Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Bronezhilet

General news thread

Recommended Posts

Rights are an all or nothing kind of subject. Once you determine that you can abridge one fundamental human right, the others lose all protection. Fundamental rights are based on things that innate to being human, the fact that they are written down doesn't mean that erasing the words removes the right. People who are choosy about which rights they want do not understand what rights are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ulric said:

Rights are an all or nothing kind of subject. Once you determine that you can abridge one fundamental human right, the others lose all protection. Fundamental rights are based on things that innate to being human, the fact that they are written down doesn't mean that erasing the words removes the right. People who are choosy about which rights they want do not understand what rights are.

Couldn’t agree more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ulric said:

Rights are an all or nothing kind of subject. Once you determine that you can abridge one fundamental human right, the others lose all protection. Fundamental rights are based on things that innate to being human, the fact that they are written down doesn't mean that erasing the words removes the right. People who are choosy about which rights they want do not understand what rights are.

 

On the contrary, the very concept of rights originates in the power of those who held them, e.g., the rights of kings. It was very recently that the concept of universal human rights was developed.

 

You are correct in one way, however: The control of rights that certain parties in the US aspire to - asserting rights to bathrooms, and to speak uncontradicted for themselves, and to deny rights to guns and religion to others - does not stem from their own power, but from government power. When they've unleashed that beast from its cage of tradition and public sentiment, how soon till it devours them, too? They do not seem to be asking themselves this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, practically rights are worthless unless you have the power to secure, defend, and enforce them, but they still exist absent that power. You may just pay a very heavy price for your free expression, though. The only way to truly deprive someone of their rights is to deprive them of life. If someone is still alive, they can still act in a manner contradictory to the wishes of those who can exercise power over them.

 

It was only recently that these universal rights have been codified and protection of them was assigned to a governing body. I think that this cat has been out of the bag for so long that it will be a herculean task to suppress it in a meaningful way in the near and extended future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ulric said:

but they still exist absent that power.

 

2 hours ago, Ulric said:

The only way to truly deprive someone of their rights is to deprive them of life.

 

I think the existence of the word "subjugate" proves these assertions false.

 

We live in a pretty nice world where nobody hardly ever actually subjugates anyone else anymore, but, yeah, breaking someone's will without killing them is totes possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 1:42 PM, Sturgeon said:

 

On the contrary, the very concept of rights originates in the power of those who held them, e.g., the rights of kings. It was very recently that the concept of universal human rights was developed.

 

That may be true, but it is irrelevant to Ulric's point.

 

 

23 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Not accepting the point because it's patently false is not the same thing as "missing it".

 

Why should we think that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, T___A said:

Why should we think that?

 

Because they are two completely different things.

 

13 hours ago, T___A said:

That may be true, but it is irrelevant to Ulric's point.

 

It's not. Millenia of human history had gone by without the concept of universal human rights cropping up, and it wasn't even truly universal in the Founder's day. If that's true, how could those rights truly be considered inalienable? I know how the Founders felt about that question, but it's deeply tied to their religion and a set of faith-based professions of belief, which I am not dealing with here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Because they are two completely different things.

 

No I mean why should we think that it is patently false?

 

35 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

It's not. Millenia of human history had gone by without the concept of universal human rights cropping up, and it wasn't even truly universal in the Founder's day. If that's true, how could those rights truly be considered inalienable? I know how the Founders felt about that question, but it's deeply tied to their religion and a set of faith-based professions of belief, which I am not dealing with here.

 

You're still not seeing Ulric's point. Ulric is saying because rights are intrinsic to a person's existence, that they objectively exist, how people or society feel or act has no bearing on whether or not they exist. It's like coming into a discussion about electricity and saying "Well because certain people viewed existence as merely atoms and the void electricity didn't exist until the last few centuries." It's just a non sequitur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T___A said:

No I mean why should we think that it is patently false?

 

The nature of something being patemtly false is that it's self evident. Ask yourself the question: How can freedom of speech be inalienable when speech at one point did not exist?

 

The whole paradigm of intrinsic rights was intended to exist within the Founder's conceptions of a Creator. If you believe the same, fine, then rights are granted by the Creator and the only end to that argument with someone who doesn't is tautology and disagreement.

 

2 hours ago, T___A said:

You're still not seeing Ulric's point.

 

See, you say that, but I didn't get anything new from your explanation of his point, and understood it perfectly. I just disagree.

 

2 hours ago, T___A said:

It's like coming into a discussion about electricity and saying "Well because certain people viewed existence as merely atoms and the void electricity didn't exist until the last few centuries." It's just a non sequitur.

 

Incorrect analysis. First, the argument about history isn't intended to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that universal inalienable rights don't exist. It is intended to demonstrate that the very concept is very, very recent, and provoke thought about attempts to alienate people from their rights in history. For example, if rights are inalienable, wouldn't wouldn't that get noticed every time some tyrant tried to alienate people from those rights? Yet it did not, and in fact thousands of years went by before the concept ever came up. Indeed, how could the word "slave" ever arise in a world of truly inalienable rights? In this way, it's completely different from electricity, germs, or any other scientific discovery that required sophisticated equipment to even observe. Human nature is observable every time humans interact with one another, yet this idea dates only to the 18th Century (19th, if we consider it in its completion)? If it's a true and fundamental law, one would expect there to be a longer record of it, the same way there was a longer record of, say, advanced infantry tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this is a bit confusing the me,  so this is how I understood the points:

 

Ulric's point:
       Fundamental rights are innate to human beings, and can not be removed.
       Practical rights are worthless unless you have power to enforce it, but still exist in the absent of power.
       One can for example theoretically act in opposition to the wishes of the one in power at a cost, and the only way to stop this is to take their life.

 

Sturgeon's point:
          The concept of rights originates from power. Without power, one can be subjugated.
           One can be broken and rebuilt to never oppose their master, unless conditioned to do so. 

 

First of, be sure to correct me so that I don't accidentally strawman someone.

 

Secondly, the only thing I can see you to disagreeing about is if we can count theoretical rights as rights. Rights than can be acted upon, but in situations not practically possible, not being worth the cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

The nature of something being patemtly false is that it's self evident. Ask yourself the question: How can freedom of speech be inalienable when speech at one point did not exist?

 

The whole paradigm of intrinsic rights was intended to exist within the Founder's conceptions of a Creator. If you believe the same, fine, then rights are granted by the Creator and the only end to that argument with someone who doesn't is tautology and disagreement.

 

 

See, you say that, but I didn't get anything new from your explanation of his point, and understood it perfectly. I just disagree.

 

 

Incorrect analysis. First, the argument about history isn't intended to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that universal inalienable rights don't exist. It is intended to demonstrate that the very concept is very, very recent, and provoke thought about attempts to alienate people from their rights in history. For example, if rights are inalienable, wouldn't wouldn't that get noticed every time some tyrant tried to alienate people from those rights? Yet it did not, and in fact thousands of years went by before the concept ever came up. Indeed, how could the word "slave" ever arise in a world of truly inalienable rights? In this way, it's completely different from electricity, germs, or any other scientific discovery that required sophisticated equipment to even observe. Human nature is observable every time humans interact with one another, yet this idea dates only to the 18th Century (19th, if we consider it in its completion)? If it's a true and fundamental law, one would expect there to be a longer record of it, the same way there was a longer record of, say, advanced infantry tactics.

 

 

So, is the concept of humans possessing free will only dated to the 18th century as well? Or are we still mindless automatons, going about our preprogrammed lives that our nature has dictated to us? These inalienable rights stem from the fact that humans possess free will, an idea going back over two thousand years at least. If you get into the Christian side of it, this is rooted in the believe that God created humans "in his image" able to determine right and wrong, able to make decisions of our own accord, beings that possess their own agency. That is why the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence states “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” However, removing religion from the argument doesn't remove the idea that human beings possess agency.

 

Lets take your slavery example. What if a slave were to escape and elude his master? Certainly his master would not grant the slave his freedom, but for a brief time the slave has taken it. Now, the master has set out to find his slave and bring him back by force. Does that slave not have the ability to evade capture, or to attack his pursuers in an attempt to retain his freedom? In the case of slavery in the United States, wouldn't that slave have the ability to flee to the north to a state that had abolished slavery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ulric said:

 

 

So, is the concept of humans possessing free will only dated to the 18th century as well? Or are we still mindless automatons, going about our preprogrammed lives that our nature has dictated to us? These inalienable rights stem from the fact that humans possess free will, an idea going back over two thousand years at least. If you get into the Christian side of it, this is rooted in the believe that God created humans "in his image" able to determine right and wrong, able to make decisions of our own accord, beings that possess their own agency. That is why the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence states “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” However, removing religion from the argument doesn't remove the idea that human beings possess agency.

 

Lets take your slavery example. What if a slave were to escape and elude his master? Certainly his master would not grant the slave his freedom, but for a brief time the slave has taken it. Now, the master has set out to find his slave and bring him back by force. Does that slave not have the ability to evade capture, or to attack his pursuers in an attempt to retain his freedom? In the case of slavery in the United States, wouldn't that slave have the ability to flee to the north to a state that had abolished slavery?

 

False dichotomy. My position is not that humans do not have agency, it's that human agency is not inalienable. It very clearly is alienable.

 

Which is not exactly the same thing as human rights, anyway, but they are related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying to wrap my mind around this story and that it appears to have been broken by Politico of all news outlets.

 

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

 

Assuming one-fourth of it is true, the previous Administration is the one which should be investigated for colluding with the Russkies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Donward said:

I am trying to wrap my mind around this story and that it appears to have been broken by Politico of all news outlets.

 

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

 

Assuming one-fourth of it is true, the previous Administration is the one which should be investigated for colluding with the Russkies.

 

Holy crap that is shady.  What the hell else did the Obama Administration get up to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/train-derails-onto-i-5-in-pierce-county-all-lanes-blocked/665619813?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

Amtrak train derailment, at least 3 dead. Train went off an overpass onto a highway near Joint Base Lewis-McChord

Yeah, I've been texting my little bro about this since he got caught up in the traffic with this. It essentially cuts off all traffic heading into the South Puget Sound region with only a couple small highways .which can be used as alternative routes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Donward said:

Yeah, I've been texting my little bro about this since he got caught up in the traffic with this. It essentially cuts off all traffic heading into the South Puget Sound region with only a couple small highways .which can be used as alternative routes. 

This was, apparently the first day of service on a new line. Designed to shave 10 minutes off the trip, and improve service reliability.

 

Edit/Update: 78 Passengers and 5 crew on board at the time of the crash.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×