Sadistic parenting story of the day: foster mother arrested for torturing and sodomizing her 10-year - Polidicks

[QUOTE=James*;32258570]Rather than the laws which derive from them I think he's saying that the concept of human rights is based on a sort of moral consensus and I don't think he's wrong[/QUOTE] No you are wrong. Whose moral consensus, exactly, does it derive from? How exactly is law cold and objective if it derives from a single instance of subjective morality? Furthermore, how can Supreme Court Justices be morally opposed to Abortion and yet support the Roe V. Wade ruling if rights are rooted in moral principles?

[QUOTE=Lankist;32258582]No you are wrong. Whose moral consensus, exactly, does it derive from? How exactly is law cold and objective if it derives from a single instance of subjective morality?[/QUOTE] Well going back to 'do unto others as you would have them do onto you' or however it goes is that not to some extent a moral judgement?

[QUOTE=James*;32258599]Well going back to 'do unto others as you would have them do onto you' or however it goes is that not to some extent a moral judgement?[/QUOTE] That isn't morality, it's a contract. It is an agreement between parties. Simply because it is an agreement upon behavior does not make it a moral outline. When you agree to an EULA, is that now your morality?

[QUOTE=James*;32258570]Rather than the laws which derive from them I think he's saying that the concept of human rights is based on a sort of moral consensus and I don't think he's wrong[/QUOTE] That is exactly what I'm trying to say but he keeps twisting my words.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32258636]That is exactly what I'm trying to say but he keeps twisting my words.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;32258582]No you are wrong. Whose moral consensus, exactly, does it derive from? How exactly is law cold and objective if it derives from a single instance of subjective morality? Furthermore, how can Supreme Court Justices be morally opposed to Abortion and yet support the Roe V. Wade ruling if rights are rooted in moral principles?[/QUOTE] You can feel free to answer those questions yourself. You know, instead of joining the peanut gallery and acting like a smartass.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32258656]You can feel free to answer those questions yourself. You know, instead of joining the peanut gallery and acting like a smartass.[/QUOTE] What do you think morals are?

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32258723]What do you think morals are?[/QUOTE] Shit that's irrelevant to those questions you aren't answering.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32258734]Shit that's irrelevant to those questions you aren't answering.[/QUOTE] You haven't answered mine either. I'm getting tired of you trying to control this discussion so instead of answering your questions I ask you one.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32258769]You haven't answered mine either. I'm getting tired of you trying to control this discussion so instead of answering your questions I ask you one.[/QUOTE] So you're bowing out and admitting defeat, then. Because, see, my questions are relevant. Yours are designed entirely to distract from the issue so you don't look like a fucking moron for trying to tell me my bidness.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32258793]So you're bowing out and admitting defeat, then.[/QUOTE] No, I'm trying to understand your viewpoint and you answering my question would actually help with that. Answering your questions wouldn't help at all and would only give you more food, but doesn't get us any further.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32258858]No, I'm trying to understand your viewpoint and you answering my question would actually help with that. Answering your questions wouldn't help at all and would only give you more food, but doesn't get us any further.[/QUOTE] How I define morality is irrelevant. How the highest order of judges in the US can make decisions on rights independent of morality is wholly relevant. When you say "it doesn't get us any further" you really mean "If I answer that question then I'll know I'm wrong."

[QUOTE=Lankist;32258895]How I define morality is irrelevant. How the highest order of judges in the US can make decisions on rights independent of morality is wholly relevant. When you say "it doesn't get us any further" you really mean "If I answer that question then I'll know I'm wrong."[/QUOTE] It isn't irrelevant to me. I couldn't care less about the supreme court of the US, I want to know your viewpoint, your definition of morality.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32258988]It isn't irrelevant to me. I couldn't care less about the supreme court of the US, I want to know your viewpoint, your definition of morality.[/QUOTE] A subjective and irrelevant system of self-governance typically influenced by theological tradition. Now you answer my questions.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32258611]That isn't morality, it's a contract. It is an agreement between parties. Simply because it is an agreement upon behavior does not make it a moral outline.[/QUOTE] It is a contract yes but that doesn't necessarily rule out morality as a factor in its formation "Don't violate my rights and I won't violate yours" is self-serving, but surely it also stems from empathy which is arguably at the basis of morality i.e. "I wouldn't like my rights to be violated therefore I won't violate yours" hence the contract

[QUOTE=James*;32259040]It is a contract yes but that doesn't necessarily rule out morality as a factor in its formation "Don't violate my rights and I won't violate yours" is self-serving, but surely it also stems from empathy which is arguably at the basis of morality i.e. "I wouldn't like my rights to be violated therefore I won't violate yours" hence the contract[/QUOTE] You realize that the only reason such a contract exists is out of the fear that either party won't have the empathy you claim, right? If morality were relevant then there wouldn't be a need to codify laws.

[QUOTE]Whose moral consensus, exactly, does it derive from? [b]All of us, as a collective[/b] How exactly is law cold and objective if it derives from a single instance of subjective morality? [b]Because the law isn't cold and objective at all. There's a reason we have judges.[/b] Furthermore, how can Supreme Court Justices be morally opposed to Abortion and yet support the Roe V. Wade ruling if rights are rooted in moral principles? [b]Morals change[/b][/QUOTE]

Uhh we have judges to ensure emotional entanglements aren't relevant, not to undermine the objectivity of a case. How old are you?

[QUOTE=Lankist;32258582]No you are wrong. Whose moral consensus, exactly, does it derive from? [/QUOTE] Well perhaps not a consensus but arguably modern human rights law originates from Enlightenment Era philosophy, i.e. the moral judgements of Paine, Locke etc and the consensus is amongst those who have agreed to a common standard of human rights law, so the UN?

[QUOTE=James*;32259485]Well perhaps not a consensus but arguably modern human rights law originates from Enlightenment Era philosophy, i.e. the moral judgements of Paine, Locke etc and the consensus is amongst those who have agreed to a common standard of human rights law, so the UN?[/QUOTE] you mean the time when it was moral to burn women alive for eatin too many shrooms

[QUOTE=Lankist;32259499]you mean the time when it was moral to burn women alive for eatin too many shrooms[/QUOTE] Well more the theory of natural rights In the case of the US the 'God given rights'

[QUOTE=James*;32259527]Well more the theory of natural rights In the case of the US the 'God given rights'[/QUOTE] you realize that phrase was written by an atheist that was strongly against incorporating morality into law. at very least in the context of the US's foundation.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32259560]you realize that phrase was written by an atheist that was strongly against incorporating morality into law. at very least in the context of the US's foundation.[/QUOTE] Not to mention we had treaties that stated we were not a Christian nation, and last I checked treaties were the law of the land as much as any other law or legally binding document.

flogging a dead horse comes into mind when looking at the last 5 pages of pointless arguing

This is the reason why I try not to post in these threads. On topic though this is fucking horrible, it always baffles me trying to figure out what makes the parent think it's okay to do shit like this.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32259560]you realize that phrase was written by an atheist that was strongly against incorporating morality into law. at very least in the context of the US's foundation.[/QUOTE] I need to go to bed so on the topic of human rights I'm going to finish by pasting this from wikipedia "Other theories hold that human rights codify moral behavior which is a human social product developed by a process of biological and social evolution." Also does the fact that there is no consensus on what human rights should be not suggest a moral subjectivity? [editline]13th September 2011[/editline] There has been a consensus in that current rights have been agreed upon, but it is not a total consensus

oh gee thanks dr. wikipedia well looks like my seven years of education is right out the window

[QUOTE=Lankist;32260065]oh gee thanks dr. wikipedia well looks like my seven years of education is right out the window[/QUOTE] Well ideas about what human rights should be have shifted over time, why is that?

[QUOTE=James*;32260118]Well ideas about what human rights should be have shifted over time, why is that?[/QUOTE] Primarily because we have purged morality from law. [editline]12th September 2011[/editline] For instance, sodomy is no longer illegal in any place that doesn't end in "-istan"

[QUOTE=Lankist;32260136]Primarily because we have purged morality from law.[/QUOTE] So there's still a bit left in there somewhere?

[QUOTE=Lankist;32260136]For instance, sodomy is no longer illegal in any place that doesn't end in "-istan"[/QUOTE] There are still laws on the books in more backwater areas of the South, even if they aren't able to be enforced.