Basic Human Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:23 am
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:25 pm
Age wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:44 pm Why only when "technology has progressed".
Because you can't give everyone a right to medical treatment that hasn't been invented.
This is so blatantly obvious it did not need saying. What you said here is also just an attempt at deflection.
:roll:

You asked why I said what I said. So I explained it. You jumped into the middle of it without understanding what I was talking about. Not sure what else you want from me.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

commonsense wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:41 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:14 pm
commonsense wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:09 pm I don’t know that we can agree, but I would consider it a basic human right to have access to healthcare.
We don't cuz I don't believe one person has a claim on another's time, labor, or resources.
I don’t disagree with you here, because a person owns only himself and his time, labor and resources.
Does a new born human baby own itself, and so is 100% responsible for its own self?

Does a human parent, to a new born human baby, own only them self? Does a new parent not owe their time, labor, nor resources to ANY other human being?
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:50 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:08 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:38 pm

Considering all the abuse Age slings out to people whom he quotes out of context, it's quite surprising that he believes in a right "not to be abused." :roll:
No doubt he doesn't see it as abusive.

To be honest, I don't see it that way either...just annoyin'.
I don't know. Telling perfectly law-abiding people that they are the cause of all the world's problems isn't exactly just "annoyin" to me. It's akin to throwing verbal rocks.
Considering that EVERY person is a 'law-abiding person' sometimes, (as well as obviously being law-breaking persons, sometimes,) and that ALL persons are the cause of ALL of the world's, so called, "problems", then it is an OBVIOUS FACT that 'you', law-abiding people, are the cause of all of the "world's problems".

And, what, exactly, does 'verbal rocks' mean, to you?
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:59 pm
commonsense wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:09 pm I don’t know that we can agree, but I would consider it a basic human right to have access to healthcare.
Provided by whom?

If you have a, "right," to healthcare, it means you have a right to force someone to, "doctor," you, and someone else to, "provide medicine for you," and ....

So what happens to the rights of those who are supposed to provide what you have a right to? What makes you certain there will always be doctors and pharmacists that can be forced to provide you those, "rights?"

There is no such thing as rights!
Is there such a thing a 'wrongs', to you?

If no, then okay.

But if yes, then what are those 'wrongs' in relation to, exactly?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:03 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm 172 children die from dirty water every ten seconds.
It's terrible. They're lying all over the place. Sometimes I have to stop on the way to the store 'til someone moves the poor buggers out of the way. Makes a terrible mess when you run over them.
Here's so free advice:
Don't be a c u n t
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:48 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:50 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:08 pm

No doubt he doesn't see it as abusive.

To be honest, I don't see it that way either...just annoyin'.
I don't know. Telling perfectly law-abiding people that they are the cause of all the world's problems isn't exactly just "annoyin" to me. It's akin to throwing verbal rocks.
Well, mebbe if age weren't operatin' with a deficit we could say he's bein' malicious, but he does have a deficit, so...
What do you say, and claim, is my deficit, and, what is my deficit from or to, EXACTLY?

Also, WHY do so many people here, in this forum, LOOK AT what I, supposedly, do, and discuss 'that', more than they LOOK AT my, actual, words, and discuss 'them'?
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:51 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:48 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:50 pm

I don't know. Telling perfectly law-abiding people that they are the cause of all the world's problems isn't exactly just "annoyin" to me. It's akin to throwing verbal rocks.
Well, mebbe if age weren't operatin' with a deficit we could say he's bein' malicious, but he does have a deficit, so...
Well, maybe you are right. Perhaps I should be more understanding toward him.
Why does one need a deficit BEFORE you should be more understanding toward them?

Should not EVERY one just be more understanding to EVERY one "else"?

Maybe if EVERY one was, then we might already be living in a much better "world"?
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:55 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:51 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:48 pm

Well, mebbe if age weren't operatin' with a deficit we could say he's bein' malicious, but he does have a deficit, so...
Well, maybe you are right. Perhaps I should be more understanding toward him.
Oh, I wouldn't go that far.

Give what is given (shit for shit). His crippled status mebbe obligates you to make not take him seriously, but I can't see why you have to cut him any slack.
But when have I ever "given shit"?

Also, again, WHY is there this continual LOOKING AT and TALKING ABOUT what I, supposedly, am, and am, supposedly, doing?

WHEN will 'you', human beings, start LOOKING AT thee actual words, under the label "age", and start finding actual fault in them, and/or start challenging or questioning those ACTUAL WORDS, ONLY?
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:06 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:35 am "Rights" are not "wishes." They are properties one inherently possesses, and which cannot be legitimately taken away ...
What nonsense. If one already has rights, "inherently possessed," why would laws be required to ensure we have.
Under what sense are laws supposedly required to ensure we have 'rights'?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:06 pm We have and inherently posses eyes, and ears, and life and no law is required to make sure we get them.
So, could we have an inherent 'right' to our inherently possessed eyes, ears, and life?

Could we have a 'right', to 'life'?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:06 pm No one has a, "right," to anything just because they were born.
So, are you saying here that NO child has a 'right' to not be abused?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:06 pm Produce it, trade for it, or earn it--it's yours. Anything else you get you have stolen.

There is no such thing as rights!
So, again, to 'you' NO child has a 'right' to not be abused, correct?
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:01 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:29 pm Are you advocating that there should be no such thing as rights?
Yes! There is no such thing as, "rights." It's a made-up concept which no one questions because it's what they've always been taught. Five minutes thought will convince any honest person that the idea of rights has no foundation whatsoever. Why should anyone believe something belongs to them just because they exist--even one's life must be constantly maintained by their own effort. You don't just have it.
How does one just make their own life?
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:20 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:06 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:35 am "Rights" are not "wishes." They are properties one inherently possesses, and which cannot be legitimately taken away ...
If one already has rights, "inherently possessed," why would laws be required to ensure we have.
Laws aren't required for us to have the rights. Laws are simply our legal recognition of the intrinsic rights human beings have by virtue of being created by God.
What is this 'God' thing, exactly, and how did 'it', supposedly, create 'you', human beings?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:20 pm Laws are human inventions: they are required for practical purposes, to make sure that nobody is permitted to infringe on the rights we already have, because people do that kind of thing if there are no penalties in place.
If this is what 'laws', supposedly, do, then what 'rights' do human beings ACTUALLY HAVE?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:20 pm But laws cannot confer rights: they can only recognize them, or fail to do so.
'you', human beings, would have to recognize 'rights' FIRST, BEFORE 'you' could make ANY 'law' in regards to any 'rights', correct?

If this is correct, then what 'basic human rights' are there exactly, which could be agreed upon and accepted by ALL?
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:59 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:11 pm Looked at this way, when I say I have a right to my life, liberty, and property what I'm sayin' is I have a legitimate claim to my life, liberty, and property which I believe is a legit claim.
If all you mean by a, "right," is, "a legitimate claim," to sustain your own life and produce wealth, both by your own effort, and to protect yourself and your property from any threats, that is true. But why would you need the word, "rights," at all for that. It's not what anyone else means.
If you want to talk about what people mean, then what do 'you', "rcsaunders", mean by 'rights'?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:59 pm To everyone else, a, "right to life," means they have a claim on life no matter what they do and if they do not sustain their own life, it's up to someone else, (society, the government, mankind) to sustain it for them.
Where did this disillusioned concept come from?

Who thinks or believes that if an adult human being does not sustain their own life, then it is up to someone else to do that for them?

As far as I am aware NO one thinks or believes this construed concept, except for obviously 'you', "rcsaunders".
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:59 pm To most people, including you, a right to property means a claim on keeping your property without threat, and if you don't protect your own property from any threat it's up to someone else, (society, the government, or mankind) to protect it.

Those are not legitimate claims. And there is no legitimate claim on liberty (or freedom) either. If you choose to be free you must make yourself free. Freedom is not a social condition, it is the state of an individual who has learned and made the effort to live their life as they choose.

There is no such thing as a right!
Did you answer my previous clarifying question in regards to what is meant by the word 'rights'?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:59 pm Thanks for asking, you old curmudgeon. Hope you're doing well!
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:36 pm But why would you need the word, "rights," at all for that. It's not what anyone else means.

As I say: Me: I just find it cleaner, less ambiguous, to say I belong to me, my life, liberty, and property are mine, and avoid rights altogether ('cept when I get lazy, sloppy, or stupid).


Hope you're doing well!

I'm good.
Saying, "I belong to me", is nonsensical and illogical.

How could a 'thing' belong to, or be a property of, 'itself'?

One is either 'itself' or 'it' is not. And, if a 'thing' is not 'itself', then what is 'it'?

And, 'to belong', or 'be the property of', means to be of something else.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:55 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:20 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:06 pm
If one already has rights, "inherently possessed," why would laws be required to ensure we have.
Laws aren't required for us to have the rights. Laws are simply our legal recognition of the intrinsic rights human beings have by virtue of being created by God. Laws are human inventions: they are required for practical purposes, to make sure that nobody is permitted to infringe on the rights we already have, because people do that kind of thing if there are no penalties in place.

But laws cannot confer rights: they can only recognize them, or fail to do so.
If rights are real, how can they be infringed?
By 'you', adult human beings, doing the Wrong things.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:06 pm No matter how you turn it, a right only means, "the way one would like things to be.
But the word 'right' certain does NOT mean this, to me.

In what dictionary, or in what human being's view (besides yours), does the word 'right', ONLY mean; the way one would like things to be?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:06 pm " Since no one actually has these mythical rights, men invent governments to make the world the way they think they would like it to be--a world with, "rights."
So, are you saying and claiming here that 'rights' only exist, because of "men"?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:06 pm When the light turns green, you have a right to proceed, according to the law. Just ignore the car racing toward you that obviously has no intention of stopping, and exercise your right. No one would be so foolish, you think? But everyone who pursues life thinking they have rights is doing the same thing.

There is no such thing as rights!
You claim, a 'right', can ONLY mean, the way one would like things to be, here you are now claiming there is no such thing as 'rights', which would mean, to you, 'there is no such thing as the way one would like things to be', which is OBVIOUSLY NOT true, AT ALL.

So, if you want to be FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then you will have to EXPLAIN this OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION, of yours.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:59 am Does a human parent, to a new born human baby, own only them self? Does a new parent not owe their time, labor, nor resources to ANY other human being?
There is no mystical unearned obligation on anyone to provide anything to anyone else.

Parents to not care for their children out of some sense of obligation or duty, but because they love their children, and find joy in nourishing and fostering them. If you could get around your sentimentality, you would understand, those who raise children under some sense of obligation, and not personal choice, usually end up abusing those children.
Post Reply