Two of the UN Security Council 5 are blocking free speech.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/putins-quest-to-disconnect-russia-from-the-global-internet/

They are permanent members but speech isn't.

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 1:59pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26th, 2023 at 11:05am: The sad and sorry state of "human rights" in a world in which war is 'legal' and poverty is endemic. https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc53-key-issues-on-agenda-of-june-2023-session-of-the-human-rights-council/ Key issues on agenda of June 2023 session of the Human Rights Council The 53rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, from 19 June to 14 July 2023, will consider issues including sexual orientation and gender identity, violence and discrimination against women and girls, poverty, peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of expression, among others. It will also present an opportunity to address grave human rights situations including in Afghanistan, Belarus, China, Eritrea, Israel and oPt, Russia, Sudan, Syria and Venezuela, among many others. Here’s an overview of some of the key issues on the agenda. Interestingly, a Chinese rep recently visiting a human rights conference in Geneva remarked on the 'rundown infrastructure' in European cities (a bit like Trump seeing Washington as a graffiti-covered slum "full of run-down buildings", during his arraignment for trial...all the result of 'Bidenomics'). The West's mantra about "Human Rights" in the face of chronic homelessness and deteriorating public infrastructure at home, is hypocrisy at its worst. 👆 A multi MasterBaiter at “work”. As such ... IT can be safely ignored.

Poor Lisa - blind and dumb, unable to actually address the obvious confusion about "rights", even shown  at the level of the UN. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 7:24pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 26th, 2023 at 1:59pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26th, 2023 at 11:05am: The sad and sorry state of "human rights" in a world in which war is 'legal' and poverty is endemic. https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc53-key-issues-on-agenda-of-june-2023-session-of-the-human-rights-council/ Key issues on agenda of June 2023 session of the Human Rights Council The 53rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, from 19 June to 14 July 2023, will consider issues including sexual orientation and gender identity, violence and discrimination against women and girls, poverty, peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of expression, among others. It will also present an opportunity to address grave human rights situations including in Afghanistan, Belarus, China, Eritrea, Israel and oPt, Russia, Sudan, Syria and Venezuela, among many others. Here’s an overview of some of the key issues on the agenda. Interestingly, a Chinese rep recently visiting a human rights conference in Geneva remarked on the 'rundown infrastructure' in European cities (a bit like Trump seeing Washington as a graffiti-covered slum "full of run-down buildings", during his arraignment for trial...all the result of 'Bidenomics'). The West's mantra about "Human Rights" in the face of chronic homelessness and deteriorating public infrastructure at home, is hypocrisy at its worst. 👆 A multi MasterBaiter at “work”. As such ... IT can be safely ignored. Poor Lisa - blind and dumb, unable to actually address the obvious confusion about "rights", even shown  at the level of the UN.

1. I’m not poor.

2. Don’t take it personally but I just don’t want to talk to you because you’re conceited. Plus you’re a multi troll. And a fraud. Oh and I don’t like you. Under any of your ids.

chimera wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 7:22pm:

Two of the UN Security Council 5 are blocking free speech. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/putins-quest-to-disconnect-russia-from-the-global-internet/ They are permanent members but speech isn't.

Blocking the confused "rights" ideology  emanating from the West's "freedom values" delusion, even when the homeless are clogging city streets in New York and London and Sydney, et al.

We all instinctively want "freedom" ...but above all our OWN freedom - informed by our own beliefs, gender, age, capabilities etc.

BUT....."All must submit to rule of law, for all to be free". Cicero.

You can't understand it, of course, hence the current chaos in the world.

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 7:32pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26th, 2023 at 7:24pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 26th, 2023 at 1:59pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26th, 2023 at 11:05am: The sad and sorry state of "human rights" in a world in which war is 'legal' and poverty is endemic. https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc53-key-issues-on-agenda-of-june-2023-session-of-the-human-rights-council/ Key issues on agenda of June 2023 session of the Human Rights Council The 53rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, from 19 June to 14 July 2023, will consider issues including sexual orientation and gender identity, violence and discrimination against women and girls, poverty, peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of expression, among others. It will also present an opportunity to address grave human rights situations including in Afghanistan, Belarus, China, Eritrea, Israel and oPt, Russia, Sudan, Syria and Venezuela, among many others. Here’s an overview of some of the key issues on the agenda. Interestingly, a Chinese rep recently visiting a human rights conference in Geneva remarked on the 'rundown infrastructure' in European cities (a bit like Trump seeing Washington as a graffiti-covered slum "full of run-down buildings", during his arraignment for trial...all the result of 'Bidenomics'). The West's mantra about "Human Rights" in the face of chronic homelessness and deteriorating public infrastructure at home, is hypocrisy at its worst. 👆 A multi MasterBaiter at “work”. As such ... IT can be safely ignored. Poor Lisa - blind and dumb, unable to actually address the obvious confusion about "rights", even shown  at the level of the UN.  1. I’m not poor.

 

"Poor" ie pitiful, for being blind AND dumb. 


Quote:

2. Don’t take it personally but I just don’t want to talk to you because you’re conceited. Plus you’re a multi troll. And a fraud. Oh and I don’t like you. Under any of your ids.

Refusal to address pressing problems - like confusion re "rights in the article -  is a chief characteristic of "deplorable" blind conservatives.

Confirmed by your retreat to insane conspiracy theories (in this case,  re IDs) as your defence.

'Blocking the confused "rights" ideology  emanating from the West's "freedom values" delusion'.

That's getting back to the merits of a right, which is off the theme of inalienable, permanent protections of humans. A right to a home is not enforceable, people don't leave school and sit on the footpath until a home appears there.  They don't wait outside the king's fortified stronghold so he can construct a parliament for them.  But a tyrant can easily bomb homes and parliament into rubble.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 7:19pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 21st, 2023 at 7:59am: If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right? What doesn't exist? We have established "inalienable, natural  rights" don't exist. Try again.

Do you mean the ones that are part of your anatomy?

Are you going to be a slave or not? When will you fly out?
Tell your master you have a right to your kidneys and he'll grin and tell you something about the spare parts industry. Tell him you permanently argue and rave on and it's your right and he can't stop you and you're a Chinese stooge and he is too and why is pointing a knife into your mouth...

chimera wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 7:54pm:

'Blocking the confused "rights" ideology  emanating from the West's "freedom values" delusion'. That's getting back to the merits of a right, which is off the theme of inalienable, permanent protections of humans.

1. We both agree inalieable natural rights don't exist, though many think they do. Hence the confusion even at the level of the UN.

2. The UNUDHR certainly addresses well-being and security for ALL humans, in a world "free from the scourge of war".   Meritorious rights?


Quote:

A right to a home is not enforceable, people don't leave school and sit on the footpath until a home appears there.

Many people are reduced to building their own substanded housing - or living in tents - even in the world's cities; a consequence of the failure of governments following mainstream neoclassical orthodoxy.

Once again, regardless of "rights", it's obviously desirable that the entire population is decently housed.    


Quote:

They don't wait outside the king's fortified stronghold so he can construct a parliament for them.  But a tyrant can easily bomb homes and parliament into rubble.

Looking back at history; and Charles isn't responsible for the homelessness in the UK today.

As for "tyrants": Putin is rendered insane by tribalist "national sovereignty" ideology, even though Russia is already the biggest country in the world by far.  He could have invited all Russians living in Ukraine back to Russia, and avoided what will be a catastrophe for both countries. 

As for Taiwan;   Chinese people live there, they want to secede from China, on the basis of the "freedom values" delusion.  Provided the US - currently the 'global policeman(!) - doesn't declare Taiwan independent, Xi can leave the separatist Taiwanese clowns alone for the time being, without bombing them.

freediver wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 8:10pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26th, 2023 at 7:19pm: freediver wrote on Sep 21st, 2023 at 7:59am: If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right? What doesn't exist? We have established "inalienable, natural  rights" don't exist. Try again. Do you mean the ones that are part of your anatomy?

No.  ...whatever those "ones" are, you prize fraud.

chimera wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 8:20pm:

Tell your master you have a right to your kidneys

...which many people voluntarily give up...

Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
'The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, widely considered as the central instrument for the protection of the right to adequate housing, refers to the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing'.

People always had that, permanently, and King Charles found dozens of poms guzzling his soup and roast beef then camping on his four-poster bed with family, washer-women and carpenters.  He got told off if the meals were a bit stingy.

chimera wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 8:50pm:

Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 'The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, widely considered as the central instrument for the protection of the right to adequate housing, refers to the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing'. People always had that, permanently,

Nonsense of course, though the framers of the UNUDHR certainly thought it both desirable AND achievable.



Quote:

and King Charles found dozens of poms guzzling his soup and roast beef then camping on his four-poster bed with family, washer-women and carpenters.  He got told off if the meals were a bit stingy.

Not one of your more successful comedy routines....

So the nonsense shows the right to housing is not a permanent human attribute.

The following sentences are dead serious with no sarcasm.

Rome is claimed to be the 'eternal city'. Aeneid, an epic by Virgil, the poet describes ancient Rome this way: “Imeprium sine fine,” which translates in English as “an empire without end.”
Hitler’s “thousand-year Reich” would serve as the natural conclusion of a process that he traced back to the coronation of Charlemagne in 800.
The UN says that free and secret elections are permanent and inalienable within humans. Ancient Rome stopped elections halfway through its history. Hitler stoppd elections when he began. Neither empire was permanent and inalienable.

Quote:

So the nonsense shows the right to housing is not a permanent human attribute.

Another brilliant insight. We are not turtles.

freediver wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 8:30am:

We are not turtles.

Turtles are free divers.
The Frankfurt Parliament was the first freely elected parliament for all German states elected on 1 May 1848.
Germans began talking about voting around 6,500BC and knew it wasn't yet permanent.  It had to grow inside them.

freediver wrote on Sep 26^th, 2023 at 3:09pm:

Do you think it is possible for me to sell myself into slavery?

eBay Category. Slavery.
Very nice Australian boy, clean, virgin. Talks too much but going cheap. Has been trained to swim, dive and be a turtle.
$ 23 , be early he won't last long at this price. Bitcoin accepted.

Well we know Chimera (LTYC) is Gay.
He can't give a 'straight' answer.

chimera wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 6:03am:

So the nonsense shows the right to housing is not a permanent human attribute.

Housing is desirable, and desired by all; hence we (somewhat confusedly) say it is a right

But nature (floods, earthquakes)  and men often deny people access to housing.


Quote:

The following sentences are dead serious with no sarcasm. Rome is claimed to be the 'eternal city'. Aeneid, an epic by Virgil, the poet describes ancient Rome this way: “Imeprium sine fine,” which translates in English as “an empire without end.” Hitler’s “thousand-year Reich” would serve as the natural conclusion of a process that he traced back to the coronation of Charlemagne in 800.

Ok (except I thought Hitler thought he would be the founder of a 1000 year Reich).


Quote:

The UN says that free and secret elections are permanent and inalienable within humans.

Yes, continuing the confusion over the concept of "rights".

While everyone desires housing, not everyone desires blind-leading-the-blind "free elections". Many were horrified by the US Capitol riots.

freediver wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 8:30am:

Quote: So the nonsense shows the right to housing is not a permanent human attribute. Another brilliant insight. We are not turtles.

1. Most creatures including humans need 'homes'; therefore humans confusedly say we have a 'right' to housing (because the need for housing is permanent.

2. Re the silly discussion re anatomy parts, harvesting of organs for the benefit of some people, to the detriment of others,  is evil; though a person may donate a kidney for a loved one.  Meanwhile much 'voluntary' organ donation is caused by the poverty of the giver seeking monetary gain.   

Quote:

therefore humans confusedly say we have a 'right' to housing

When was the last time someone told you that?

freediver wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 12:14pm:

Quote: therefore humans confusedly say we have a 'right' to housing When was the last time someone told you that?

This lot - but our Keffir have brought them into disrepute with their voice...

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/human-right-adequate-housing

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 12:25pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2023 at 12:14pm: Quote: therefore humans confusedly say we have a 'right' to housing When was the last time someone told you that? This lot - but our Keffir have brought them into disrepute with their voice... https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/human-right-adequate-housing

"Housing is a right, not a commodity"...according to the nice people at the UN.

Thanks, graps; you answered fraudiver for me.

Jasin wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 10:30am:

Well we know Chimera (LTYC) is Gay. He can't give a 'straight' answer.

You have eye-problems, JaSin, double vision is it? Skull injury from boxing?
Yes, it is possible for freediver to be sold. He was bought by Mr Sadist Lashim of Saudi Arabia.
Permanently.
Inalienably.
Right?

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 12:45pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 27th, 2023 at 12:25pm: freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2023 at 12:14pm: Quote: therefore humans confusedly say we have a 'right' to housing When was the last time someone told you that? This lot - but our Keffir have brought them into disrepute with their voice... https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/human-right-adequate-housing "Housing is a right, not a commodity"...according to the nice people at the UN. Thanks, graps; you answered fraudiver for me.

The UN is not a person. It represents a lot of countries that are outright hostile to human rights. Like China.

'In June, 1945, the Chinese delegation, which included Dong Biwu, representative of the Communist Party of China, signed the Charter of the United Nations.'
With Russia on the Security Council 5, the flowery words were not self-evident to the main UN members.  Then where on Earth are these inherent rights to be found? They have to be internal from creation, but who had them?

Quote:

Then where on Earth are these inherent rights to be found? They have to be internal from creation, but who had them?

;D

So you still think they are part of the human anatomy?

The Yanks said they are inherent and so internal. They are inalienable and so permanent. 
(All of those are English words but can be translated to FD talk).

Quote:

The Yanks said they are inherent and so internal.

;D

Have you checked your small intestine? Is that where all this is coming from?

As the world's only truly universal global organization, the United Nations has become the foremost forum to address issues that transcend national boundaries and turtles.

People freedive recreationally to improve their mental health.

chimera wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 2:36pm:

As the world's only truly universal global organization, the United Nations has become the foremost forum to address issues that transcend national boundaries and turtles. People freedive recreationally to improve their mental health.

Just because you are discussing human rights with a bunch of foreign dictators does not imply any kind of collective understanding of human rights.

You are remarkably persistent at at revelling in complete ignorance of human rights. You have grudgingly gone from using your own ignorance as evidence that rights do not exist, to the absence of an anatomical feature that you can link to human rights, to the failure of dictators and sycophants to simplify the issue enough for you to understand it.

Why did you pose it as a question if all you want to do is run away from the answers?

Sadly, you are unable to comprehend the topic. Repeating the same explanation is not working.  I think just going along to your slave-owner would be the best thing, don't you? 

There is merit in discussing economics with both communists and economists, but you should not get the two confused.

You seem confused, again.
Also, a legal right is different from describing the nature of rights as inherent and inalienable.

chimera wrote on Sep 28^th, 2023 at 8:52am:

You seem confused, again. Also, a legal right is different from describing the nature of rights as inherent and inalienable.

Yes chimera. One is a right, the other is a description. Would you like to make a point?

Yes, I did, several times.

freediver wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 2:08pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 27th, 2023 at 12:45pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 27th, 2023 at 12:25pm: freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2023 at 12:14pm: Quote: therefore humans confusedly say we have a 'right' to housing When was the last time someone told you that? This lot - but our Keffir have brought them into disrepute with their voice... https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/human-right-adequate-housing "Housing is a right, not a commodity"...according to the nice people at the UN. Thanks, graps; you answered fraudiver for me. The UN is not a person. It represents a lot of countries that are outright hostile to human rights. Like China.

1. Indeed the UN is not "a person": nevertheles,  the UN was created to "save mankind from the scourge of war".

Hence a significant  issue confronted at the UN is ..... ...what are 'rights'.

Question: Is making war "inherent" in human nature?
ie,  is waging war a "right", even in the age of MAD? 

2. A China confident in its own development model is promoting the concept of sustainable development for all UN member states, and is winning friends at the UN. The days of US hegemony are coming to an end, as developing countries see that China (the world's biggest and most successful developing country)  has much more to offer them,  than the US which is unable to even look after many of its own citizens - the reason for the democracy-destroying hyperpartisanship in the US.

[And the IMF - the US stooge left over from the post war Brettton Woods agreement days, following the US's ascension to global hegemony after WW2,  is useless for engendering development in poor countries, since it only enforces debt benefitting  greedy financiers.


So... back to your postulated  "human rights" - which (according to you) "China and others are hostile to".

Can you spell out some 'human rights' for us - or even one  such 'right'?

Note: Ozpolitics is not a forum for ASPI goons; you will need to defend your fake "freedom values" ideology, with reasoned argument, in this forum.

Btw, re the difference between 'legal' versus 'inhernet' rights: the former are real under rule of law, whereas the latter are myths of Classical Liberalism.

 

Quote:

1. Indeed the UN is not "a person": nevertheles,  the UN was created to "save mankind from the scourge of war". Hence a significant  issue confronted at the UN is ..... ...what are 'rights'.

That does not follow at all.

What is it with all the meaningless gibberish from the CCP stooges on human rights? What is it that you want to say but you keep skirting around?

See post #48.

Everyone already knows that human rights are not part of our anatomy. This is not the brilliant insight you seem to think.

I need to explain the question. Then explain my answer. You can't read #48. The only benefit i get from you is your insult.

Perhaps you should stop posting such stupid things if the responses bother you.

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2023 at 2:13pm:

Quote: 1. Indeed the UN is not "a person": nevertheles,  the UN was created to "save mankind from the scourge of war". Hence a significant  issue confronted at the UN is ..... ...what are 'rights'. That does not follow at all.

Can you explain why "it does not follow?"   The UN is consumed by considerations of "rights", like the "rights" to security and  well-being, obviously impossible if the "right" to make war is 'inalienable', or in fact  just legal mumbo jumbo. 

You are simply unable to begin to consider all the practical contradictions involved  in "rights" theory....which is why are you such a a prize fraud,  not willing to say what your postulated 'natural inalienable rights' are (apparently 'self-evident' and God-given,  no less).


Quote:

What is it with all the meaningless gibberish from the CCP stooges on human rights? What is it that you want to say but you keep skirting around?

All said above; now defend your argument by telling us what these  "inalienable rights"  are***, or be exposed as the guesome "freedom values" ideological  fraud you are. 

*** I notice you have said "rights are not our anatomy" ...ok genius, tell us what they ARE, rather than what they aren't.   

It does not follow because there is an absence of a link between one statement and the next.

If your only point is that the UN is concerned with denying that there is a fundamental inalienable human right to make war, then I would say that you are both correct and trivial to the point of being moronic. Which I suppose is probably the point of this thread. Perhaps this sort of thing is news to CCP stooges.

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2023 at 6:27pm:

It does not follow because there is an absence of a link between one statement and the next. If your only point is that the UN is concerned with denying that there is a fundamental inalienable human right to make war, then I would say that you are both correct and trivial to the point of being moronic. Which I suppose is probably the point of this thread. Perhaps this sort of thing is news to CCP stooges.

As expected, by refusing to give examples of  "inalienable natural rights", you continue to expose yourself  as  a prize fraud. 

Of course that's not my 'only' point (highlighted); indeed, the UN itself confusedly posits 'rules of "legal" war',  while also postulating "rights"  to security; my example is only to point to the contradictions that arise when discussing "rights".

Keep refusing to elucidate these"inalienable rights"; it will enable me to crush your "freedom values" delusion slowly ...roast you slowly, as Keating said. 

Three great insights into human rights from the resident CCP stooges:

Human rights are not a part of our anatomy, because we are not turtles, even though the UN says housing is a human right.

The UN helped to prevent war by refraining from granting people a fundamental human right to make war.

War violates people's human rights. It is terribly confusing when organisations like the UN use the word war and human rights on the same website.

Anything else?

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2023 at 6:52pm:

, because we are not turtles, Anything else?

Turtles don't comprehend English.

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2023 at 6:52pm:

Three great insights into human rights from the resident CCP stooges:

Still waiting for YOUR great insights into human rights.....


Quote:

Human rights are not a part of our anatomy, because we are not turtles, even though the UN says housing is a human right.

(By-passing the stupidity of comparing a turtle's shell with the 'homes' of other creatures);

So you know that a human right is not part of our anatomy... though obviously we need to retain possession of our anatomy, just as humans in a modern economy need homes to successfully particpate in the modern economy.

[Interestingly, when black primary school children in a remote community were asked: "what would your voice say", one said "we want houses"....]

Still waiting for your description of what a human right is.


Quote:

The UN helped to prevent war by refraining from granting people a fundamental human right to make war.

1. As many people have been killed in wars since 1946, as died in WW2 itself.

2. Morely likely the threat of MAD (in the nuclear age) has prevented another world war since 1946, but lesser wars have been extremely costly in blood and treasure.

3. Your meaning is unclear (as expected from a prize fraud); eg "(refraining from) granting people a fundamental right to make war". 

Do you mean the right to make war is a fundamental human right? If so,  how does that sit alongside the (posited) 'fundamental right to life'? 

The UN itself does NOT refrain from granting the 'right' to make war, see the UN-based Geneva Conventions.   


Quote:

War violates people's human rights.

Amazing, we agree - though I don't agree  natural (fundamental) human rights  exist at all.

What you - and I agree -  are actually saying is war is terrible for all who are caught up in war, regardless of mythical "rights". 


Quote:

It is terribly confusing when organisations like the UN use the word war and human rights on the same website.

Now can you begin to understand?

The confusion exists because 'rights' don't exist - as proven by the fact you can't identify them.   

Anything else?[/quote]

Yes: identify the fundamental "human rights" which you claim exist...are "self-evident", even.....

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 10:40am:

Yes: identify the fundamental "human rights" which you claim exist...even "self-evident".....

Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience.

Frank wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 10:43am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 29th, 2023 at 10:40am: Yes: identify the fundamental "human rights" which you claim exist...even "self-evident"..... Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience.

So...priorities?

Freedom of thought eg "I want to make war against a nation which proposes collective wellbeing and common prosperity above individual 'freedom' "?

Is such 'freedom of thought' a self-evident right when it leads to war?

Conscience  : eg,  'fairness' is trumped by self-interest, as Sowell would contend?

But thanks for the attempt.

Fraudiver will never dare to identify these 'natural' (mythical) rights....

Quote:

Still waiting for your description of what a human right is.

I told you what it is on the first page of this thread.

And that falls short of 'inherent, inalienable right'.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 10:59am:

Frank wrote on Sep 29th, 2023 at 10:43am: thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 29th, 2023 at 10:40am: Yes: identify the fundamental "human rights" which you claim exist...even "self-evident"..... Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience. So...priorities? Freedom of thought eg "I want to make war against a nation which proposes collective wellbeing and common prosperity above individual 'freedom' "? Is such 'freedom of thought' a self-evident right when it leads to war? Conscience  : eg,  'fairness' is trumped by self-interest, as Sowell would contend? But thanks for the attempt. Fraudiver will never dare to identify these 'natural' (mythical) rights....

No 'ifs', 'buts' or 'whens' ....

The right to life for starters trumps anything else.

An 'inherent, inalienable right'?

chimera wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 5:00pm:

An 'inherent, inalienable right'?

Rights are interpersonal, as the poet fd said, in a way physics or chemistry or biochemistry are not.

So rights are realised in the context of interpersonal encounters - like love, friendship, trust, betrayal, cheating, honourableness and all the rest.

Precisely absolute. Permanent inherent they were not.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 4:44pm:

The right to life for starters trumps anything else.

Endless wars and entrenched poverty destroy life.

So what does the "right" to life mean, when endless war and entrenched poverty are maintained by political machinations?

Frank wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 6:22pm:

chimera wrote on Sep 29th, 2023 at 5:00pm: An 'inherent, inalienable right'? Rights are interpersonal, as the poet fd said, in a way physics or chemistry or biochemistry are not. So rights are realised in the context of interpersonal encounters - like love, friendship, trust, betrayal, cheating, honourableness and all the rest.

A sensible post, as far as it goes. ...avoiding nonsense about "inherent, inalienable, natural, self-evident"  etc. etc .

Re the "Interpersonal": like I have said all along, if there is more than one individual in the world - individuals who by nature are instinctively (as well as sometimes consciously)  self-interested, as well as possessing a (cortex-based) sense of 'fairness' not existing in the animal world - then relationships will need to be managed by rule of law, to avoid chaos.

Note: the "betrayal" you mentioned is most likely rooted in (conscious or unconscious) self-interest , cf love which encompasses the interests of others.

Unfortunately, we still haven't created laws to eradicate endless wars and entrenched poverty....

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 12:44pm:

Quote: Still waiting for your description of what a human right is. I told you what it is on the first page of this thread.

The first post of yours*** I can find  in this thread ie #8 reads:

"It is an intersubjective reality."

...which surely means 'rights' are subjective, not objective reality.

[apart from the fact you still haven't given an example of an actual 'right'].

***disregarding your #4 which is obviously subjective propaganda

"If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?".

You already said rights are subjective - the irony of it.

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 10:44am:

freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2023 at 12:44pm: Quote: Still waiting for your description of what a human right is. I told you what it is on the first page of this thread. The first post of yours*** I can find  in this thread ie #8 reads: "It is an intersubjective reality." ...which surely means 'rights' are subjective, not objective reality. [apart from the fact you still haven't given an example of actual 'right']. ***disregarding your #4 which is obviously subjective propaganda "If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?". You already said rights are subjective - the irony of it.

;D ;D

Intersubjective is not subjective, silly 'surely means' ignorant parrot.

Love, the law, rights, obligations etc are intersubjective, objectively speaking. They occur, CAN ONLY occur, between human subjects.

None of these things occur between objects, which doesn't mean that there are therefore not objective. You are a laughable, grimly determined, ignorant fool.

Frank wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 10:56am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 10:44am: freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2023 at 12:44pm: Quote: Still waiting for your description of what a human right is. I told you what it is on the first page of this thread. The first post of yours*** I can find  in this thread ie #8 reads: "It is an intersubjective reality." ...which surely means 'rights' are subjective, not objective reality. [apart from the fact you still haven't given an example of actual 'right']. ***disregarding your #4 which is obviously subjective propaganda "If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?". You already said rights are subjective - the irony of it. ;D ;D Intersubjective is not subjective, silly 'surely means' ignorant parrot.

I wondered if I would have to spell it out for you.

"Inter- subjective"....... meaning according to the desires or subjective beliefs of the 2 individuals (or entities)  who are inter-acting. 


Quote:

Love, the law, rights, obligations are intersubjective, objectively speaking.

Circular reasoning: love between individuals, as opposed to hate toward other individuals, is somehow consistent with objective, inherent "rights"?

Obvious nonsense.   

The 'right' of Civilisation is for people to have domination over other people.

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 11:07am:

Frank wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 10:56am: thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 10:44am: freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2023 at 12:44pm: Quote: Still waiting for your description of what a human right is. I told you what it is on the first page of this thread. The first post of yours*** I can find  in this thread ie #8 reads: "It is an intersubjective reality." ...which surely means 'rights' are subjective, not objective reality. [apart from the fact you still haven't given an example of actual 'right']. ***disregarding your #4 which is obviously subjective propaganda "If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?". You already said rights are subjective - the irony of it. ;D ;D Intersubjective is not subjective, silly 'surely means' ignorant parrot. I wondered if I would have to spell it out for you. "Inter- subjective"....... meaning according to the desires or subjective beliefs of the 2 individuals who are inter-acting.  [quote]Love, the law, rights, obligations are intersubjective, objectively speaking.

Circular reasoning: love between individuals, as opposed to hate toward other individuals, is somehow consistent with objective, inherent "rights"?

Obvious nonsense.   
[/quote]
You  ARE a militant idiot.

intersubjectivity

QUICK REFERENCE
1. The process and product of sharing experiences, knowledge, understandings, and expectations with others. A key feature of social constructionism, symbolic interactionism, and phenomenological approaches generally. The existence, nature, and meaning of things is not entirely up to the individual but subject to social and linguistic constraints within a culture or subculture (there has to be some degree of consensus or communication would be impossible; see also linguistic turn). The concept of intersubjectivity not only counters the undiluted subjectivism of extreme philosophical idealism but also the pure objectivism of naïve realism, since the same constraints filter our apprehension of the world. Things and their meanings are intersubjective to the extent that we share common understandings of them. Cultural identity is experienced through intersubjectivity. See also reality construction.

Jasin wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 11:16am:

The 'right' of Civilisation is for people to have domination over other people.

"Civilization"?

Have a look at uncivilized nature and people: domination of others is endemic.

HG Wells has a more useful observation:
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe"

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 11:25am:

Jasin wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 11:16am: The 'right' of Civilisation is for people to have domination over other people. "Civilization"? Have a look at uncivilized nature and people: domination of others is endemic. HG Wells has a more useful observation: "Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe"

Well, you are a living example of catastrophe's triumph.

Frank wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 11:31am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 11:25am: Jasin wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 11:16am: The 'right' of Civilisation is for people to have domination over other people. "Civilization"? Have a look at uncivilized nature and people: domination of others is endemic. HG Wells has a more useful observation: "Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe" Well, you are a living example of catastrophe's triumph.

Unable to debate the issues, as usual.

Have a shot; we got as far as: 

Frank: "Love, the law, rights, obligations are intersubjective, objectively speaking."

TGD: "Circular reasoning: love between individuals, as opposed to hate toward other individuals, is somehow consistent with objective, inherent "rights"?

In your statement above, you have erroneously conflated  "rights...are intersubjective" with the implication 'rights are a therefore (universal) objective', on the false basis  the statement itself is objectively there ("objectively speaking"), on the page.

Low IQ?

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 11:48am:

Frank wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 11:31am: thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 11:25am: Jasin wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 11:16am: The 'right' of Civilisation is for people to have domination over other people. "Civilization"? Have a look at uncivilized nature and people: domination of others is endemic. HG Wells has a more useful observation: "Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe" Well, you are a living example of catastrophe's triumph. Unable to debate the issues, as usual. Have a shot; we got as far as:  Frank: "Love, the law, rights, obligations are intersubjective, objectively speaking." TGD: "Circular reasoning: love between individuals, as opposed to hate toward other individuals, is somehow consistent with objective, inherent "rights"? In your statement above, you have erroneously conflated  "rights...are intersubjective" with the implication 'rights are a therefore (universal) objective', on the false basis  the statement itself is objectively there ("objectively speaking"), on the page. Low IQ?

It is impossible to debate a militant idiot like you who doesn't understand the basic concepts and words the debate turns on. And having misunderstood or misrepresented what was said, you double down on your idiocy.

Rights are relations between human subjects = they are intersubjective.
That is not a matter of subjective opinion but is the case regardless of opinion = objectively the case.

Objective doesn't mean 'from the point of view of objects'  since only human beings, conscious subjects, have views and perspectives. That is also an objectively true statement since it is not a matter of subjective opinion.
( I can just see how this will completely shortcircut your parrot brain  ;D ;D)

Frank wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 1:38pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 11:48am: Frank wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 11:31am: thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 11:25am: Jasin wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 11:16am: The 'right' of Civilisation is for people to have domination over other people. "Civilization"? Have a look at uncivilized nature and people: domination of others is endemic. HG Wells has a more useful observation: "Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe" Well, you are a living example of catastrophe's triumph. Unable to debate the issues, as usual. Have a shot; we got as far as:  Frank: "Love, the law, rights, obligations are intersubjective, objectively speaking." TGD: "Circular reasoning: love between individuals, as opposed to hate toward other individuals, is somehow consistent with objective, inherent "rights"? In your statement above, you have erroneously conflated  "rights...are intersubjective" with the implication 'rights are a therefore (universal) objective', on the false basis  the statement itself is objectively there ("objectively speaking"), on the page. Low IQ? It is impossible to debate a militant idiot like you who doesn't understand the basic concepts and words the debate turns on. And having misunderstood or misrepresented what was said, you double down on your idiocy.

still no debate, but I see something following:


Quote:

Rights are relations between human subjects = they are intersubjective.

No disagreement so far; but note how far you have strayed from the classical liberal assertion, namely, rights are "natural, and inalienable".

[Note: so far,  still no actual examples of these postulated "rights"].


Quote:

That is not a matter of subjective opinion but is the case regardless of opinion = objectively the case.

Well...while I'm ok with agreeing that "rights are relations between people", I'm not sure the case has been proven that this is what rights are. And the "subjectivity" bit just implies agreement between the two individuals negotiating these  "right", re universals like the 'right' to life and liberty. 

eg, the 'right' to possess property can well lead to disaggrement among individuals over the right to 'live',  given the instinct for possession of territory.


Quote:

Objective doesn't mean 'from the point of view of objects'  since only human beings, conscious subjects, have views and perspectives.

I think we better stop using the words subjective and objective to discover what 'rights' are; your  above sentence is devoid of any real meaning eg one can say humans are objectively 'objects' who have subjective opinions.

So that gets us back to 'rights are inter-personal'. ...and persons have different opinons on what are important considerations  for a given 'interpersonal relationship'.

[quote[That is also an objectively true statement since it is not a matter of subjective opinion.
( I can just see how this will completely shortcircut your parrot brain  ;D ;D)
[/quote]

Wrong of course.  I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above.

So pretty please (since fraudiver has disapppeared) : an example of interpersonal relations which define a right.

Quote:

Wrong of course.  I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above.

No, you confused them.

Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings.

You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights.

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 10:35am:

Quote: Wrong of course.  I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above. No, you confused them. Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings. You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights.

I see....so the fact your postulated 'rights' as defined by you are subject to disagreement among individuals execising those 'rights' ...that fact doesn't worry you in any way?

eg, the UN posits rights which engender uiversal well-being and security (see the 30 Articles of the UNUniversalDHR) - and hence avoidence of conflict; you have a very different view of "rights".

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 11:05am:

Frank wrote on Oct 2nd, 2023 at 10:35am: Quote: Wrong of course.  I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above. No, you confused them. Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings. You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights. I see....so the fact your postulated 'rights' as defined by you are subject to disagreement among individuals execising those 'rights' ...that fact doesn't worry you in any way?

No.  Disagreement is a universal human right.

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 11:50am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2nd, 2023 at 11:05am: Frank wrote on Oct 2nd, 2023 at 10:35am: Quote: Wrong of course.  I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above. No, you confused them. Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings. You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights. I see....so the fact your postulated 'rights' as defined by you are subject to disagreement among individuals execising those 'rights' ...that fact doesn't worry you in any way? No.  Disagreement is a universal human right.

Until it destoys the world (in the age of MAD....)


"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe".   HG Wells.

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 12:25pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 2nd, 2023 at 11:50am: thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2nd, 2023 at 11:05am: Frank wrote on Oct 2nd, 2023 at 10:35am: Quote: Wrong of course.  I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above. No, you confused them. Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings. You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights. I see....so the fact your postulated 'rights' as defined by you are subject to disagreement among individuals execising those 'rights' ...that fact doesn't worry you in any way? No.  Disagreement is a universal human right. Until it destoys the world (in the age of MAD....) "Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe".   HG Wells.

Your stupidity is there in a nutshell, parrot: total agreement as per Xi Who must be Obeyed - or disgreement leading to inevitable total destruction.

No civilised negotiation, compromise, piecemeal work. No. Total agreement versus total distruction.

Confusion of action and thought is not a right...

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 10:44am:

freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2023 at 12:44pm: Quote: Still waiting for your description of what a human right is. I told you what it is on the first page of this thread. The first post of yours*** I can find  in this thread ie #8 reads: "It is an intersubjective reality." ...which surely means 'rights' are subjective, not objective reality. [apart from the fact you still haven't given an example of an actual 'right']. ***disregarding your #4 which is obviously subjective propaganda "If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?". You already said rights are subjective - the irony of it.

No, that is not what it means. Google it if you don't know. There is no point guessing. You and your fellow CCP stooges devote enormous effort to discussing your ignorance and trying to use it to prove something.

'It's my right to speak'
'Why?'
'It's inherent'
'Where's that?'
'In here'.
'Can't see it'
'Here. Look'.
'In there?'
'Here'.

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 7:08am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 10:44am: freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2023 at 12:44pm: Quote: Still waiting for your description of what a human right is. I told you what it is on the first page of this thread. The first post of yours*** I can find  in this thread ie #8 reads: "It is an intersubjective reality." ...which surely means 'rights' are subjective, not objective reality. [apart from the fact you still haven't given an example of an actual 'right']. ***disregarding your #4 which is obviously subjective propaganda "If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?". You already said rights are subjective - the irony of it. No, that is not what it means.

I wanted an example of a 'right'; Frank gives "freedom of speech", but it's illegal to shout "fire",  in a crowded theatre when there is no fire....

So you, being your usual fraudulent self, ignore giving an example which you will need to be able to defend, and prefer to come up with:

"It" (sic) "is an inter-subjective reality".

(I assume "it" means a 'right', because we are trying to determine what a 'right' is).

Ok, so according to you, my first guess re what your statement means is wrong.

How about this interpretation of your mysterious statement:

A right is subject to the 'realities' of the individuals or entities who are together positing the 'right' with which each of them is concerned. 

That covers the key words in your statement.

1. "inter", inferring 2 individuals or entities;
2. "subjective", inferring dependence on the view of each individual.
3. "reality", as perceived by each individual (in agreement, by necessity, if they are to both accept the reality of the 'right' in question).


Quote:

Google it if you don't know. There is no point guessing.

I use google to find facts, not opinions; but others will observe you using every trick in the book, to avoid giving an example of a 'right'.

What do YOU think "inter-subjective reality" means  (in relation to 'rights'), and where is the error in my interpretation. 


Quote:

You and your fellow CCP stooges devote enormous effort to discussing your ignorance and trying to use it to prove something.

Classic fraudiver: obfuscation ("that's not what it means, consult google to find out what it means"), and diversion "(....ignorant CCP stooges"....)

Consult the thread's title, and give an example, please....

(I'm slowly turning up the heat on that frying pan, it will be interesting to see you jump out eventually...

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 1:55pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2nd, 2023 at 12:25pm: Frank wrote on Oct 2nd, 2023 at 11:50am: thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2nd, 2023 at 11:05am: Frank wrote on Oct 2nd, 2023 at 10:35am: Quote: Wrong of course.  I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above. No, you confused them. Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings. You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights. I see....so the fact your postulated 'rights' as defined by you are subject to disagreement among individuals execising those 'rights' ...that fact doesn't worry you in any way? No.  Disagreement is a universal human right. Until it destoys the world (in the age of MAD....) "Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe".   HG Wells. Your stupidity is there in a nutshell, parrot: total agreement as per Xi Who must be Obeyed - or disgreement leading to inevitable total destruction. No civilised negotiation, compromise, piecemeal work. No.

You postulated a "right" to disagreement, but:

"civilized negotiation" ...like NATO and Russia coming to an agreement, to avoid war? (US exceptionalism/triumphalism after  the collapse of the USSR  has definitely played a role in the current catastrophe; Putin actually wanted to join NATO in 1990, but was rebuffed). 

"compromise" ....yes, that would be good, especially  when unnecessary poverty is endemic.

"piecemeal work"..... like developing market gardens in remote communities where possible, to deal with the issue of expensive fresh food (Bob Catter's suggestion on telly tonight).


Quote:

Total agreement versus total distruction.

...says a typical comfortable conservative: apparently the war in Ukraine, not being "total",  is acceptable, despite the loss of life, economic repercussions, especially on poor countries,  and $trillions in property damage. 

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 4:12pm:

Confusion of action and thought is not a right...

Quite so, though confusion itself is certainly part of the human condition....

A right to land title or 'right of way' attaches to an external constructed amenity. A 'right' of humans is an informal created construct that is enforceable only after it's written and declared in law.  An 'inherent right' means an internal possession of each person which naturally compels another person to submit.
'Ability to speak' is not 'right to speak'. Inherent right is impossible as no-one is born intruding into another person's activities. Even British lords had no right to the land apart from a will and weren't actually born with the title. If a human right can't be internal, it can't exist permanently either as 'inalienable'. They were not and will not be.

Well that sounds about right.

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 9:09pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2023 at 7:08am: thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1st, 2023 at 10:44am: freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2023 at 12:44pm: Quote: Still waiting for your description of what a human right is. I told you what it is on the first page of this thread. The first post of yours*** I can find  in this thread ie #8 reads: "It is an intersubjective reality." ...which surely means 'rights' are subjective, not objective reality. [apart from the fact you still haven't given an example of an actual 'right']. ***disregarding your #4 which is obviously subjective propaganda "If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?". You already said rights are subjective - the irony of it. No, that is not what it means. I wanted an example of a 'right'; Frank gives "freedom of speech", but it's illegal to shout "fire",  in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.... So you, being your usual fraudulent self, ignore giving an example which you will need to be able to defend, and prefer to come up with: "It" (sic) "is an inter-subjective reality". (I assume "it" means a 'right', because we are trying to determine what a 'right' is). Ok, so according to you, my first guess re what your statement means is wrong. How about this interpretation of your mysterious statement: A right is subject to the 'realities' of the individuals or entities who are together positing the 'right' with which each of them is concerned.  That covers the key words in your statement. 1. "inter", inferring 2 individuals or entities; 2. "subjective", inferring dependence on the view of each individual. 3. "reality", as perceived by each individual (in agreement, by necessity, if they are to both accept the reality of the 'right' in question). [quote]Google it if you don't know. There is no point guessing.

I use google to find facts, not opinions; but others will observe you using every trick in the book, to avoid giving an example of a 'right'.

What do YOU think "inter-subjective reality" means  (in relation to 'rights'), and where is the error in my interpretation. 


Quote:

You and your fellow CCP stooges devote enormous effort to discussing your ignorance and trying to use it to prove something.

Classic fraudiver: obfuscation ("that's not what it means, consult google to find out what it means"), and diversion "(....ignorant CCP stooges"....)

Consult the thread's title, and give an example, please....

(I'm slowly turning up the heat on that frying pan, it will be interesting to see you jump out eventually...


[/quote]

Like I said, if you don't know what it means, there is no point trying to guess. It will just make you look silly. You are allowed to use google to find the meaning of words you do not understand.

Why do the CCP stooges always seem to think that their ignorance is some kind of valuable insight?