- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is the source of our rights?
Posted on 4/3/26 at 11:46 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 4/3/26 at 11:46 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Thanks
Don't mention it.
0
Posted on 4/3/26 at 12:57 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
You don’t “ find” it somewhere- you RECOGNIZE it through REASON in HUMAN NATURE , which is why you would call it WRONG if someone were to attempt to do it.
Alright, how do you reason your way to these natural rights?
Posted on 4/3/26 at 1:54 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I'm just pointing out that you are arguing with a guy who has freely admitted on this very thread to being a troll.
That did not read like a grand confession to me.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 2:05 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
And I’m not going to give you this attention you so DESPERATELY seek.
My read is that he’s looking for stimulation, not just random attention.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 2:07 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
you RECOGNIZE it through REASON in HUMAN NATURE
Our egos equip us with the ability to explain/justify/rationalize anything.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 2:09 pm to Mike da Tigah
Unnamed sources with knowledge of the situation.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 2:14 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Right next to the laws of mathematics and logic.
These aren’t dependent on human behavior to work, though. They produce the same results regardless of who applies them.
Natural rights can be ignored, denied, or applied inconsistently depending on the society or the people in power. Unless you are arguing that they are universal (because you or someone who you agree with) said so.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:08 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
These aren’t dependent on human behavior to work, though.
That's what you keep conflating.
Enforcing rights is not the same thing as rights existing.
Those are two different questions.
And I would argue that mathematics and logic DO depend on human behavior—I know you said they produce the same result regardless of who applies them, but who other than humans is going to apply them? And if by that you meant that different people come to different conclusions about rights, they come to different philosophical conclusions and different mathematical conclusions as well.
So now there are three different questions. Ontology, epistemology, and morality.
But i don't see a big difference, back to your original differentiation. We have to perceive and correctly apply the laws of logic to arrive at the correct philosophical conclusion just like we have to perceive and apply basic human rights to arrive at the correct conclusion regarding how to treat one another.
If math and logic can exist objectively apart from humans, so can rights.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:18 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Enforcing rights is not the same thing as rights existing.
Arguing that they exist regardless of if they are enforced (or acknowledged?) renders them even more meaningless, doesn’t it?
quote:
And I would argue that mathematics and logic DO depend on human behavior—I know you said they produce the same result regardless of who applies them, but who other than humans is going to apply them? And if by that you meant that different people come to different conclusions about rights, they come to different philosophical conclusions and different mathematical conclusions as well.
I apologize because I have a feeling you’ve stated this but the thread has endured over days and days now - do you claim these rights do exist universally for all animals/objects - not just humans?
I don’t want to make any assumptions or mischaracterizations.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:29 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Arguing that they exist regardless of if they are enforced (or acknowledged?) renders them even more meaningless, doesn’t it?
It goes to the question of asking what they even are, exactly.
quote:
do you claim these rights do exist universally for all animals/objects - not just humans?
That's actually a very good question.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:29 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Arguing that they exist regardless of if they are enforced (or acknowledged?) renders them even more meaningless, doesn’t it?
Nope.
Because without their existence you have no basis or grounding in enforcement at all. That's what I keep trying to communicate.
If rights don't exist, you have no logical basis to object to anything anyone does. If they do exist, that doesn't mean they will always be enforced. But if they don't exist there is no logical grounding for any enforcement.
Plus, I thought you were a Christian. Mainstream Christianity believes in rights as reflections of Divine Character, and calls violations of those rights sin, and believes that even if sins are committed and not punished here, they will be punished later.
As a Christian you don't believe in sin?
quote:
I apologize because I have a feeling you’ve stated this but the thread has endured over days and days now - do you claim these rights do exist universally for all animals/objects - not just humans?
I don’t want to make any assumptions or mischaracterizations.
My concept is that of Thomas Aquinas, specifically in the idea of "God's Ideas As Exemplar Causes." Everything that exists is a greater or lesser reflection of Divine Character.
I think when we're talking about things like "human rights," it's really more useful in a discussion like this to flip it and conceive of them as moral duties instead. For example, you could say that women (and men) have a right to not be raped. You could also say that men (and women) have a moral obligation to not rape.
It becomes easier to see how rights could apply to animals and even non-living entities if they are considered as moral obligations. We have a moral obligation to be kind to animals and to take care of the environment that we have been made stewards of, for example.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:29 pm to LSURoss
quote:
Really? Look at your timestamps through the past few pages. It's impressive and sad
Why sad?
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
473703
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:30 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Right next to the laws of mathematics and logic.
Those require proofs that can be identified, verified, and proliferated.
Show me this work on rights.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:30 pm to davyjones
quote:
Unnamed sources with knowledge of the situation.
OK that's funnyPosted on 4/3/26 at 4:33 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Because without their existence you have no basis or grounding in enforcement at all.
This is specifically not true, especially with pimp's distinction between power and rights.
quote:
If rights don't exist, you have no logical basis to object to anything anyone does.
You can object to an exponentially larger number of behaviors that have no relationship to your definition of rights, though, correct?
quote:
I think when we're talking about things like "human rights," it's really more useful in a discussion like this to flip it and conceive of them as moral duties instead.
This overlap can exist without deities, though.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Those require proofs that can be identified, verified, and proliferated.
Nope.
Mathematics and logic can't be used to prove themselves without using fundamental axioms that are assumptions and can't be proven.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems for reference.
This post was edited on 4/3/26 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
I think you accidentally replied to the wrong poster.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is specifically not true
Nope. It is.
There is no logical grounding. And if by that you mean that might makes right/s, that's not grounding rights, that's ignoring them.
quote:
You can object to an exponentially larger number of behaviors that have no relationship to your definition of rights, though, correct?
I don't know. What would some examples be?
quote:
This overlap can exist without deities, though.
Not really. But for the purposes of this discussion we can act like that's true and it won't cause any undue problems, I don't think.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 4:43 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Nope. It is.
There is no logical grounding.
Why not?
Why do you require deities to establish this "logical grounding" and ignore things like...tactile examples from earth?
quote:
And if by that you mean that might makes right/s, that's not grounding rights, that's ignoring them.
No that's pimp's problem to solve.
You don't need might to determine this, either.
It's not that "rights" don't exist. It's that
1. We need real definitions
2. Where do they originate?
quote:
I don't know. What would some examples be?
Playing a Facetime in a grocery store.
That doesn't violate any rights (at least I hope you're not defining it that widely) and you can object to it.
quote:
Not really.
Why not?
quote:
But for the purposes of this discussion we can act like that's true and it won't cause any undue problems, I don't think.
It wil for the people who argue that rights require those deities
Page 19 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News