Militia question 1

[Mercutio]

Absolutely. And this is why such a system works so well. My rights are unalienable. You can violate them, but you can't really take them from me.

Except that you're ignoring what this would inevitably lead to. Your argument is essentially, "Hitler made the trains run on time." Yeah, maybe, but I don't like where those trains go...

Uh, yes, in every situation. It always does.

No, it's tantamount to me saying that I'm a human being and I do not recognize your authority telling me what I can do with my own property.

I think my question is answered; "rights" do appear to be, essentially, articles of faith, held dogmatically.

 

[crimresearch]

"I think my question is answered; "rights" do appear to be, essentially, articles of faith, held dogmatically."

OK, and your conclusion?

'Rights' is a social construct..so are honesty, morality, liberty, et al.

And people have written about these constructs using religious terms , as we've already mentioned.

Does that mean that a purely rational skeptic, in order to reject religion, dogma, and social constructs, must be dishonest, amoral, and pro-slavery?

 

[CFLarsen]

Don't waste your time mis-understanding the subtle sarcasms of my posts. You have questions to respond to.

Denmark's monarchy and State Religion come to mind.

Feel free to open a new thread. See if I'll be there.

 

[Mercutio]

"I think my question is answered; "rights" do appear to be, essentially, articles of faith, held dogmatically."

OK, and your conclusion?

'Rights' is a social construct..so are honesty, morality, liberty, et al.

And people have written about these constructs using religious terms , as we've already mentioned.

Does that mean that a purely rational skeptic, in order to reject religion, dogma, and social constructs, must be dishonest, amoral, and pro-slavery?

Sorry, my post was too brief because I had to run off to class. I was simply curious as to where rights were assumed to come from; contrary to popular belief, I am not one to use "religious" as a derogatory term. It matters not to me whether someone believes that rights are an inherent part of human nature or a social construct; either way, the concept has been very useful to our culture. My curiosity was regarding the fervor with which they are sometimes defended here; I thought it odd that, on a skeptical site, they were beyond questioning.

I agree they are a social construct; that does not make them bad (was that what you read into my meaning? I am just wondering why you felt the need to explicitly group rights with other positive constructs; I think rights can stand up for themselves). If they were god-given instead of socially constructed, that would not make them either better or worse (it might make them less open to challenge, as I said above).

Your last sentence has me puzzled. Where do I suggest that a rational approach must be dishonest, amoral, and pro-slavery? (shouldn't that last be pro-property-rights?) I proposed long-term best interest of one's culture as a possible reason for laws; do those characteristics (dishonesty, etc.) seem like a long-term winner to you?

 

[Mercutio]

No, now, that wasn't what you said. Language has no meaning in isolation. Whom are they supposed to talk to? That's a bogus point.

They didn't learn the language; they made it up! Language isn't something that some smart guy discovered thousands of years ago. Get a bunch of people together, and even without any form of instruction, they'll create a language all their own. This clearly says that, while languages must be created and learned, speech is, indeed, inherent.

I could argue further, but will not. If I cede that the ability to speak is inherent, how does this also imply that the right to speak is also inherent? You seem to equate the two, and I am having trouble understanding why.

 

[Cleopatra]

I could argue further, but will not. If I cede that the ability to speak is inherent, how does this also imply that the right to speak is also inherent? You seem to equate the two, and I am having trouble understanding why.

Why? I think that the reason why Shane is doing that is obvious. By naming a right "inherent" and not a product of a social consesus he avoids the argument that all the products of social consesus must be judged into their historical context and therefore are subjected to changes/amendements.

 

[crimresearch]

Sorry, my post was too brief because I had to run off to class. I was simply curious as to where rights were assumed to come from; contrary to popular belief, I am not one to use "religious" as a derogatory term. It matters not to me whether someone believes that rights are an inherent part of human nature or a social construct; either way, the concept has been very useful to our culture. My curiosity was regarding the fervor with which they are sometimes defended here; I thought it odd that, on a skeptical site, they were beyond questioning.

I agree they are a social construct; that does not make them bad (was that what you read into my meaning? I am just wondering why you felt the need to explicitly group rights with other positive constructs; I think rights can stand up for themselves). If they were god-given instead of socially constructed, that would not make them either better or worse (it might make them less open to challenge, as I said above).

Your last sentence has me puzzled. Where do I suggest that a rational approach must be dishonest, amoral, and pro-slavery? (shouldn't that last be pro-property-rights?) I proposed long-term best interest of one's culture as a possible reason for laws; do those characteristics (dishonesty, etc.) seem like a long-term winner to you?

I think skepticism and rationality has it's extremes too...I've heard arguments that concepts such as 'love', or 'patriotism', or 'honesty' were the product of fallacious thinking.

I've even heard it suggested that psychopathy is an evolutionary advantage.

Rather than accusing you of holding those viewpoints, I was just curious as to where your take on rights was headed along the spectrum.

 

[Mercutio]

Why? I think that the reason why Shane is doing that is obvious. By naming a right "inherent" and not a product of a social consesus he avoids the argument that all the products of social consesus must be judged into their historical context and therefore are subjected to changes/amendements.

Perhaps "why" was the wrong word. I meant "why do you equate them" in the sense of "through what logic do you see them as identical?" rather than "for what reason do you treat them as identical?" As to the latter question, I agree with you completely.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why? I think that the reason why Shane is doing that is obvious. By naming a right "inherent" and not a product of a social consesus he avoids the argument that all the products of social consesus must be judged into their historical context and therefore are subjected to changes/amendements.

...thereby absolving himself of any responsibility.

This world is all about shanek, and his rights. Everything else can go to hell.

Yup.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think skepticism and rationality has it's extremes too...I've heard arguments that concepts such as 'love', or 'patriotism', or 'honesty' were the product of fallacious thinking.

I've even heard it suggested that psychopathy is an evolutionary advantage.

Where?

 

[shanek]

I am having trouble seeing the difference, in your examples, between having the right to have a gun and simply having the gun without the right to, since another could violate that right.

It all depends on whether or not the government is going to protect my right to own a gun or infringe upon it. If they infringe upon it, they side with the mob.

 

[shanek]

'Rights' is a social construct..so are honesty, morality, liberty, et al.

And actually, by his logic, so is every other concept humans can conceive of, because they would all be unnecessary without contact with at least one more human.

 

[shanek]

...thereby absolving himself of any responsibility.

This world is all about shanek, and his rights. Everything else can go to hell.

Yup.

Wrong again, Claus the Liar. You must have rights in order to be responsible. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other.

 

[Mercutio]

And actually, by his logic, so is every other concept humans can conceive of, because they would all be unnecessary without contact with at least one more human.

Well, every social concept, at least...as opposed to something like "gravity", which does not rely on another person.

Oddly enough, I think this argues against what you have been saying...if it is natural law in the same sense as gravity (as you suggested earlier), it would not require "at least one more human". But...it does.

 

[Mercutio]

It all depends on whether or not the government is going to protect my right to own a gun or infringe upon it. If they infringe upon it, they side with the mob.

Suppose they do...which protects you, your right to bear arms, or your gun? I think it is the latter.

 

[Globert]

Suppose they do...which protects you, your right to bear arms, or your gun? I think it is the latter.

And which came first the chicken or egg?

Should One suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or by opposing end them?

Cognito ergo sum, is evident unto itself. One's unfetterd right to live, thrive and survive is also evident unto itself.

Stones, sharp sticks, cricket bats, a paticularly sharp tooth, knifes, guns, hayforks, whatever is necessary to be secure in One's immediate environment. my right to my own personal security.

-Globe

tossed in a couple o' commas

 

[c0rbin]

Well, every social concept, at least...as opposed to something like "gravity", which does not rely on another person.

Oddly enough, I think this argues against what you have been saying...if it is natural law in the same sense as gravity (as you suggested earlier), it would not require "at least one more human". But...it does.

"One more human" is only required to infringe those rights.

 

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

For the third time: What did the moderators say to your report?

 

[Kodiak]

shanek,

For the third time: What did the moderators say to your report?

If you start a separate thread, maybe he'll answer...

 

[Mercutio]

"One more human" is only required to infringe those rights.

Then the rights are undefined without these other humans. A bit different from gravity.

Globert--perhaps I am simply not understanding, but it seems that your post once again (as others here) is circularly defining rights by identification with abilities. As such, I keep coming back to seeing the concept as superfluous. I do very much appreciate the attempts to get me to understand, but so far I'm just not seeing that view.