We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » What are "rights?" (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27164 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 16:48, magicfish wrote:
Must we agree with Locke?


At a glance there's plenty of disagree about in his stated position.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3080 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 16:48, magicfish wrote:
Must we agree with Locke?


No.

And neither must we agree with the Declaration of Indepence. We just need to be aware of what's at stake.
magicfish
View Profile
Inner circle
6785 Posts

Profile of magicfish
I don't see any facts here. No right or wrong. Imo, its a matter of opinion.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27164 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 18:31, magicfish wrote:
I don't see any facts here. No right or wrong. Imo, its a matter of opinion.


... and what decides on right(s)?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16276 Posts

Profile of tommy
God.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1875 Posts

Profile of kcg5
No smile face Tommy? Smile
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16276 Posts

Profile of tommy
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
magicfish
View Profile
Inner circle
6785 Posts

Profile of magicfish
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 18:38, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 18:31, magicfish wrote:

I don't see any facts here. No right or wrong. Imo, its a matter of opinion.


... and what decides on right(s)?

The members of the society.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27164 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 19:07, magicfish wrote:...
The members of the society.


Okay, which one(s) and on what basis?

Divine right of kings? L'etat, c'est Moi?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 19:29, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 19:07, magicfish wrote:...
The members of the society.


Okay, which one(s) and on what basis?

Divine right of kings? L'etat, c'est Moi?


Them Aliens that look like us.

Smile
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16276 Posts

Profile of tommy
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3080 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 18:31, magicfish wrote:
I don't see any facts here. No right or wrong. Imo, its a matter of opinion.


I understand. And I respect your position.

In a bar, I'd try something like this:

1. I'd try to get you to accept the proposition that pain and pleasure are biological attributes. I'd pick something obvious, like the sensation of burning.

2. Then I'd try to get you to accept the proposition that avoidance of pain and the desire for pleasure are also biological attributes. Then, for economy's sake, I'd throw out pain for the moment and say this: the avoidance of the pain of burning is a biological attribute.

3. Next, I'd try to get you to accept the proposition that most animals are capable of associating fire with the pain of burning.

4. Lastly, I would try to get you to accept the proposition that a community homo sapiens sapiens, having the gift of intelligence, will regulate the use of fire to avoid the various pains and destruction that it's misuse can cause.

So in four easy steps, I get from the avoidance of pain to fire laws. Now, we're not at the point of Natural Law or Natural Rights, but it is at least a step in moving from the bold assertion that there are only "opinions" about how communities ought to organize themselves to the "fact" that rational creatures might have a biological cause for common opinions about the associated pleasures and pains of naturally occurring phenomena.

Now, maybe I'd have to get you to drink a LOT of beer to agree with me, but I think I could convince you over the course of an evening.

Maybe not.

But I'd give it a try, especially if you bought a round or two.

Pleasure and pain are huge incentives for organizing behavior.
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3080 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Uh, #2 is supposed to read: "I'd throw out pleasure for the moment". I often say the exact opposite of what I actually mean. *sigh*
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-01-30 04:51, stoneunhinged wrote:
Uh, #2 is supposed to read: "I'd throw out pleasure for the moment". I often say the exact opposite of what I actually mean. *sigh*


I lack that problem, too.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3080 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Quote:
On 2012-01-30 05:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I lack that problem, too.


LOL!
magicfish
View Profile
Inner circle
6785 Posts

Profile of magicfish
I accepted number 4 early on in the thread. And I strongly disagree with number 3. but these suds are goin down like water!
magicfish
View Profile
Inner circle
6785 Posts

Profile of magicfish
I mentioned earlier that members of a society enact laws in order to protect themselves. eg. fire laws.
But if I remember correctly, Hobbes and Locke's Hypothetical man in a state of nature is not yet a member of a society. I cant quite reme mber though. Some would argue that he has rights in that state. some argue that he doesn't.
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3080 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Yes, right: man in a state of nature is not yet a member of society (which is their radical departure from Aristotle). But my point is that the only way to understand the way that the word "rights" was used by them (and later, TJ) is to understand what man would actually have in that state. In other words, it is disingenuous to apply some modern definition of the word "rights" to them. They meant what they meant, and not what they didn't mean.

So what did they mean? They meant something like: in nature, you are responsible for your own survival. Your "right" is to survive. Now, I entirely agree with you that this isn't the same meaning of "rights" that we use when talking about, say, voting or marrying or carrying a handgun at the shopping mall. But they nevertheless both used the word "rights" to describe the situation.

By the way, whether you disagree with three or not makes no difference: homo sapiens sapiens is capable of making the connection, so you can still get logically from 2 to 4.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 19:07, magicfish wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 18:38, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-29 18:31, magicfish wrote:

I don't see any facts here. No right or wrong. Imo, its a matter of opinion.


... and what decides on right(s)?

The members of the society.


Are we not then talking about privileges, rather than rights? One set are granted, the other not, but must still be recognized/defendable to mean anything. At least IMHO.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
magicfish
View Profile
Inner circle
6785 Posts

Profile of magicfish
Quote:
On 2012-01-30 08:13, stoneunhinged wrote:
Yes, right: man in a state of nature is not yet a member of society (which is their radical departure from Aristotle). But my point is that the only way to understand the way that the word "rights" was used by them (and later, TJ) is to understand what man would actually have in that state. In other words, it is disingenuous to apply some modern definition of the word "rights" to them. They meant what they meant, and not what they didn't mean.

So what did they mean? They meant something like: in nature, you are responsible for your own survival. Your "right" is to survive. Now, I entirely agree with you that this isn't the same meaning of "rights" that we use when talking about, say, voting or marrying or carrying a handgun at the shopping mall. But they nevertheless both used the word "rights" to describe the situation.

By the way, whether you disagree with three or not makes no difference: homo sapiens sapiens is capable of making the connection, so you can still get logically from 2 to 4.


Agreed. We should do this again sometime. Cheque Please.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » What are "rights?" (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.2 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL