Frank wrote on Oct 1
st, 2023 at 1:38pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1
st, 2023 at 11:48am:
Frank wrote on Oct 1
st, 2023 at 11:31am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1
st, 2023 at 11:25am:
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" 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
)
[/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.