[QUOTE=JustExtreme;23786545]It's the actual word I don't agree with the use of I guess, privileges just seems a more valid and accurate description of 'legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement' as rights, to me, just sounds like things that MUST be provided in any country but they aren't in all so I don't like to see them as rights.[/QUOTE]
so freedom of speech, which is a right, shouldn't be provided?
[editline]10:58PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;23786627]Not really no. You can't prove a right does or doesn't exist and violating someone's rights doesn't have any sort of physical repercussions. Rights are 100% human constructs. One guy can claim everyone has a right to healthcare and someone else can disagree and neither one is wrong.[/QUOTE]
It's an obvious thing. This kind of deconstructing of basic ethics is dangerous and logic serial killers use.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23787033]It's an obvious thing. This kind of deconstructing of basic ethics is dangerous and logic serial killers use.[/QUOTE]
Investigating ethics instead of taking them for granted is for serial killers
Just fucking wow
Deconstructing things and saying rights are subjective and are just human inventions is dangerous. Why do you NEED to investigate ethics.
you don't fucking kill, plain and god damn simple.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23787033]so freedom of speech, which is a right, shouldn't be provided?
[editline]10:58PM[/editline]
It's an obvious thing. This kind of deconstructing of basic ethics is dangerous and logic serial killers use.[/QUOTE]
Freedom of speech does not exist in true form anywhere. I take freedom of speech to mean completely unrestricted in what one can say or express. It exists in controlled forms and for the most part that seems to work pretty well but it isn't true free speech if it has limitations upon it.
Free speech or not, I like to think that a say should be earned just like respect should be.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;23786444]The only way to not "believe in rights" is to be a fascist. Your views aren't compatible with any other form of government.[/QUOTE]
What if he's a monarchist or a proponent of Egoist anarchism?
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;23787618]Freedom of speech does not exist in true form anywhere. I take freedom of speech to mean completely unrestricted in what one can say or express. It exists in controlled forms and for the most part that seems to work pretty well but it isn't true free speech if it has limitations upon it.
Free speech or not, I like to think that a say should be earned just like respect should be.[/QUOTE]
You don't deserve it then.
Restrictions are there so retards won't have to use 'freedom of speech' in their court defense after they yelled 'bomb' in a crowded theater.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23787517]Deconstructing things and saying rights are subjective and are just human inventions is dangerous. Why do you NEED to investigate ethics.
you don't fucking kill, plain and god damn simple.[/QUOTE]
They are just human inventions. The only natural 'rights' not thought up by people are life and death.
Dangerous? Interesting, so... don't think things through because they're 'dangerous'? Thinking about where ideas come from is not dangerous.
Killing isn't always a bad thing. Plenty of things have been prevented by killing.
Also; NEWS FLASH - life is not sacred. I do not think that human life is in any way special just because it is human - any credit given should be earned.
Predicts cry of 'elitist' and responds 'yeah... and?'
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;23787618]Freedom of speech does not exist in true form anywhere. I take freedom of speech to mean completely unrestricted in what one can say or express. It exists in controlled forms and for the most part that seems to work pretty well but it isn't true free speech if it has limitations upon it.
Free speech or not, I like to think that a say should be earned just like respect should be.[/QUOTE]
Freedom of speech and expression are two different categories.
So people need to EARN their freedom?
and you're denying you're a neo fascist?
[editline]11:36PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;23787771]They are just human inventions. The only natural 'rights' not thought up by people are life and death.[/quote]
Again, so fucking what? it's an established order.
[quote]Dangerous? Interesting, so... don't think things through because they're 'dangerous'? Thinking about where ideas come from is not dangerous.[/quote]
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
so deconstructing and trying to justify breaches of this established order is now just a way to figure out where these ideas come from? lolno
[quote]Killing [B]isn't always a bad thing[/B]. Plenty of things have been prevented by killing.
Also; NEWS FLASH - [B]life is not sacred.[/B] I do not think that human life is in any way special just because it is human - it should have to earn that, I just think that it should be measured by what individuals bring to the table. Did I hear 'elitist'?[/QUOTE]
uh, yes it is and yes it is.
you need to earn life? what a fucking scumbag you are.
Are you like an angsty 13 year old anti-humanist?
[editline]11:37PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=MingusMajor;23787635]What if he's a monarchist or a proponent of Egoist anarchism?[/QUOTE]
Monarchy's are human based. It's autocracy's not totalitarianism.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23786497]Rights are not subjective. They're basic.[/QUOTE]
Anything from a human perspective is subjective. No idea that has been formed in an individual can be considered objective, even our very existence can be questioned. However, this is not to say that subjectivity is in any way harmful. What I am assuming from your comments is that objectivism is the only true way of thought and that the concept of the subjective creation of ethics is blasphemous. We're always coloured with and by our opinions, even during this argument. You aren't objective at all, due to your bias against JohnnyMo's subjective thinking. So what, if our ethics and ideals on human rights are subjective? They allow us to function as a society. It is therefore, in my opinion, safe to say that subjectivity has allowed human rationalism to flourish and create the moral and ethical composure we use in our dealings with our companion human beings. It seems more awe-inspiring to me, that we, as a species are capable of creating our own moral and ethical system, as a way of treating each other with respect and dignity, rather than it being a biological imperative or supernatural creation. It states much about our potential for good, rather than our capacity for destruction.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23787817]Freedom of speech and expression are two different categories.
So people need to EARN their freedom?
and you're denying you're a neo fascist?
[editline]11:36PM[/editline]
Again, so fucking what? it's an established order.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
so deconstructing and trying to justify breaches of this established order is now just a way to figure out where these ideas come from? lolno
uh, yes it is and yes it is.
you need to earn life? what a fucking scumbag you are.
Are you like an angsty 13 year old anti-humanist?
[editline]11:37PM[/editline]
Monarchy's are human based. It's autocracy's not totalitarianism.[/QUOTE]
I don't mean it like that.
I mean that I feel there should be more controls of some kind to sift out the shit that people spew when they are going on about a topic they don't even understand, especially if they are in a position of power.
I combined them seeing as generally people who want one of them want the other.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;23787983]I don't mean it like that.
I mean that I feel there should be more controls of some kind to sift out the shit that people spew when they are going on about a topic they don't even understand, especially if they are in a position of power.
I combined them seeing as generally people who want one of them want the other.[/QUOTE]
Except that is pretty fucked up and inhumane to "regulate" free speech. Every dictator has used that excuse.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;23787771]They are just human inventions. The only natural 'rights' not thought up by people are life and death.
Dangerous? Interesting, so... don't think things through because they're 'dangerous'? Thinking about where ideas come from is not dangerous.
Killing isn't always a bad thing. Plenty of things have been prevented by killing.
Also; NEWS FLASH - life is not sacred. I do not think that human life is in any way special just because it is human - any credit given should be earned.
Predicts cry of 'elitist' and responds 'yeah... and?'[/QUOTE]
ok let me get this straight
you think ethics, even ones carefully analyzed and considered, are useless and shouldn't be acknowledged?
i agree with analyzing ideas people considered as being ethical because a lot of ethics people have had in the past really aren't all that ethical (e.g. thinking that homosexuality is bad)
but, disregarding them because they are merely human inventions? what the fuck??
if someone went clockwork orange on your ass, you wouldn't care? what's wrong with you?
Inhumane? How so?
A lot of democratic countries regulate free speech too, they don't like to mention it though.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;23788131]Inhumane? How so?
A lot of democratic countries regulate free speech too, they don't like to mention it though.[/QUOTE]
Because it violates your human rights.
Did you not take a history class or something? This shit is covered in the constitution.
JustExtreme is a Neo-Fascist you see.
He's stupid and he contradicts everything he says/suggests/thinks. Just like the real Fascists.
[QUOTE=wonkadonk;23788130]ok let me get this straight
you think ethics, even ones carefully analyzed and considered, are useless and shouldn't be acknowledged?
i agree with analyzing ideas people considered as being ethical because a lot of ethics people have had in the past really aren't all that ethical (e.g. thinking that homosexuality is bad)
but, disregarding them because they are merely human inventions? what the fuck??
if someone went clockwork orange on your ass, you wouldn't care? what's wrong with you?[/QUOTE]
No, I did not mean that.
I meant that they and their origin/basis should be questioned and analysed as you say, not that they are useless and should be discarded.
Too many assumptions are made in regard to ethics in place of rational examination.
You're trying to argue there is no such thing as human rights
the fuck is wrong with you?
[editline]11:55PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;23788247]No, I did not mean that.
I meant that they and [B]their origin/basis should be questioned and analysed[/B] as you say, not that they are useless and should be discarded.
Too many assumptions are made in regard to ethics in place of rational examination.[/QUOTE]
First of all, why? second of all, you're not fucking doing that.
[QUOTE=Paramud;23788168]Because it violates your human rights.
Did you not take a history class or something? This shit is covered in the constitution.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I did but I'm British so 'what constitution?'
[QUOTE=Warhol;23788259]First of all, why?[/QUOTE]
Because questioning things is good.
[QUOTE=Paramud;23788292]Because questioning things is good.[/QUOTE]
Questioning why we don't kill is good?
[editline]12:05AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;23788281]Yeah I did but I'm British so 'what constitution?'[/QUOTE]
fine, this shit is covered in the collective of royal prerogative's
ok, if that doesn't have consequences, I'm the pope
[QUOTE=Warhol;23788453]Questioning why we don't kill is good?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Would you rather we just do whatever someone else tells us to do?
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;23788131]Inhumane? How so?
A lot of democratic countries regulate free speech too, they don't like to mention it though.[/QUOTE]
(late but whatever)
There's a difference between fascistic regulation and democratic regulation. In a Fascist government, speech is arbitrarily regulated, things such as basic dissent, freedom to disagree with the government/other powerful entities, and related speech are regulated. In democratic countries, usually only speech that is directly harmful or infringes on another person's rights (libel, slander, defamation) is limited. You can't just say "OH DEMOCRACIES DO IT TOO" because it's an unfair comparison, they don't limit it in anywhere close to the same way.
How can they call this a church?
[QUOTE=Warhol;23788453]Questioning why we don't kill is good?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
It's fairly easy to defend an ethic that states one shouldn't commit murder. Your defense of why one shouldn't commit murder was "BECAUSE THAT HOW IT WORKS". But there are reasons why one shouldn't commit murder. There is logic and evidence that shows why murder is bad. You don't need to go "BECAUSE I SAY SO" when defending why murder is bad.
[QUOTE=Paramud;23788489]Yes. Would you rather we just do whatever someone else tells us to do?[/QUOTE]
lol, big difference.
[editline]12:15AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=wonkadonk;23788567]Yes.
It's fairly easy to defend an ethic that states one shouldn't commit murder. Your defense of why one shouldn't commit murder was [B]"BECAUSE THAT HOW IT WORKS".[/B] But there are reasons why one shouldn't commit murder. There is logic and evidence that shows why murder is bad. You don't need to go "BECAUSE I SAY SO" when defending why murder is bad.[/QUOTE]
excuse me for not fucking going into a god damn long ethics rant for something so god damn basic.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23788453]Questioning why we don't kill is good?
[/QUOTE]
I would assume so. It allows us to understand our own individual morality. It allows alludes to the greater question: Why do we kill? Would you rather blindly accept the way you think or how society functions without ever actually understanding the reasons as to why we choose act in the ways we do? Is ignorance blissful, for you?
EDIT:
If your argument is "something so god damn basic.", Why have numerous philosophers, such as Kant, been questioning human ethics for centuries? If our own self-determination was as simple as you state it is, why haven't we progressed to a point wherein there are no murders, selfishness or crime due to our ability to just repress our thoughts for the benefit of society?
you don't NEED to fucking provide evidence of why murder is bad.
what the fuck are you on?
[editline]12:17AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Machk;23788641]I would assume so. It allows us to understand our own individual morality. It allows alludes to the greater question: Why do we kill? Would you rather blindly accept the way you think or how society functions without ever actually understanding the reasons as to why we choose act in the ways we do? Is ignorance blissful, for you?[/QUOTE]
Ok, second fucking person to assume that: "oh hay, he thinks something pretty fucking well established and BLATANTLY obvious shouldn't be questioned, NOTHING should be questioned hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"
[QUOTE=Machk;23788641]I would assume so. It allows us to understand our own individual morality. It allows alludes to the greater question: Why do we kill? Would you rather blindly accept the way you think or how society functions without ever actually understanding the reasons as to why we choose act in the ways we do? Is ignorance blissful, for you?
EDIT:
If your argument is "something so god damn basic.", Why have numerous philosophers, such as Kant, been questioning human ethics for centuries? If our own self-determination was as simple as you state it is, why haven't we progressed to a point wherein there are no murders, selfishness or crime due to our ability to just repress our thoughts for the benefit of society?[/QUOTE]
Do we really need to question as to why we can't fuck our mothers and marry our daughters or just murder you for being stupid?
I personally know Muslims and are very good friends with them. I don't see them as bad people since I don't give a fuck what anyone's religion is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.