- 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
0
Posted on 4/3/26 at 5:16 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Because without their existence you have no basis or grounding in enforcement at all. That's what I keep trying to communicate.
Their existence doesn’t guarantee anything, though, does it? Is the point of their existence merely so we can point to words (or thoughts?) and say, “These things exist but don’t actually matter outside of existing”?
quote:
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.
I realize that a significant number of people nationally and globally don’t prescribe to my personal belief system. I’m attempting to discuss this on a large scale, outside of my personal worldview.
quote:agree. What we call “rights” are just flimsy moral ideals.
it's really more useful in a discussion like this to flip it and conceive of them as moral duties instead.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 5:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It goes to the question of asking what they even are, exactly.
Flowery language.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 5:24 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Flowery language.
If their only source is man's opinion then that's correct.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 5:25 pm to Flats
quote:
If their only source is man's opinion then that's correct.
That's all anyone has, even Christians.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 5:37 pm to Flats
quote:
If their only source is man's opinion then that's correct.
Are human rights specifically referenced in either the OT or NT?
I don't mean referential interpretations ("image of God" and what not) but actual, specific references to rights.
When wackatimesthree said this:
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. 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.
I had a Confucian spidey sense tingling in m y head, because that is DIRECTLY discussed in Confucianism and I don't think it's directly or specifically discussed (especially in terms of society) in the OT or NT.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 5:44 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Flowery language.
I think they can be more than flowery language if we discuss them in terms of society, similar to morality. Both are functions of societal trial and error merging religion and social hierarchy to promote social harmony and development. This goes back to Sumer and its Uruk period (4000–3300 BC) when they realized creating priest kings would reinforce the results of this trial and error method and make society fall in line.
This is about 2000-2500 years before Judaism was created, mind you.
This is also why you see such overlap in the basics among societies that have no communication or religious overlap. All the things that disrupt society (murder, stealing, adultery, etc.) are found regardless of the religion of the society. This implies that these concepts do not have to come from a single religion (and likely they do not come from any one).
This is the ultimate problem by declaring rights or morality flows from any religion. This could not happen if that were the case. These societies had basically no interaction or cultural exchange, and many developed these concepts before the Judeo-Christian lineage (see the above Sumerian and Babylonian references predating Judaism, and see Confucianism, which was developed about 500 years before Jesus)
*ETA: but yes, if you reduce it down to mysticism that's divinely (subjectively, in reality) interpreted from texts that don't even explicitly cover these topics, it's only flowery language.
This post was edited on 4/3/26 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 4/3/26 at 5:45 pm to Mike da Tigah
Our rights are inherent ….
Posted on 4/3/26 at 5:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is the ultimate problem by declaring rights or morality flows from any religion. This could not happen if that were the case. These societies had basically no interaction or cultural exchange, and many developed these concepts beofre the Judeao Christian lineage (see the above Sumerian and Babylonian references predating Judaism, and see Confucianism, which was developed about 500 years before Jesus)
This could reinforce what Foo mentioned about God imprinting morals on the hearts of humans. The Christian God has always been and would have imprinted these same morals on the hearts of people always.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 5:55 pm to Mike da Tigah
The only source of our rights is what was fought and bled for.
Once you are unwilling to fight, and die for something it will be taken away.
So, the anwser is blood. Our rights were granted from the river of blood previous generations were willing to spill.
Anytime a goverment thinks you won't fight to the death for something they will take it away.
Why is this even a question?
Once you are unwilling to fight, and die for something it will be taken away.
So, the anwser is blood. Our rights were granted from the river of blood previous generations were willing to spill.
Anytime a goverment thinks you won't fight to the death for something they will take it away.
Why is this even a question?
Posted on 4/3/26 at 6:02 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
This could reinforce what Foo mentioned about God imprinting morals on the hearts of humans. The Christian God has always been and would have imprinted these same morals on the hearts of people always.
THIS is the "flowery language" you referenced.
It's a Motte and Bailey fallacy. pimp was doing this earlier.
quote:
The Bailey (Hard to defend): A controversial or radical claim that the speaker actually wants to promote.The Motte (Easy to defend): A nuanced, common-sense, or undeniable claim that the speaker retreats to when challenged.
The Bailey is defending this within the scope of actual history.
The Motte is retreating to selected language that can't be refuted, We can't re-write the Bible (well we can, but let's not go there) and, ignoring how this would devolve into a religious digression, that Biblical citation used in retreat does nothing to advance the actual argument in play. Even with pimp's "rationalize it away from...something" argument, what rights can you rationalize from "God is in your hearts"?
If you say you want to engage in a discussion about the development/origination of rights and morality, but when put in a tough rhetorical spot retreat like that, then are you engaging honestly? No.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 7:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
THIS is the "flowery language" you referenced.
Meh, this is an actual explanation (although a supernatural one) for the phenomenon you detailed earlier about various cultures in various geographic locations over various times having similar codes.
I totally understand why someone would reject this. It cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m not proposing this is the period at the end of the sentence.
quote:In case this isn’t obvious to everyone by now, I’m not debating. I’m discussing. I don’t believe I have the answer to this thread figured out already.
If you say you want to engage in a discussion about the development/origination of rights and morality, but when put in a tough rhetorical spot retreat like that, then are you engaging honestly? No.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 7:25 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
In case this isn’t obvious to everyone by now, I’m not debating. I’m discussing. I don’t believe I have the answer to this thread figured out already.
It wasn't even your argument I was addressing. That was a general "you" not a cubbies' "you'
Posted on 4/3/26 at 7:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
Go away, bot.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 7:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
All the things that disrupt society
So what should a society look like? And why?
quote:
This is the ultimate problem by declaring rights or morality flows from any religion.
No. The problems arise when there is no transcendent moral standard or when the assumed standard is flawed.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 8:11 pm to LSURoss
quote:
bot
Wut da hail ?
Posted on 4/3/26 at 8:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
just on this page
4:44 PM to 8:11 PM on a Friday evening
I am only passing by because I KNEW you would be here so I wanted to sneer at me.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 8:17 pm to LSURoss
Slowketanjipro is not a bot. I thought so as well until I realized the she just has "issues".
Posted on 4/4/26 at 12:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
At this point you’re not arguing against the concept of Natural Law-you’re just asserting that if you haven’t grasped it, it can’t exist.
Which is how the board knows you- the guy who make endless appeals to self authority and is surprised when we scoff and roll our eyes.
If your standard is “it doesn’t exist unless I can pin it down to my satisfaction,” then you’ve replaced reason with ego—that’s not philosophy.- that’s SlowFlowProism.
Which is how the board knows you- the guy who make endless appeals to self authority and is surprised when we scoff and roll our eyes.
If your standard is “it doesn’t exist unless I can pin it down to my satisfaction,” then you’ve replaced reason with ego—that’s not philosophy.- that’s SlowFlowProism.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 1:24 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
you’re just asserting that if you haven’t grasped it, it can’t exist.
quote:
the guy who make endless appeals to self authority and is surprised when we scoff and roll our eyes.
The ad hom also contains a straw man (no appeals to any authority have been made by me ITT).
Page 20 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News