|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 15:20:44 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 5, 2011 15:20:44 GMT -5
and do animals have rights..no most people have an expectation that animals will be treated responsibly by their owners or keepers...most people have an expectation which is sadly not lived up to and many animals suffer terribly at the hands of humans both domestic..captivity and in the wild..there is no perfection ... in the wild its survival of the fittest ..which is how it used to be with humans and still is for many humans
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 18:49:00 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2011 18:49:00 GMT -5
I am glad that my thread has stimuilated discussion.
I will reply in separate posts because so many different issues have been raised.
Let us begin with the question of meaning.
Any statement that is not a mathematical equation or which can be empirically verified is of course open to the challenge of being meaningless.
However, it remains the case that people DO use language to convey concepts and emotions as well as facts and logical formulations.
It is no more 'meaningless' to assert that human rights DO exist than to claim that they do not.
As such, the statement is self-refuting.
Indeed, it could be argued (and a Logical Positivist WOULD Aargue) that BOTH the statment 'human rights exist' and 'human rights do not exist' are equally meaningless.
In the same way, the statment 'Islam is a religion of evil' and 'Islam is a religion of good' are equally open to the challenge of meaninglessness.
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 5:21:15 GMT -5
Post by fretslider on Feb 6, 2011 5:21:15 GMT -5
I am glad that my thread has stimuilated discussion. I will reply in separate posts because so many different issues have been raised. Let us begin with the question of meaning. Any statement that is not a mathematical equation or which can be empirically verified is of course open to the challenge of being meaningless. However, it remains the case that people DO use language to convey concepts and emotions as well as facts and logical formulations. It is no more 'meaningless' to assert that human rights DO exist than to claim that they do not. As such, the statement is self-refuting. Indeed, it could be argued (and a Logical Positivist WOULD Aargue) that BOTH the statment 'human rights exist' and 'human rights do not exist' are equally meaningless. In the same way, the statment 'Islam is a religion of evil' and 'Islam is a religion of good' are equally open to the challenge of meaninglessness. Philosophy died because it became preoccupied by its own problems. Even if it were directed to the question whether it is dead, it can't be much alive, can it. In the real world people are not born with any rights whatsoever. You come into this world with nothing and you leave it.... with nothing.
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 13:36:28 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2011 13:36:28 GMT -5
absolutely...of humans had real rights..those rights would be world wide for every human and not dependent on any factor what ever....race..economics..politics..gender.. some peoples in some countries have expectations because their ancestors fought and planned for better conditions and their ancesters provided better laws for better conditions this every one has rights is a nonsense of the first order...because people get what they provide for them selves and if you dont provide then you dont get..its as simple as that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 14:18:58 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2011 14:18:58 GMT -5
In the real world people are not born with any rights whatsoever. You come into this world with nothing and you leave it.... with nothing.
Really? So it makes no difference to your lot in life if you are born as the son or daughter of a billionaire or as an Eritrean peasant?
What a strangely rosy-coloured view of the world!
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 14:23:46 GMT -5
Post by Erasmus on Feb 6, 2011 14:23:46 GMT -5
Rights, as far as I understand it, consist basically of freedom to continue doing what we would have done without interference. For the most part, they are negative. That is they are guarantees against restriction of our natural functions.
It is natural to live, so freedom from arbitrary death is a right. It is natural to move freely, so freedom from arbitrary imprisonment is a right. It is natural to be healthy, so freedom from sickness is a right. It is natural for women to bear children, so freedom from to do so is a (and the only) specifically female right. It is natural to raise the children produced, so freedom to do so is a right. It is natural to form personal relationships, so freedom to do so is a right.
Society exists to protect these rights. All interference with them must be necessary, agreed and minimal.
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 14:59:21 GMT -5
Post by biglin on Feb 6, 2011 14:59:21 GMT -5
Rights, as far as I understand it, consist basically of freedom to continue doing what we would have done without interference. For the most part, they are negative. That is they are guarantees against restriction of our natural functions. It is natural to live, so freedom from arbitrary death is a right. It is natural to move freely, so freedom from arbitrary imprisonment is a right. It is natural to be healthy, so freedom from sickness is a right. It is natural for women to bear children, so freedom from to do so is a (and the only) specifically female right. It is natural to raise the children produced, so freedom to do so is a right. It is natural to form personal relationships, so freedom to do so is a right. Society exists to protect these rights. All interference with them must be necessary, agreed and minimal. That's a pretty good basic shopping list, Razzle dazzle!
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 15:19:42 GMT -5
Post by fretslider on Feb 6, 2011 15:19:42 GMT -5
In the real world people are not born with any rights whatsoever. You come into this world with nothing and you leave it.... with nothing. Really? So it makes no difference to your lot in life if you are born as the son or daughter of a billionaire or as an Eritrean peasant? What a strangely rosy-coloured view of the world! I can tell the difference between privilege and rights, Mike, even if you can't
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 17:06:20 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2011 17:06:20 GMT -5
In the real world people are not born with any rights whatsoever. You come into this world with nothing and you leave it.... with nothing. Really? So it makes no difference to your lot in life if you are born as the son or daughter of a billionaire or as an Eritrean peasant? What a strangely rosy-coloured view of the world! but this is widening the thread in an other direction...100 yrs ago the child of a billionaire had no more guarantee of surviving than the child of the Eritrean peasant... and all the human rights in the world will not guarantee survival..or happiness..so its a bit of a no brainer who said life was fair it isnt.. i see ""rich""amanda holden had a miscarriage..shxt happens as they say
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 17:18:48 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2011 17:18:48 GMT -5
Rights, as far as I understand it, consist basically of freedom to continue doing what we would have done without interference. For the most part, they are negative. That is they are guarantees against restriction of our natural functions. It is natural to live, so freedom from arbitrary death is a right. It is natural to move freely, so freedom from arbitrary imprisonment is a right. It is natural to be healthy, so freedom from sickness is a right . It is natural for women to bear children, so freedom from to do so is a (and the only) specifically female right. cIt is natural to raise the children produced, so freedom to do so is a right. It is natural to form personal relationships, so freedom to do so is a right. cSociety exists to protect these rights. All interference with them must be necessary, agreed and minimal. very pie in the sky and idealistic..freedom from arbitary death depends on so many factors ..that one is born without defects..the environment provides enough food to sustain..the adults protecting you are capable..that no adult chooses not to abuse/murder..the argument ""narural to live"" is equally its natural to die its natural to move freely..again totally dependent on factors one has no control over and the wishes of the peer group natural to be healthy ?? no... natural selection and survival of the fittest is natural..not medical interventiom err yes,,women do have children It is natural to raise the children produced..again factors determine It is natural to form personal relationships, so freedom to do so is a right ?again factors apply Society exists to protect these rights. All interference with them must be necessary, agreed and minimal.....societies differ and society is man made so yet again factors apply
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 17:25:53 GMT -5
Post by fretslider on Feb 6, 2011 17:25:53 GMT -5
Rights, as far as I understand it, consist basically of freedom to continue doing what we would have done without interference. For the most part, they are negative. That is they are guarantees against restriction of our natural functions. It is natural to live, so freedom from arbitrary death is a right. It is natural to move freely, so freedom from arbitrary imprisonment is a right. It is natural to be healthy, so freedom from sickness is a right . It is natural for women to bear children, so freedom from to do so is a (and the only) specifically female right. cIt is natural to raise the children produced, so freedom to do so is a right. It is natural to form personal relationships, so freedom to do so is a right. cSociety exists to protect these rights. All interference with them must be necessary, agreed and minimal. very pie in the sky and idealistic..freedom from arbitary death depends on so many factors ..that one is born without defects..the environment provides enough food to sustain..the adults protecting you are capable..that no adult chooses not to abuse/murder..the argument ""narural to live"" is equally its natural to die its natural to move freely..again totally dependent on factors one has no control over and the wishes of the peer group natural to be healthy ?? no... natural selection and survival of the fittest is natural..not medical interventiom err yes,,women do have children It is natural to raise the children produced..again factors determine It is natural to form personal relationships, so freedom to do so is a right ?again factors apply Society exists to protect these rights. All interference with them must be necessary, agreed and minimal.....societies differ and society is man made so yet again factors apply Lets add a more recent right to the list... The right to be offended
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 18:08:37 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2011 18:08:37 GMT -5
lor..i forgot that one... ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 18:26:24 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2011 18:26:24 GMT -5
lor..i forgot that one... ;D I think every member of this board has exercised that right on more than one occasion in their life!
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 19:02:01 GMT -5
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 6, 2011 19:02:01 GMT -5
absolutely...of humans had real rights..those rights would be world wide for every human and not dependent on any factor what ever....race..economics..politics..gender.. some peoples in some countries have expectations because their ancestors fought and planned for better conditions and their ancesters provided better laws for better conditions this every one has rights is a nonsense of the first order...because people get what they provide for them selves and if you dont provide then you dont get..its as simple as that the reality is that everyone is born with certain rights, such as the right to life. obviously, there are countries where those rights are not recognized, either by law or by that society. that doesn't change the fact that the people who live their have those rights. it just means that that government, or society, is prima facie evil because they don't recognize the rights
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 6, 2011 19:13:17 GMT -5
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 6, 2011 19:13:17 GMT -5
Rights, as far as I understand it, consist basically of freedom to continue doing what we would have done without interference. For the most part, they are negative. That is they are guarantees against restriction of our natural functions. It is natural to live, so freedom from arbitrary death is a right. It is natural to move freely, so freedom from arbitrary imprisonment is a right. It is natural to be healthy, so freedom from sickness is a right . It is natural for women to bear children, so freedom from to do so is a (and the only) specifically female right. cIt is natural to raise the children produced, so freedom to do so is a right. It is natural to form personal relationships, so freedom to do so is a right. cSociety exists to protect these rights. All interference with them must be necessary, agreed and minimal. very pie in the sky and idealistic..freedom from arbitary death depends on so many factors ..that one is born without defects..the environment provides enough food to sustain..the adults protecting you are capable..that no adult chooses not to abuse/murder..the argument ""narural to live"" is equally its natural to die its natural to move freely..again totally dependent on factors one has no control over and the wishes of the peer group natural to be healthy ?? no... natural selection and survival of the fittest is natural..not medical interventiom err yes,,women do have children It is natural to raise the children produced..again factors determine It is natural to form personal relationships, so freedom to do so is a right ?again factors apply Society exists to protect these rights. All interference with them must be necessary, agreed and minimal.....societies differ and society is man made so yet again factors apply Lets add a more recent right to the list... The right to be offended huh uh. no one has a right to be offended
|
|