If rights, whither from?

[JBeukema]

it would still be an argument, but not evidence, just like E=MC^2.

E=MC^2 is no an argument. It's a fact mathematically derived and exampled with experimental evidence.

 

[JBeukema]

consequently
since (according to conservatives) MOST Americans are NOT REAL CHRISTIANS

then
it follows
America is NOT a christian nation

Not the subject of the thread

what a hypocrite. self-awareness, ability, meaning, the age of positivity and mathematics aren't the subject of the thread,

You assert that a thing exists. Evidence- or rather the lack thereof- is therefore the subject of the thread, the OP of which asked foe evidence of these vague metaphysical 'rights' you assert exist.

 

[antagon]

i guess i've already joined the world's religions for what that's worth.

Then you are to be taken just as seriously when you try to enter the halls of science and reason.

i have posted evidence and labeled it as such.

You've posted assertions- you assert that people have these rights and you assert that they exercise them through actions. You've demonstrated neither, only that they exercise their ability and possibly their will.

you contend that positivist, reductionist metrics suffice for the exploration of concepts like rights, and have challenged me to provide a mathematical proof of their existence. i say that is absurd because math as i know it fails to measure this subject.

So, like 'god', 'rights' exist in some vague metaphysical plain? And you wonder why we laugh at you?

who the fuck is we? anyone out there let me know.

i'm certified in the 'halls of science' and engineering, son. where are you at?

being a 'roman universal', or whatever you want to call it, has had no impact; the vast majority of scientists share the same perspective. could that further demonstrate that the scientific community isn't the positivists club you claim it is?

a measure and a unit ... evidence that your metric is within the realm of application of natural rights. you ignored that part mr. science hall monitor.

dont worry about me; if it is math, i got it covered. just do your bit, which i claim is not possible, just like a protractor's angle and degrees fail to measure electrical current. electicity is not within the realm of application of geometric measure in the same way natural rights are safely outside your math fail.

special relativity is an argument, and E=mc^2 is the mathematical representation of that argument, for the most part. because it is beyond proof due to its claim of universality, it is not a proven argument as you state. it is a theory around which the hypotheses and discoveries to which you allude are based. the US constitution is thusly influenced by theories including those on natural rights. the 'metaphysical plain' of application is right here, captain. you just habitually ignore my pointing that out.

a measure and a unit for natural rights, please. provide some sign that your absurd request for mathematical proof can apply within the realm of natural rights. failing your provision of that, your dismissal of my theory on on the basis of mathematical probability - in itself fallacious - is ad lapidem.... again.

 

[JBeukema]

E=mc^2 can be tested and proved correct or incorrect, genius.


You specifically declared your bullshit to be in the realm of religion and not of science and reason.

 

[antagon]

E=mc^2 can be tested and proved correct or incorrect, genius.


You specifically declared your bullshit to be in the realm of religion and not of science and reason.

to the contrary i have put forth a reasoned argument, and it is within the realm of social science, no doubt. i specifically declared that i am a member of a religious group, another observation of yours which totally lacks cogency to the question of natural rights.

you've made the ridiculous claim, like an ignoramus, that the reasoning which i presented was probable with math. you have abandoned that debased stupidity, i presume, as you've not put forward an argument that i have reasoned a measurable theory, nor offered a metric and a unit by which to comply with your fantastical positivist 'reality'.

that you say the equation E=mc^2 is fact, or can be fully tested and proven indicates that you don't know what you are talking about, and that you've not likely paid attention in high school. when you can make observations in space-time traveling at the speed of light and measure that you have shrunken at that speed, you can scratch the surface of your stupid 'proved correct or incorrect', with respect to the equation above.

until you could supply a metric and a unit for natural rights, or show that math can really prove anything in our 'metaphysical plain', rather than merely argue it, perhaps you aren't qualified to scrutinize what i have contended, or what is contended by hobbes, locke, et al. you certainly have no credibility in regard to math or physics in light of what you contend. you're better off putting this 'positivist evidence' rebuttal to pasture and moving on to your next lame argument. what is this, lame argument #6?

 

[antagon]

Not the subject of the thread

what a hypocrite. self-awareness, ability, meaning, the age of positivity and mathematics aren't the subject of the thread,

You assert that a thing exists. Evidence- or rather the lack thereof- is therefore the subject of the thread, the OP of which asked foe evidence of these vague metaphysical 'rights' you assert exist.

i've provided such evidence pages ago. i contend that it isn't so vague, either.

were the title of the thread 'if electricity wither from?', i think the onus would be to establish the ways which electricity is expressed in conductors, and its origins in energy. examining rights as they are applied in our society indicates such parallel expression, and the origins of these legal or social rights in natural rights is the basis of my argument.

you've engaged in examining whether these natural rights are real or not, and i have referred you to its applications, whether in or outside of a social context. you want mathematical proof, but alas i think that chapter is closed like others which you have scribbled together.

without examining the applications of electricity within different contexts, can you prove that it exists, whether mathematically or otherwise? 'if gravitation, wither from?' - can you provide a proof of the existence of this interaction with no reference to ways which it is applied, or contexts in which it could be observed?

beyond this moot obsession with evidence before application, your bigger question, 'whither from' is an even harder nut to crack. your attempts simplify the origins of natural rights with your evolutionary psychology argument was pitiful, and i contend that the origins of natural rights are universally inherent. can you be the first to relate the origins of electricity or gravity without contending that they are also inherent to our universe? can you show the origins of our freedom to take self-determined action?

i dont see what is so difficult about understanding the concept of natural rights. you've revealed that you're not exceedingly bright or well informed, but i think children could appreciate the idea with ease. it must be some type of willful obstinacy such as that which creationist fellas on here exhibit when they're faced with an argument they dont want to accept.

 

[editec]

Pointing fingers at any of the churches serves no purpose

Tell that to Jesus, who revealed himself to John and to John who recorded the Revelation.

Have you read Revelation?

Written some dude named John living on the Greek Island of Patmos a century after Jesus' death?

Pure hokum.

Reads like the incoherent hallucinagenic prattle of somebody suffering from ergot poisoning.

 

[JBeukema]

what a hypocrite. self-awareness, ability, meaning, the age of positivity and mathematics aren't the subject of the thread,

You assert that a thing exists. Evidence- or rather the lack thereof- is therefore the subject of the thread, the OP of which asked foe evidence of these vague metaphysical 'rights' you assert exist.

i've provided such evidence pages ago. i contend that it isn't so vague, either.

were the title of the thread 'if electricity wither from?', i think the onus would be to establish the ways which electricity is expressed in conductors, and its origins in energy. examining rights as they are applied in our society indicates such parallel expression, and the origins of these legal or social rights in natural rights is the basis of my argument.

you've engaged in examining whether these natural rights are real or not, and i have referred you to its applications, whether in or outside of a social context. you want mathematical proof, but alas i think that chapter is closed like others which you have scribbled together.

without examining the applications of electricity within different contexts, can you prove that it exists, whether mathematically or otherwise? 'if gravitation, wither from?' - can you provide a proof of the existence of this interaction with no reference to ways which it is applied, or contexts in which it could be observed?

beyond this moot obsession with evidence before application, your bigger question, 'whither from' is an even harder nut to crack. your attempts simplify the origins of natural rights with your evolutionary psychology argument was pitiful, and i contend that the origins of natural rights are universally inherent. can you be the first to relate the origins of electricity or gravity without contending that they are also inherent to our universe? can you show the origins of our freedom to take self-determined action?

i dont see what is so difficult about understanding the concept of natural rights. you've revealed that you're not exceedingly bright or well informed, but i think children could appreciate the idea with ease. it must be some type of willful obstinacy such as that which creationist fellas on here exhibit when they're faced with an argument they dont want to accept.

Electricity? You show the existence of electrons and how they can they can travel, for starters.

And I never said evolutionary psychology had anything to do with your mythical 'natural [yet simultaneously metsphysical so you don't need real evidence] rights'. You totally fail at reading comprehension as well.

Typical for a theist to claim science is on your side, do everything you can to avoid having to apply reason to your claims, sand then declare victory


Now, you assert x exists. Where is your evidence? So far you've proven the existence of legal rights, which I always said can exist and the social contract. In short- you've proven the everyone on the opposite side of the argument for you correct and totally failed to present any evidence supporting your conjecture.

 

[JBeukema]

but i think children could appreciate the idea with ease.

And the Easter Bunny, Santa, and and your precious god, too

 

[FA_Q2]

i contend that natural rights are a constant by definition. social contracts do indeed vary. the purpose of democracy is to facilitate the reciprocal exchange of rights between government and its constituents. as a republic, democracy facilitated the stability i speak of in rome's case. democracy can empower those inclusive in the social contract against those excluded. obviously in cases of slavery societies haven't felt the necessity to extend the contract to the slaves. nevertheless, were slaves in bondage under duress, or were they there on their free will, and pleased to be of service to their masters? because the former is the case, a volatility is created by virtue of trespass of natural rights.

the social contract is a promise or agreement; promises can be broken at any time. in doing so, again, there is volatility. if if this infidelity is pervasive among the constituents of government, you have anarchy - if by the government itself, you have tyranny.


these rights are constant. the subjects which interact with them and the basis of that interaction is not relevant. intelligent life seems to pick up on them in more sophisticated ways than simpler critters, but the instinctive fabrics of all social beings' cohabitation reflects this truth. evolutionary existentialists argue that these 'understandings' of natural rights were adapted into the psyche of animals which rely on a social structure for their survival.

humans understand these rights because of our intellect, but failing that, or in the case of a pack of wolves for example, the paradigm still exists: basic rights which determine volatility or stability of a social group. aren't ants and bacterial colonies subject to this law just as much as we are?

where did these rights come from? this is where your attribution to god or other comes in. if gravitation is another constant, but in the context of physics, from where did that come?

whither from cometh all ye laws of gaia?

It sounds like you are attesting that there are inherent rights. Under that guise I would ask what are those rights? Rights differ MASSIVELY depending on when and where you are. Even in present day there are huge differences in what are perceived rights from Americans and other nations particularly eastern nations. If there are inherent rights then they should be able to be identified. More importantly, I believe that the amount and scope of rights INCREASES as society becomes more mature and resources become more available at lesser cost.

No, rights are not inherent but subject to the grater society that creates them and those rights change as time and society pass.

first, i define those rights as the produce of freedom - leave to conduct any of the infinite actions taken by way of self-determination.

where these rights differ so massively is in the context of a social contract which recognizes some of these rights based on a massive variety of values that vary from contract to contract. whichever set of values is upheld, the contract's aim is to restrict other rights or freedoms in exchange for protections or entitlement. this restriction is an agreed forfeiture of freedoms which are taken in by the community or the government, and the forfeited values also differ. in the US, we forfeit rights along the lines of thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, in exchange for protection of our right to free speach, etc.

as to the increase in rights with societal maturity, the very proposal by thinkers in the age of enlightenment, that rights are indeed inherent, and that the social contract which conscripts government ought to be based on agreed protection and exclusion from infringement of certain natural rights is the basis of such mature societies.

i argue that there is an economy of good faith, from which societies profit or take loss, that revolves around the rights available to its constituents in the social contract. simplifying the forces, i characterize them as stability and volatility, in line with john locks righteous rebellion concept, and the decidedly more stable contracts afforded by democracy's facilitation of fluid barter of rights to and from the contract.

i challenge the idea that rights don't predate government or society, because these are the bases of societies altogether. we live in a 'mature' social contract, but i argue that the goal of such immature ones as slavery and tyranny is to seize and exploit the rights of constituent individuals at the behest of a single individual or oligarchy. whether by force or by coercion of protection and entitlement, societies recognize the value in the amassed will (the several natural rights actioned) - initself, the basis our our specie's survival

Sorry for the late reply, lots of threads keeping me occupied. I think we basically agree here except on one point. You find that right exist inherently and I believe that what you attribute to rights is actually abilities. I find that right do not have meaning outside of the social contract that we have been discussing here as they would essentially be synonymous with ability at that point. Instead, when entering a social contract you give up many of those freedoms in exchange FOR rights, those things that society deems protected. This is merely a semantics argument though as we seems to see it the same way, I just withhold calling the right until AFTER they have been defined within a social contract. The division here does give a certain meaning though, those things that are defined as rights are never given up or exchanged. In that context we maneuver around the colossal landmine that viewing things the way you have put it gives - the fact that those rights can be exchanged or edited. As I stated before, society should always move to giving individuals MORE rights and never less and to that end it is somewhat dangerous to view rights as something that can simply be given away within a social contract. That leads to things like the patriot act, people giving rights up because the need to feel safe, whether or not that safety is real or imagined. Our society today puts special focus on the fact that rights can never be taken away and I believe that is the basis for any government that serves the people.

 

[JBeukema]

I already point that out, FA- but he insists ability has nothing to do with his 'natural rights', despite his defining his 'natural rights' rights as synonymous with ability.

He can't keep track of his own bullshit because he's got some emotional attachment to the language he's been taught to parrot. Typical for those brainwashed and/or stupid enough to metaphysics and religion.

 

[antagon]

You assert that a thing exists. Evidence- or rather the lack thereof- is therefore the subject of the thread, the OP of which asked foe evidence of these vague metaphysical 'rights' you assert exist.

i've provided such evidence pages ago. i contend that it isn't so vague, either.

were the title of the thread 'if electricity wither from?', i think the onus would be to establish the ways which electricity is expressed in conductors, and its origins in energy. examining rights as they are applied in our society indicates such parallel expression, and the origins of these legal or social rights in natural rights is the basis of my argument.

you've engaged in examining whether these natural rights are real or not, and i have referred you to its applications, whether in or outside of a social context. you want mathematical proof, but alas i think that chapter is closed like others which you have scribbled together.

without examining the applications of electricity within different contexts, can you prove that it exists, whether mathematically or otherwise? 'if gravitation, wither from?' - can you provide a proof of the existence of this interaction with no reference to ways which it is applied, or contexts in which it could be observed?

beyond this moot obsession with evidence before application, your bigger question, 'whither from' is an even harder nut to crack. your attempts simplify the origins of natural rights with your evolutionary psychology argument was pitiful, and i contend that the origins of natural rights are universally inherent. can you be the first to relate the origins of electricity or gravity without contending that they are also inherent to our universe? can you show the origins of our freedom to take self-determined action?

i dont see what is so difficult about understanding the concept of natural rights. you've revealed that you're not exceedingly bright or well informed, but i think children could appreciate the idea with ease. it must be some type of willful obstinacy such as that which creationist fellas on here exhibit when they're faced with an argument they dont want to accept.

Electricity? You show the existence of electrons and how they can they can travel, for starters.

an electron is matter, and the object of electromagnetic force and its effect. your statement doesn't survive my qualifier of proving the existence of electricity without application(electron) or context(moving(within a field)). try again, joining QMs an QEDs whose multiplicity of theories on the topic indicate the uncertainty to which you have been entirely aloof.

because you come into this argument thinking that theoretical physics is a mass of positivist resolutions proved beyond doubt, the tables by which you characterize my faith-basis are turned. you could not have possibly paid any bit of attention in a basic physics course and draw the conclusions or rebuttals which you have. nevertheless, you have put faith and ignorance together citing physics with the type of faith-based certainty a creationist cites the bible. its the positivist non-scientist's conundrum.

And I never said evolutionary psychology had anything to do with your mythical 'natural [yet simultaneously metsphysical so you don't need real evidence] rights'. You totally fail at reading comprehension as well.

a total failure how's your memory?

the force which transfers good will in the 'you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours' axiom is deeper and more mysterious as to its source than gravity or electromagnetism. nevertheless, if bacteria could not coexist, cooperate even, and in a manner which mimics sentient understanding of the constant i assert, life as we understand it will probably not exist.

Not really. It's called reciprocal altruism and its 'programming' into the minds of many species is oft referred to as the 'moral instinct'. Evolutionary Psychology deals with the study of this and other matters.

...given gravity and its implications to traction and locomotion. does studying legs and locomotion of ants really constitute a study of gravity? in the same way, your assertion that observing these social adaptations, as you explain evolutionary psychology endeavors to, fails to address the source of the force which societies have adapted to. is it that you insist humanity has conjured rights by way of invention? how do you account for their role in all social paradigms, human or not?

Typical for a theist to claim science is on your side, do everything you can to avoid having to apply reason to your claims, sand then declare victory

i've reasoned my arguments. your rebuttals have been unreasoned to the contrary - often to the extent that they fail to draw a relationship to the matter at hand. you crack me up playing scientist/physicist/mathematician when you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't know some of the most basic bits about each.

Now, you assert x exists. Where is your evidence? So far you've proven the existence of legal rights, which I always said can exist and the social contract. In short- you've proven the everyone on the opposite side of the argument for you correct and totally failed to present any evidence supporting your conjecture.

rights enumerated in law or otherwise refer to specific natural rights as i've argued this entire time. being a 'theist' i did prophecy that you would persist in asking for evidence despite my repeated presentation... like a toddler.

Where did antagon disappear to?

please note: antagon must eat, fuck, sleep, excercise and earn a living in addition to philosophizing online.

 

[FA_Q2]

please note: antagon must eat, fuck, sleep, excercise and earn a living in addition to philosophizing online.

NOOOOOOO WAAAAAAAYYYY, nobody here sleeps, you can eat at your computer, welfare will pay for your habits and NOBODY here ever gets the chance to fuck so that makes exercise unnecessary!!!

 

[JBeukema]

You declare your claims to be in the realm of religion and off-limits to reason and honesty while insisting that they are the product of nature and you still expect to be taken seriously?


And one can test whether the amount of energy released and the loss in mass is consistent with Einstein's theories.

 

[antagon]

Sorry for the late reply, lots of threads keeping me occupied. I think we basically agree here except on one point. You find that right exist inherently and I believe that what you attribute to rights is actually abilities. I find that right do not have meaning outside of the social contract that we have been discussing here as they would essentially be synonymous with ability at that point. Instead, when entering a social contract you give up many of those freedoms in exchange FOR rights, those things that society deems protected. This is merely a semantics argument though as we seems to see it the same way, I just withhold calling the right until AFTER they have been defined within a social contract. The division here does give a certain meaning though, those things that are defined as rights are never given up or exchanged. In that context we maneuver around the colossal landmine that viewing things the way you have put it gives - the fact that those rights can be exchanged or edited. As I stated before, society should always move to giving individuals MORE rights and never less and to that end it is somewhat dangerous to view rights as something that can simply be given away within a social contract. That leads to things like the patriot act, people giving rights up because the need to feel safe, whether or not that safety is real or imagined. Our society today puts special focus on the fact that rights can never be taken away and I believe that is the basis for any government that serves the people.

i accept that rights are synonymous with freedoms, or freedoms to act of our will... more on that later.

i considered if natural were synonymous with abilities, but concluded ability to be an entirely different matter altogether:

a human who might care to take advantage of a right to fly, might in fact only take advantage of a right to jump from a cliff and flap his cardboard wings.

JB never ventured a rebuttal to that observation. anyhow, i think that ability and natural rights are different. the most specific difference is that rights are determined by our will, but our will is independent of our ability, often falling short.

-------------------------------

freedom implies a context which juxtaposes it to captivity. in doing so, albeit semantically, it fails to impart the constant nature i observe of natural rights - whether infringed or not - whether enumerated or not. it also implies moral acceptability like locke's definition of natural rights, a qualification which i dispute, because i feel is attributable to social context. that sheds light on my last reason for using the term 'natural rights': a 400 year convention established in the enlightenment by thomas hobbes, john locke and all. using that term in my own theory on the topic is intended to prevent the confusion which semantic argument creates. it relies on those who are engaged to be familiar with the term and its definition to start with. i've not had such good luck with that so far.

-------------------------------

as for government, i contend that its very purpose is to constrain the rights of its constituents. cynnical perhaps, but consistent. we can't survive effectively without eachother and we cant stick together without toning down the freedom that we'd otherwise enjoy on our lonesome. government has 'matured' as you've said, and history indicates the tyranny which i contend is inherent to government. our modern governments are often the result of upheaval and an insistence that these 'fresh' social contracts explicitly cordon off rights on which the government ought not infringe. despite our origins in freedom, the government persists in bartering entitlements, often times in exchange for control of our rights. take the patriot act as an example. take the fact that year after year new laws speed off the presses and more enforcement added to the fray at the behest of our citizens. at the same time, it is rare that laws ever get revoked or police forces are cut back dramatically.

i dont see society as a rights haven and reject the idea that rights only arise at this point on that basis.

 

[antagon]

You declare your claims to be in the realm of religion and off-limits to reason and honesty while insisting that they are the product of nature and you still expect to be taken seriously?


And one can test whether the amount of energy released and the loss in mass is consistent with Einstein's theories.

wtf?



who knows what you're talking about. do you expect to be taken seriously? how's your metric and unit coming along? how about your QED theory?

 

[JBeukema]

i think that ability and natural rights are different. the most specific difference is that rights are determined by our will.

If the will determines what rights people have, they are social/positive rights- you have them because it is willed that you have them.

You assert x exists yet repeatedly demonstrate y instead.

 

[JBeukema]

You declare your claims to be in the realm of religion and off-limits to reason and honesty while insisting that they are the product of nature and you still expect to be taken seriously?


And one can test whether the amount of energy released and the loss in mass is consistent with Einstein's theories.

wtf?

So can't measure how much mass is lost? You can't measure the energy released during fusion or fission?

 

[antagon]

i think that ability and natural rights are different. the most specific difference is that rights are determined by our will.

If the will determines what rights people have, they are social/positive rights- you have them because it is willed that you have them.

wrong.

 

[editec]

So 'rights' are nothing more than will and ability? Well, that rids the term of all the philosophical meaning ever attached to it and makes any appeal to 'rights' wholly meaningless, now doesn't it?

Well it's really not that deep or philosophical.

Truth is like that sometimes.