Oddbean new post about login | logout The bill of rights did not grant rights. Read it again.
I didn't say anywhere that it did.
Yes you did. You suggested the bill of rights is a legal agreement that somehow agrees on what rights humans should have. Do the rights exist if this agreement does not exist?
I didn't but whatever. Obviously they no longer exist legally. but whether they exist legally or not, its up to the people to *exercise them. if they aren't doing that it doesn't much matter what is written down. you have no rights except those you assert and defend.
So the handicapped have no rights? Ehat about children? Your philosophy sounds evil. Besides, you seen to have abandoned your stance that rights only exist when parties agree. Not a position to listen to until you've got a better foundation.
Do the "rights" of the handicapped and children come from the guarantee of state violence as homeboy is suggesting? or because we mutually agree they have "human rights?" nostr:nevent1qqszc27r26zvquj9w8ha5h0ttcm3xqggz7g0d2wryyw2zv6ka6ckg0gpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygpptq9f32hkfa7kvuz6heal0fav7nhygr70ddvapdmwzcshsfxcj5psgqqqqqqsl8y8kx
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said the state has anything to do with rights. You did. You also suggest if a child can't defend themselves in isolation, then they have no rights. You also imply that if everyone except for you agrees you have no rights, then you have none.
lol saying"putting words in my mouth" and then saying a bunch of stuff I never said. but basically yeah if an individual can't assert "rights" themselves and everyone else agrees they don't have them, sucks to be you. in that situation, in what sense do they have those "rights" except as imagination? where do those rights exist? how would they be guaranteed ? (except through violence by a 3rd party, which is the usual way of doing it)
If an individual can't assert rights and everyone disagrees it's a right, then does the right not exist. Seems you are arguing it doesn't exist. Flip side: If someone asserts and takes their "right" no matter how egregious, you would argue that the right exists. What kind of morality is that which changes with the ebbs and flows of the zeitgeist?
If everyone says an imaginary thing isn't real and I think it is, but I can't demonstrate its reality in what way does it exist? except as my imagination 🤨 If I felt really strongly about it, I'd move somewhere I could demonstrate that "right" without being antagonized.
Rights come from the individual, and not the state. The state is nothing but a monopoly on violence. And we as a society tolerate this, to (in theory) stop other violence Therefore, They may voluntarily choose to seek the protection of the state from violence. But, there has to be an opt out.
yeah homeboy wasn't really trying to make a case they were from the state. He's not quite sure of his position i think. basically i agree with you but wondering "rights come from the individual" are those specific rights everyone is born with? or do I have to decide on them myself and put them out there?
For life and liberty, the individual has rights no matter what. You can't give it up. You can only change who is enforcing it. For property, you have to put in work, to make it your's. If it's for example uninhabited land.
Oh yeah? where do those rights you have "no matter what" come from? "Life" probably has pretty general agreement. Most people agree they should be allowed to exist. "Liberty"? (whatever *that is) Not so much.
Morality is objective, as there would be no purpose in it if it was subjective. You could kill and say "to me it felt right" Morality is a survival mechanism, as we can't survive without basic rules. Morality dictates you can't kill or enslave others (which is how I'm defining liberty here) Therefore, An individual's unconditional objective rights are derived morality, which is an emotional experience in the human mind, that should be governed by objective rules, derived from reason. This could be also be phrased, Rights come from mankind's ability to reason.
This implies the survival of humanity is some form of objective goal.
it is and if you disagree with that, then die to debate it, you have to be alive
That's fallacious argumentation. It doesn't prove it's objective. That said, there are some who might wish to exterminate 90%. What of those? The rule fails against them.
Dude? What about the ones who wish to end 95% of humanity?
fuck off pedo scum
Kill yourself, ultra homo vermin.
Yea at least thats the only way that "natural rights" make any sense. But its also extremely vague on details which is fine. Agreeing exactly what the morals are, and how to derive rights from them, is very murky and fraught with disagreement. Large parts of the world do not derive "freedom of speech" from "you cant kill or enslave others" for example. Which I why I've been arguing for pragmatic rights, those you can actually assert and are generally agreed upon socially. Although I agree morality is a survival mechanism and tends to be pretty consistent across time and cultures.
explain the pragmatic rights being asserted?
Essentially, that rights are what you can exercise in a social context. Any rando can imagine a right or privilege. But if you can't actually exercise it, so what? Likewise society can decide a existent right is no longer is valid. (not the state, social consensus at whatever level) In either situation the individual's option is to go somewhere they can *exercise the rights they hold. Individuals generally will not continuously assert rights in contexts that result in social exclusion. 99% of the time they either conform or move to a different social context that agrees with them. So rights aren't static, except in a dogmatic sense. They result from individuals asserting them en masse.