If rights, whither from?

[Intense]

The social contract is part of your dogma, not mine

Right... are the laws of thermodynamics 'dogma'?

Social Contract is not an ideology. It's not a proposal. It's not a solution or a policy. It's a simple fact. It is an explanation of how humans interact and how their social systems, both formal and informal, take shape, from the underlying rules that govern their interaction to the emergence of government and laws to the rise and fall of States. Recognizing the manner in which people interact is not supporting any given system that might arise from such interactions any more than explaining how the laws of thermodynamics govern the manner in which heat spreads is advocating the lighting of a candle or a bonfire or a church or any other given flame.

Rights exist whether utilized or not.​

Define and demonstrate.

I reserve the right to say no. I reserve the right to say yes. I reserve the right to decide later, to change my mind, my taste, my desire. These are Unalienable Rights

Those are abilities you might or might not have. And you can do nothing later except decay once you are slain. What 'rights' can't be taken from you or denied to you?
​

Good perspective. You picked the subject that took me away from college. Thermodynamics. When we distinguish between the math and science, and our sometimes false conclusions, we begin to understand that there is a reality that exists beyond our capability to comprehend. Sometimes we do get it right, sometimes, we get just a small piece of the puzzle.

One may make conscious choices that bring sacrifice, that is unalienable right, still, all choices and action bring consequence, good and bad, realized and unrealized, unalienable right, has a factor in the consequence, far and above what we presume to control.

 

[antagon]

Rights cannot be natural, like laws of nature, because nature enforces its laws absolutely, whereas rights are frequently broken.

Rights are natural, inalienable and self-evident.

like beukema, this blogger operates under a misunderstanding of the effect of the laws of nature based on a reductionist belief that what a lab or equasion holds will predict an effect in a natural environment. He also reveals a qualifier which does not exist in any defniton of natural rights: that they cannot be broken.

a law of nature, say that gravity will pull objects to the earth, is ostensibly 'broken' regularly. bouyancy in our environment allows birds and planes to fly and fish to swim. relying on the laboratory or mathematic conclusion that a feather and hammer will fall at the same rate, presumes that the vacuum required for this observation is in play in nature. rather, many factors play into the fate of the hammer and feather in this very simple question of falling.

what about weather? are the properties attributed to pressure in fluid dynamics and temperature in thermodynamics flawed, or is the complexity of the context and scale of the subject what creates the apparent lack of absolute enforcement which this simple fellow has failed to consider.

on to rights, no part of any definition for natural rights of which i'm aware declares that these rights can't be 'broken'. in fact, the purpose of some of the early works on natural rights was to point out the consequences to a society which does not aim to protect these rights, particularly those which are highy valued by its constituents.

i've defined natural rights without the qualifications which locke and hobbes have attrbuted to them, and question of those who can't fathom the existence of these natural rights, 'what is proposed which is so impossible in the first place? how can you miss the implications which many modern societies have recognized at their foundation?'.

in the end, this argument is one of many which constitutes a dramatic failure of reductionist thinking with respect to even beggining to tackle concepts that fail a 2 or 3 parameter limit. concepts like political and social science and philosophy are certainly such complex subjects, but the natural world and the interactions of its creatures and chemicals present a plethora of such dynamics which inform real scientists a perspective on the failure rather than merit of such purely positivist arguments about nature.

 

[JBeukema]

One may make conscious choices that bring sacrifice, that is unalienable right, still, all choices and action bring consequence, good and bad, realized and unrealized, unalienable right, has a factor in the consequence, far and above what we presume to control.

WTF?


Can you rephrase that in some actual sentences, please?

 

[JBeukema]

a law of nature, say that gravity will pull objects to the earth, is ostensibly 'broken' regularly. bouyancy in our environment allows birds and planes to fly and fish to swim

You fail horribly. Your understanding of gravity, aerodynamics, and the world in generally is lacking. Why do you insist on making such a fool of yourself?

what about weather? are the properties attributed to pressure in fluid dynamics and temperature in thermodynamics flawed, or is the complexity of the context and scale of the subject what creates the apparent lack of absolute enforcement which this simple fellow has failed to consider.

The laws of physics are fully at work in weather patterns. You're just too stupid to grasp the concept of non-linear systems. You really think the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to weather systems?

 

[antagon]

a law of nature, say that gravity will pull objects to the earth, is ostensibly 'broken' regularly. bouyancy in our environment allows birds and planes to fly and fish to swim

You fail horribly. Your understanding of gravity, aerodynamics, and the world in generally is lacking. Why do you insist on making such a fool of yourself?

what about weather? are the properties attributed to pressure in fluid dynamics and temperature in thermodynamics flawed, or is the complexity of the context and scale of the subject what creates the apparent lack of absolute enforcement which this simple fellow has failed to consider.

The laws of physics are fully at work in weather patterns. You're just too stupid to grasp the concept of non-linear systems. You really think the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to weather systems?

dont play yourself, beukema. i've simply never failed in any form of physical chemistry and while subject to more credible assesment than yourself.

if you had the wits to grasp my criticism of your misunderstanding of lab science's implications in the real world, you'd find your tables of stupidity set for your next meal. but alas you dont get it. you cant reconcile the certainty of heat transfer on paper or in a lab and the uncetainty which plays out when elaborate weather modeling systems fail to predict the weather with relative accuracy.

you could redeem yourself as a 'scientist'. i've already asked you to present a quantum electrodynamic theory for electromagnetism or more simply a unit and measure for natural rights sufficient to support your challenge that they must be measured to be defined as they have. like every prior rebuttal which you have raised to my theory, the trail on these rebuttals has gone cold. what happened?

 

[JBeukema]

you cant reconcile the certainty of heat transfer on paper or in a lab and the uncetainty which plays out when elaborate weather modeling systems fail to predict the weather with relative accuracy.

What're you babbling about?

They're highly complex non-linear systems, you dolt. The models fail because there are too many unknown variables and there always will be, as our actions in measuring them cause changes in the system we cannot measure without causing further changes. Hence, they will always be an approximation, and probably always a rather rough one.

a unit and measure for natural rights

Fail. It is on you to produce such, as it is you who argues they exist in the natural world. Or are you finally admitting openly that your claims are metaphysical bullshit?

 

[editec]

Have we put to rest the absurd argument that somehow we have rights that exist outside the physical universe, yet?

I mean for the fatith based there is no hope of reaching those people.

I mean for those of you who thought the term "unalienable rights" was something more than political hyperbole.

Do we see that it isn't, now?

If we have any rights at all, it's because we DEMAND them, and WE DEFEND them.

Pretty simple, really.

But are those rights unalienable or absolute?

Not a chance.

There is Spiritual, there is physical. Get over it. Who are you to decree???

There might be some rcosmic justice in the grander scheme of things.

But I do not, neither do you, live in the grander scheme of things.

We live in this world and we are discussing THIS world, not the next.

Here you have all the rights you can keep.

You can whine, you can appeal to a higher authority, you can declare things to be that are not as they are, but reality is what it is.

You using the word "Hope" seems a bit hypocritical. Reaching people? To what end? To what purpose? There have always been things beyond our understanding, there always will be. Are you seeking to draw undefendable conclusions, or are you so sure of your reason? What is your end? What purpose does it serve to deny God?

I don't deny GOD, I deny the absurd declaration that you have rights in this world that cannot be taken from you.

When I think of the abuse of Unalienable Rights,

You don't understand that if you had an UNalienable right it could NOT be abused, do you?

Hence the debate is NOT about anything other thanyour inability to use words logically.

Christ knew that we did not have UNalienable rights in this world.

You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them

GOD knew it too, which is why he bothered with the Ten commandments.

Remember all those "Thou shall nots?

They are basically saying: Thou shall NOT alienate people's RIGHTS

If our rights were UNalienable we wouldn't NEED rules of SOCIAL conduct.

I know of no BIBLICAL evidence for UNalienABLE rights in THIS WORLD, bro.

.

I find the reason for all war's. When Unalienable right's are respected, there is equilibrium. When abused, the instinctive urge to retaliate, to remove the offense. When people are treated justly, there is peace, balance. The reason and purpose of the law lags behind the need brought by circumstance. The one is the cause for the other. I think you confuse the two. We prescribe to the Governing by the consent of the governed. Why try so hard to make the governed forget that?

Inalienable Rights are there when asserted. Even by leaving the group, it is evident. It is the forces of creation that govern, by circumstance. Everything is conditional Editic. Nothing is absolute. Life could easily end tomorrow for either of us, by accident, by heart attack. There are no guarantee's. One makes the best of this life, with reason, ability, action. To submit to arbitrary government control, submitting your free will, is your choice to make. Why though, encourage others to submit, against their welfare, to enrich power mongers, is beyond me. I recognize the need for government, I also recognize it's limits, beyond that, it is far from righteous. What comes after this life, it is neither your place or mine to claim with authority. Why should people believing in the life to come bother you in the least? Is it something more than that?

.

 

[antagon]

you cant reconcile the certainty of heat transfer on paper or in a lab and the uncetainty which plays out when elaborate weather modeling systems fail to predict the weather with relative accuracy.

What're you babbling about?

i'm babbling about the failure of your positivist, reductionist bullshit to account for the role of rights inside and out of a social paradigm, just as it fails to account for the shortcomings of reduced lab conclusions in systems as complex as the weather over hundreds of square miles.

a unit and measure for natural rights

Fail. It is on you to produce such, as it is you who argues they exist in the natural world. Or are you finally admitting openly that your claims are metaphysical bullshit?

rather, you have proposed that there is a way which math should account for rights. as that is your stupid theory, you should complete it with a unit, a measure and some proof of application. i think what you claim is totally rediculous, and have spelled out how already. i've explained to you that math doesn't provide proof of anything, and is instead a method of arguing theory. for the purposes of analysis, i've delivered my theory in plain english - far more practical for the purposes of arguing its tenets on a message board.

i don't see what is so fantastical about natural rights; is it that you claim there's no such a thing as free will?

 

[editec]

don't see what is so fantastical about natural rights; is it that you claim there's no such a thing as free will?

Are you claiming that the supposed unalienable rights the FF's were talking about are nothing but the FREE WILL?

If so, why bother mentioning them in this obviously POLITICAL document which was focusing on the complex nature of man and society?

WE might have rights.

They may even come from GOD (but then so dies everything in that POV, so they're basically meaningless using that logic)

But to date, nobody has in any way proven logically that these so called rights are remotely UNalienable.

You have free will?

Okay, how much free will do you have when somebody murders you?

Far as I know, you have no will, free or otherwise.

Even if you're a devout Christian who buys into the Bible verbatum, the DEAD have no will (free or otherwise) until judgement day.

Sorry, folks, but I'm not going to let you guys blame your CHRISTIAN identity for your confusion on this matter.

It isn't GOD's fault you can quite get this obvious fact, either.

Rights are either a man-made concept, or they are meaningless in this world.

 

[antagon]

again, editec: unalienable rights are different in my opinion to natural rights. the idea of unalienable rights is a sort of wishful thinking the way i see it.

i've argued that natural rights are simply defined: leave to act of our will; freedom of will and self-determined action. i further argue that the concept survives infringement and failure to take advantage of them - even knowledge of them. for example, not knowing about breakdancing isn't exclusive of the freedom to do so. were breakdancing illegal, one might refrain by choice, but the freedom exists. were the same man chained, the will remains. each circumstance presents an impairment to action, however the right as defined still exists.

again on meaning. the meaning outside of a social context is subjective as i have argued. to argue that it has no meaning outside of this context is to ignore such natural limitations to our freedom as time and ability which is not neccessarily dependent on a social paradigm at all.

i argue that social contracts, even those which enumerate or claim unalienable rights such as is the case in the US, ultimately act to curtail and impair the expression of rights to a far greater degree than they are protected. like i've said a few times earlier this bit about unalienable or inalienable is a claim - a guarantee - that some more fundamental or widely accepted rights won't be trampled here. i dont associate rights with any inherent power which prevents their infringement, whatsoever. because of this observation of societies and the role of rights within them, i reject the idea that rights are legal declarations, or that they somehow arise from societies themself. the fact is quite the opposite.

 

[Intense]

One may make conscious choices that bring sacrifice, that is unalienable right, still, all choices and action bring consequence, good and bad, realized and unrealized, unalienable right, has a factor in the consequence, far and above what we presume to control.

WTF?


Can you rephrase that in some actual sentences, please?

It is your right to choose, regardless of the consequence. You may live or die by that choice, you may win, you may lose, circumstance will determine that, still, the choice is yours. You may or may not be aware of all of the factors, you may even act on instinct, circumstance dictates outcome, still, at some point, you make the choice to be where you are. Every thing is cause and effect.

 

[JBeukema]

i'm babbling about the failure of your positivist, reductionist bullshit to account for the role of rights inside and out of a social paradigm

They don't exist outside the paradigm. You've shown us that.

just as it fails to account for the shortcomings of reduced lab conclusions in systems as complex as the weather over hundreds of square miles.

Wtf? Weather disproves science?

They're highly complex non-linear systems, you dolt. The models fail because there are too many unknown variables and there always will be, as our actions in measuring them cause changes in the system we cannot measure without causing further changes. Hence, they will always be an approximation, and probably always a rather rough one.

It's not that complicated.

a unit and measure for natural rights

Fail. It is on you to produce such, as it is you who argues they exist in the natural world. Or are you finally admitting openly that your claims are metaphysical bullshit?

rather, you have proposed that there is a way which math should account for rights.

You insist they exist. I asked for evidence. Mathematics is one form of evidence. I asked for any evidence. You have provided none.

i don't see what is so fantastical about natural rights; is it that you claim there's no such a thing as free will?

So now you wish to redefine these 'rights' yet again?

 

[Intense]

Have we put to rest the absurd argument that somehow we have rights that exist outside the physical universe, yet?

I mean for the fatith based there is no hope of reaching those people.

I mean for those of you who thought the term "unalienable rights" was something more than political hyperbole.

Do we see that it isn't, now?

If we have any rights at all, it's because we DEMAND them, and WE DEFEND them.

Pretty simple, really.

But are those rights unalienable or absolute?

Not a chance.

There might be some rcosmic justice in the grander scheme of things.

But I do not, neither do you, live in the grander scheme of things.

We live in this world and we are discussing THIS world, not the next.

Here you have all the rights you can keep.

You can whine, you can appeal to a higher authority, you can declare things to be that are not as they are, but reality is what it is.





I don't deny GOD, I deny the absurd declaration that you have rights in this world that cannot be taken from you.





You don't understand that if you had an UNalienable right it could NOT be abused, do you?

Hence the debate is NOT about anything other thanyour inability to use words logically.

Christ knew that we did not have UNalienable rights in this world.



GOD knew it too, which is why he bothered with the Ten commandments.

Remember all those "Thou shall nots?

They are basically saying: Thou shall NOT alienate people's RIGHTS

If our rights were UNalienable we wouldn't NEED rules of SOCIAL conduct.

I know of no BIBLICAL evidence for UNalienABLE rights in THIS WORLD, bro.

.

I find the reason for all war's. When Unalienable right's are respected, there is equilibrium. When abused, the instinctive urge to retaliate, to remove the offense. When people are treated justly, there is peace, balance. The reason and purpose of the law lags behind the need brought by circumstance. The one is the cause for the other. I think you confuse the two. We prescribe to the Governing by the consent of the governed. Why try so hard to make the governed forget that?

Inalienable Rights are there when asserted. Even by leaving the group, it is evident. It is the forces of creation that govern, by circumstance. Everything is conditional Editic. Nothing is absolute. Life could easily end tomorrow for either of us, by accident, by heart attack. There are no guarantee's. One makes the best of this life, with reason, ability, action. To submit to arbitrary government control, submitting your free will, is your choice to make. Why though, encourage others to submit, against their welfare, to enrich power mongers, is beyond me. I recognize the need for government, I also recognize it's limits, beyond that, it is far from righteous. What comes after this life, it is neither your place or mine to claim with authority. Why should people believing in the life to come bother you in the least? Is it something more than that?

.

You cannot do harm or take from others without consequence. You miss that part. Be the consequence from God or Government, or Man. We are not that far apart on our reasoning here Editic. My understanding of Unalienable Right, is not that it can't be violated, but that to violate it is an injustice. Get it? Good.

 

[antagon]

i'm babbling about the failure of your positivist, reductionist bullshit to account for the role of rights inside and out of a social paradigm

They don't exist outside the paradigm. You've shown us that.

i guess this goes back to the put up or shut up scenario that worked last time you tried bullshitting about what i've argued. here's what shut you up on that earlier in this thread:

i have a suspicion that you are attempting to project your argument above on to me, however, you've never floated a single argument yourself, so its hard to say. ... you've repeatedly asserted that i have supported the argument above, now quote how so.

just as it fails to account for the shortcomings of reduced lab conclusions in systems as complex as the weather over hundreds of square miles.

Wtf? Weather disproves science?

i'll just leave that as a testiment to your reading comprehension.

rather, you have proposed that there is a way which math should account for rights.

You insist they exist. I asked for evidence. Mathematics is one form of evidence. I asked for any evidence. You have provided none.

i've provided evidence which you've never rebutted, even accepted. furthermore, again: mathematics is not a form of evidence, dummy, instead it is a form of argumentation. some would be quick to blame the education system for your stupidity, but i say you've just not paid any meaningful attention in science or math class once/if you made high school. its more causal than ironic that you're an uber-positivist, really.

i don't see what is so fantastical about natural rights; is it that you claim there's no such a thing as free will?

So now you wish to redefine these 'rights' yet again?

put up or shut up: can you quote two different definitions which i have presented for natural rights on this thread? can you answer the simple question? would you shut up if you cant?

 

[JBeukema]

Read your own posts: they're natural yet metaphysical, they special but they're nothing more than abilities, yet they have nothing to do with ability and now it's just another term for free will.

You can't even keep your own bullshit straight.

 

[antagon]

put up or shut up, son. back your bullshit about my arguments by showing the inconsistencies you fantacize about, or shut the fuck up. simple.

 

[editec]

again, editec: unalienable rights are different in my opinion to natural rights. the idea of unalienable rights is a sort of wishful thinking the way i see it.

Yeah that's how I see it, too. Individual Rights within society are a TARGET, not a fact

i've argued that natural rights are simply defined: leave to act of our will; freedom of will and self-determined action. i further argue that the concept survives infringement and failure to take advantage of them - even knowledge of them. for example, not knowing about breakdancing isn't exclusive of the freedom to do so. were breakdancing illegal, one might refrain by choice, but the freedom exists. were the same man chained, the will remains. each circumstance presents an impairment to action, however the right as defined still exists.

I don't who brought "natural rights" into this debate but it serves no real purpose.

I have no idea what they're supposed to be, these "natural rights"

again on meaning. the meaning outside of a social context is subjective as i have argued. to argue that it has no meaning outside of this context is to ignore such natural limitations to our freedom as time and ability which is not neccessarily dependent on a social paradigm at all.

Ya lost me.

i argue that social contracts, even those which enumerate or claim unalienable rights such as is the case in the US, ultimately act to curtail and impair the expression of rights to a far greater degree than they are protected.

The social contract (like our consitutional rights) enounciate the TARGET for what rights we think we are owed, perhaps.

like i've said a few times earlier this bit about unalienable or inalienable is a claim - a guarantee - that some more fundamental or widely accepted rights won't be trampled here.

Yeah, like I've been saying all along...calling them UNalienable was hyperbole.

The description of what we would LIKE them to be...not what they are.

i dont associate rights with any inherent power which prevents their infringement, whatsoever. because of this observation of societies and the role of rights within them, i reject the idea that rights are legal declarations, or that they somehow arise from societies themself. the fact is quite the opposite.

You seem to be refuting yourself in the above.

You arrive at a conclusion having nothing proved by your precious declarations.

i dont associate rights with any inherent power which prevents their infringement, whatsoever.

And then you come up with this non sequitur declaration.

because of this observation of societies and the role of rights within them, i reject the idea that rights are legal declarations, or that they somehow arise from societies themself.

If rights exist, and they do not arise in the context of society, where do they COME from?

 

[JBeukema]

Your posts are a matter of public record and I've called you out on all your new definitions throughout- including the last page where you suddenly changed the argument to being over 'free will'.

I've better things to do than go through 16 pages and quote all your contradictory definitions and evasions. You've zero evidence and it's clear that you can't be honest because this subject if a matter of religious faith for you and the facts endanger your entire worldview and the comfortable delusions you've built up for yourself. Much like [ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-That-Failed-Arthur-Koestler/dp/0231123957?tag=amaz98-20"]Arthur Koestler[/ame] when he was first faced with the realty of the CCCP and it challenged his Communist faith, you've decided facts don't matter

 

[antagon]

Your posts are a matter of public record and I've called you out on all your new definitions throughout- including the last page where you suddenly changed the argument to being over 'free will'.

I've better things to do than go through 16 pages and quote all your contradictory definitions and evasions. You've zero evidence and it's clear that you can't be honest because this subject if a matter of religious faith for you and the facts endanger your entire worldview and the comfortable delusions you've built up for yourself. Much like Arthur Koestler when he was first faced with the realty of the CCCP and it challenged his Communist faith, you've decided facts don't matter

since you cant quote any two definitions of mine which are different to justify this 'sudden change' characterization (which you've drawn from a question, not a definition), or show that i have argued what you otherwise claim, maybe you should shut your ass. instead you have attempted to attach religious conviction and all kinds of shit to the concept which i've put forward.

come up with your own argument, or refute mine as i've presented it. indications are that you lack the wherewithal to handle either.

what's this bullshit about a commie, now?

 

[JBeukema]

I've refuted you throughout the thread and your conflicting attempts at redefinition of 'natural rights' as both 'ability' and 'free will' et al in documented over the past 16 pages.


There's no point wasting my time going through it a second time.

You can't even stick to a singular definition, let alone present any evidence of any of your variously defined concepts of 'natural rights'