4 > Discussions; Public Archive
SH
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 8 2052 ---OP MEME:
--- Quote ---When you've been down so many rabbit holes for more hours than you care to remember and the person you're arguing with says, "You need to do some research."
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 8 2055 ---Why do I think of your sis when I read this?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 8 2100 --- 🤔I don't know. 😜
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 8 2146 ---Dale Eastman because deep down you know that spending hours poking around at spurious sources (that reinforce your preconceived ideas) on the internet is not "research".
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 8 2222 ---I would love to have an honest discussion with you.
I'm all about Socratic Questions.
For instance: What preconceived ideas have you preconceived that I have?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 8 2228 ---Out of curiosity, what is your definition of acceptable research topic?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 8 2257 ---it isn't the ideas we are talking about. It is the method you use to reinforce what you want to believe. Confirmation bias and all that. Self-directed "research" is usually sorely weighted in the direction one was already leaning; rarely are learners objective and critical enough to change their stance, even when presented with mountains of evidence to the contrary of what they already believe. For example, I want to believe that eating organic food is better for me, so I Google selectively to find articles that back up my claim, and breeze past anything that refutes or suggests I may be wrong. We all have a tendency to do this, and recognizing that is incredibly important to maintaining an objective and critical mind.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 8 2300 ---again, it's not the topic, but the method of research.
Btw the word "research" is so overused and misused, IMHO. But that's another conversation.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 9 1014 ---𝓢: you know that spending hours poking around at spurious sources (that reinforce your preconceived ideas) on the internet is not "research"
Ah... I must call you on that specific assumption. You are simply wrong on that point.
What, specifically, are the "preconceived ideas" that you have preconceived that I have?
This is the second time I have inquired on this point.
This was the first inquiry:
𝓓: What preconceived ideas have you preconceived that I have?
𝓢: it isn't the ideas we are talking about. It is the method you use to reinforce what you want to believe.
I DO NOT WANT to believe what I believe. Ignorance is bliss and I have NOT been a blissful person going back to 2005 when I first started my website.
And that belief is? (Inquiry 2.1 not counted.)
𝓢: Confirmation bias and all that.
Yes, I understand what confirmation bias is.
I would like you to know that I actually seek out those with opposite beliefs and biases for discussion. You are one such person.
So... Interacting with you is not really me doing confirmation bias research is it. (Rhetorical. No Q mark)
𝓢: Self-directed "research" is usually sorely weighted in the direction one was already leaning;
Agreed.
𝓢: rarely are learners objective and critical enough to change their stance, even when presented with mountains of evidence to the contrary of what they already believe.
Physician heal thyself.
What do you 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓿𝓮 slavery is?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 9 1154 ---So you DO believe that spending hours poking around at spurious sources (that reinforce your preconceived ideas) on the internet IS research? OK.
I don't' know what all your preconceived ideas are, considering how ambiguous they have appeared to be in the past. Plus I'm not one to assume what you believe in this moment. All I can respond to is your stated belief that "research" is apparently whatever you want it to be. Research is not merely gathering information. Research is not the rearrangement or restatement of known knowledge. Research is not rummaging around for hard-to-find information, or searching through records to discover what one does not previously know. Research is not transferring facts from one location to another. Research is a systematic and organized, step-by-step process that is used by researchers to find answers to questions or to solve problems. It is unbiased and it is not based on simply reading all the research that other people have done. This is why I never say "do your own research", because the word "research" has been hijacked by Google Academy students who think they know something because they have access to the internet. I prefer to say "educate yourself", since that implies closer to what we are actually doing when we read other peoples' works. With the caveat, of course, that we are actually reading something credible.
"I DO NOT WANT to believe what I believe. Ignorance is bliss and I have NOT been a blissful person going back to 2005 when I first started my website." Why don't you want to believe what you believe? What belief are you talking about? Natural Law seems pretty darn idealistic to me, so I imagine you are not talking about that.
"Yes, I understand what confirmation bias is.
I would like you to know that I actually seek out those with opposite beliefs and biases for discussion. You are one such person.
So... Interacting with you is not really me doing confirmation bias research is it. (Rhetorical. No Q mark)". Arguing with people on the internet, again, is not research. In fact, providing you an audience probably only reinforces your beliefs since you now get to subject someone to listening to your dogma.
I have attached an article you may find interesting. Or not. Up to you.
"What do you 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓿𝓮 slavery is?" OK, I'll bite. Slavery is forcing people to work without pay. Selling human beings. Selling children while their mother screams for them. Forcing people to reproduce together to get the offspring wanted. Being fed only what is provided. Treating a certain class, color, or type of human as if they are animals. Worse than animals, in some cases.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 9 1234 ---Thank you for your reply.
Please 'scuse me for a moment while I read the page you graciously provided a link to.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 9 1349 ---Having, in fairness and respect for you as another human, read the article you linked, I am going to comment on the first paragraph of the article.
SA: 𝓗𝓪𝓿𝓮 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓷 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓻𝔂 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓭𝓮𝓮𝓹𝓮𝓼𝓽 𝓱𝓮𝓵𝓭 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓯𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓪𝓵𝔀𝓪𝔂𝓼 𝓬𝓱𝓪𝓷𝓰𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓼? 𝓜𝓮 𝓷𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻. 𝓘𝓷 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓽, 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸𝓾𝓫𝓵𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝔀𝓷 𝓸𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓯𝓼 𝓲𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓽𝓮𝓮𝓽𝓱 𝓸𝓯 𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓵𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓲𝓷𝓼𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓶. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓸𝓷 𝓲𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓵𝓭𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓫𝓮 𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓻 𝓽𝓱𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓽 𝓫𝔂 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓯𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓪.
I find the very first paragraph so ironic.
To be fair to you, the issue of what the specific conflicting data is has not been nailed down and agreed to as the point(s) of contention.
𝓢: I don't' know what all your preconceived ideas are, considering how ambiguous they have appeared to be in the past.
That is a fair FIRST impression... True. I agree with you...
In the past...
21 December:
𝓢: Because it's [liberty or slavery] not an either-or question.
𝓢: All I can respond SNIP!
I decline to follow that selection of Red Herrings.
𝓓: I DO NOT WANT to believe what I believe.
𝓢: Why don't you want to believe what you believe?
Let me clear up the communication error based upon my "ambiguous" appearance... Mea culpa.
I do not want to believe what logic has dictated to me as a conclusion to actually thinking about and analyzing information presented to me by living on planet Earth.
𝓢: What belief are you talking about?
Again, mea culpa. Not a belief... A conclusion... Several conclusions.
𝓢: Natural Law seems pretty darn idealistic to me, so I imagine you are not talking about that.
I'm just going to state at this time: You and I do NOT have an agreement as to what, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of Natural Law.
𝓢: In fact, providing you an audience probably only reinforces your beliefs since you now get to subject someone to listening to your dogma.
The fact you stated in that sentence is the fact that you stated your preconceived idea about what you assume is (my) dogma. The fact you stated is that your opinion is "..."
𝓢: Slavery is forcing people to work without pay. [...] Treating a certain class, color, or type of human as if they are animals. Worse than animals, in some cases.
I think we have a consensus if you do not find my meaning contradictory to yours.
𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.
--- End quote ---
𝓓:
𝓢:
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 9 2322 ---Dale Eastman being ambiguous and cryptic is a defense mechanism I realize, but you are never going to get your point across by being so deliberately obscure. Perhaps you didn't understand the article, or perhaps it caused you enough cognitive dissonance that you decided to reframe it to your liking. Either way, I didn't expect you to like it much, I just hoped that you might glean a glimmer of insight into your own bias. Oh well.
I won't respond to that kind of baiting, by the way, but I'll respond to your last question because it is relatively clear.
No, I don't agree with that definition of slavery. Ever see one of those logic problems that goes something like "If all As are Bs, and some Bs are Cs, are all Cs also As?". In this case, all slaves have another human imposing their will on them, but not all people imposing their will on others are slave owners (and not every person acquiescing to another's will is a slave). Every single human relationship that exists is in a constant flux of will. Parents/kids, employer/employee, doctor/patient, heck even the ticket counter at Disneyland. Of course the best example here is the employer/employee relationship, since an employee acquiesces to their employer's wishes. But in return, the employer must pay the employee. The employer must also ensure a safe workplace, provide benefits to full time employees, provide protection from workplace harassment, etc. And both the employer and employee are free to terminate the professional relationship. So while they both experience a give and take of wills, no one is a slave in this situation.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 10 0710 ---Dale Eastman I will add that you are 100% correct that we do not have an agreement regarding what natural law is. But it is very simple: you believe that natural law exists. I do not. It is no more persuasive or relevant than any other philosophy invented by mankind. Some people need philosophy or religion to help guide them in life, others do not. To insist that any one philosophy applies to all people is silly, since we can easily look around the world or even just our country to see that isn't true. Natural law seems to consume your entire existence, while it is simply noise in the background to most, same as any other philosophy or religion.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 10 1518 ---Since you have decided to engage, thank you.
I insist that you notify me of any thing I post that appears disrespectful of you.
𝓢: being ambiguous and cryptic is a defense mechanism I realize, but you are never going to get your point across by being so deliberately obscure.
I understand and agree with that. What you do not know just yet, is what this defense mechanism is about. I hope to apprise you of that so you will know why I have been ambiguous and cryptic. Just not yet.
𝓢: Perhaps you didn't understand the article, or perhaps it caused you enough cognitive dissonance that you decided to reframe it to your liking. Either way, I didn't expect you to like it much, I just hoped that you might glean a glimmer of insight into your own bias.
You and I are in a manner of speaking, getting to know one another. I am acutely aware of my bias(es). I am a square peg attempting to fit in the round hole of U.S. and World society. Yes Ma'am, ambiguous and cryptic yet again.
𝓢: No, I don't agree with that definition of slavery.
Apparently, not many do. Thank you for the admission, and more so for giving the reasons.
𝓢: In this case, all slaves have another human imposing their will on them, but not all people imposing their will on others are slave owners (and not every person acquiescing to another's will is a slave). Every single human relationship that exists is in a constant flux of will. Parents/kids, employer/employee, doctor/patient, heck even the ticket counter at Disneyland. Of course the best example here is the employer/employee relationship, since an employee acquiesces to their employer's wishes. But in return, the employer must pay the employee. The employer must also ensure a safe workplace, provide benefits to full time employees, provide protection from workplace harassment, etc. And both the employer and employee are free to terminate the professional relationship. So while they both experience a give and take of wills, no one is a slave in this situation.
I actually agree with everything you have written. Every concept stated is true.
But... (But is a connective that in essence, erases the prior words.)
You have NOT refuted my very specific set of words and their very specific concept.
I will now examine some your words in light of my definition: 𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.
𝓢: and not every person acquiescing to another's will is a slave
The spectrum of gray is 1% white and 99% black. to 99% white and 1% black. If partial black, not white. If partial enslaved, not free, not at liberty.
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Gradient.jpg
Wordnik: acquiesce: intransitive verb: To consent or comply passively or without protest: synonym: assent.
To consent, comply, or assent is a free will choice. To do the opposite is also a free will choice. Having that choice removed is enslavement.
𝓢: Of course the best example here is the employer/employee relationship, since an employee acquiesces to their employer's wishes.
Yes. They do. Yes. I did. And yes I still do.
But...
An employer won't have you whipped for refusing to pick cotton or for refusing to do any thing else you are commanded to do. An employer won't send men with guns to drag you back to the place you worked.
𝓢: I will add that you are 100% correct that we do not have an agreement regarding what natural law is. But it is very simple: you believe that natural law exists. I do not.
You and I agree that you and I do not agree. Fair enough.
You and I have not come to terms on what Natural Law is. To appropriate from Algebra, you and I do not agree on what ❎ is. You and I have not come to terms on what, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of ❎?
In order to not have this discussion spill into more back and forth, I am going to bracket my answers that I assume would be your answer. If I err, you should call me on that error immediately. If my assumption(s) are correct, continue reading.
Do you have a "right" to life? {Yes.}
Do you have a "right" to protect your life? {Yes.}
This question contains a small bit of a morality question.
Do you have a "right" to use the minimum defensive force necessary to stop the attacker from stealing your life?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 10 2232 ---Dale Eastman I'm a very straightforward person. I'm also a pragmatist. When people are cryptic and ambiguous, I feel that they are a)wasting my time, and b) probably attempting to manipulate/gaslight me.
I don't agree with the 99%/1% idea. And I bet that people who are actually enslaved wouldn't agree with it, either.
An employee who refuses to acquiesce, too, will be punished by being written up, lose their job, etc. So while it may seem as though an employee maintains free will, if you have ever worked, you might know that's not entirely true.
"You and I have not come to terms on what natural law is." I don't care. I don't care, because it doesn't exist. For me, it's like discussing the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics, and elements of the tooth fairy.
Do you have a right to life? Depends on where you live.
Do you have a right to protect your life? Depends on where you live.
Do you have a right to use the minimum force necessary to stop the attacker from stealing your life? Depends on where you live.
Rights are assigned by man. Period. Nature only cares about ability. It's not "do you have the right?" It is, instead, "do you have the ability?". Do you have the ability to kill, or ability to defend yourself. The idea of "human rights" and even "animal rights" are all invented by the minds of humans. Which is great, yay for rights. But we shouldn't take them for granted.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 11 1741 ---𝓢: I don't agree with the 99%/1% idea. And I bet that people who are actually enslaved wouldn't agree with it, either.
Too bad the actual slave who wrote this isn't still alive. I would bet against you.
𝓟𝓸𝔀𝓮𝓻 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓭. 𝓘𝓽 𝓷𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝓭𝓲𝓭 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓲𝓽 𝓷𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵. 𝓕𝓲𝓷𝓭 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓪𝓷𝔂 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓮𝓽𝓵𝔂 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓶𝓲𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓱𝓪𝓿𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓾𝓷𝓭 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓮𝔁𝓪𝓬𝓽 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓱𝓲𝓬𝓱 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓫𝓮 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓭 𝓾𝓹𝓸𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓶, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓼𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓮 𝓽𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼 𝓸𝓻 𝓫𝓵𝓸𝔀𝓼, 𝓸𝓻 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓫𝓸𝓽𝓱. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓵𝓲𝓶𝓲𝓽𝓼 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝔂𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓼 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓭 𝓫𝔂 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓸𝓼𝓮 𝔀𝓱𝓸𝓶 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓸𝓹𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼.”
𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝. It does not matter if the override is 1% of the time or 100% of the time. It does not matter if the 𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 is 1% of the time or 100% of the time.
Are you going to argue that having your free will overridden only 1% of the time is not 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰?
𝓓: Do you have a right to ...?
𝓢: Depends on where you live.
Do you have a right to breathe?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Do you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
If I were to attempt to suffocate you, do you have a right to fend me off?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Are you going to argue that if I were to attempt to suffocate you only 1% of the time, that I am not 𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 to you?
𝓢: An employee who refuses to acquiesce, too, will be punished by being written up, lose their job, etc. So while it may seem as though an employee maintains free will, if you have ever worked, you might know that's not entirely true.
I reject your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I'm a Boomer. I have supported myself since I left home in '76. Honest work for honest pay. I have quit jobs because my moral standards were higher than the employer's. I'll not post what your claim, your opinion, makes me think about you and the morality you present.
𝓓: You and I have not come to terms on what natural law is.
𝓢: it doesn't exist.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
𝓢: For me, it's like discussing the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics, and elements of the tooth fairy.
𝓢: "The idea of "human rights" [...] are all invented by the minds of humans."
LOL. The tooth fairy is a human mental construct; a human concept; 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans."
So is Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, any corporate person... And government.
𝓢: Rights are assigned by man. Period.
I do not agree with how you have conveyed with your thoughts. I opine I think you worded it better in your next sentence. I'll return to what I take issue with below.
𝓢: The idea of "human rights" and even "animal rights" are all invented by the minds of humans.
I do agree with this statement of yours. Although, I think the animal rights concept is a result of anthropomorphization.
The fact that rights don't exist is proven anytime a pissed off bull gores and kills a matador, Not to forget scorpions, copperheads, and sundry other critters that kill humans. So much for a human right to life when the critter wins.
Rights are a human mental construct. Rights are a human concept. 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans." Obviously the bull has no mental capacity to understand the concept of a human's right to life.
Who assigned the Natural Right to the bull to gore the matador that is harassing and attempting to kill him?
Are you going to reject the concept of "Natural Rights"?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Just to hit that dead horse one more time:
Do you have a right to hold the opinions you hold?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Do you have a right to choose to interact with me?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Do you have a right to choose to ignore me?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 12 1536 ---"Too bad the actual slave who wrote this isn't still alive. I would bet against you."
I'd take that bet.
"Are you going to argue that having your free will overridden only 1% of the time is not 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰?"
Overriding another's will is the basis for plenty of wrong actions. Why do you believe it all equals "slavery"? Rape is an example. Robbery is another. Deciding that *everything* involving an imposition of will somehow equals slavery is very strange and is factually incorrect. There is no nuance here, you are simply wrong. You've decided that you get to decide the definition of words now, but you'll have to excuse those who stick with the true meaning.
"Do you have a right to breathe?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?"
I have the *ability* to breathe. Rights are a human social construct.
"Do you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?"
I have both the ability and the right, in the USA.
"If I were to attempt to suffocate you, do you have a right to fend me off?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?"
Same answer as last question.
"Are you going to argue that if I were to attempt to suffocate you only 1% of the time, that I am not 𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 to you?"
Attempted murder or murder is always wrong. Non sequitur.
"I'm a Boomer. I have supported myself since I left home in '76. Honest work for honest pay. I have quit jobs because my moral standards were higher than the employer's. I'll not post what your claim, your opinion, makes me think about you and the morality you present."
Since we have not talked about my morals, and have only talked about the truth of the world, it is interesting that you believe you can judge my morals. But since I believe your moral compass to be lacking, I suppose it is only fair for you to make assumptions about me. I sleep very well at night knowing that, unlike you, I do not require any type of sky daddy or bullet point philosophical guidelines to tell right from wrong. It's really not that hard. Know what else is wrong? Wanting to bring about a destructive, violent society, knowing full well that many will die and suffer, just so you can espouse a ridiculous philosophical-turned-political idea.
"𝓓: You and I have not come to terms on what natural law is.
𝓢: it doesn't exist.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."
Ok. Still doesn't exist. Do y know why you can't find proof that natural law exists? Because it doesn't exist.
"LOL. The tooth fairy is a human mental construct; a human concept; 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans."
So is Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, any corporate person... And government."
NOW you're getting it! All of it only exists in the minds of men. Money, certificates, degrees, ranks, titles, religion, philosophy, laws, etc etc etc. are all only possible because humans have a unique ability to form complex ideas, agree to them, and share them within their society and across societies. Humans are able to exist ONLY BECAUSE we are able to all agree to a certain imaginary "thing". For example, the entire world runs on money, but money doesn't actually exist. We all just agree that this substance (gold, silver, pears, rice, cookies, brandy, etc) is worth this much, and this work is worth this much, and employees should be paid this way, while CEOs should be paid this way, etc etc etc etc. Now, even though money is imaginary, what do you think would happen if all money in the world disappeared? Society would collapse. The same thing would happen if you removed the ability to recognize education with a degree, or training with a certificate. Same thing if you removed government.
"𝓢: Rights are assigned by man. Period.
I do not agree with how you have conveyed with your thoughts. I opine I think you worded it better in your next sentence. I'll return to what I take issue with below."
🤷🏼♀️
"𝓢: The idea of "human rights" and even "animal rights" are all invented by the minds of humans.
I do agree with this statement of yours. Although, I think the animal rights concept is a result of anthropomorphization.
The fact that rights don't exist is proven anytime a pissed off bull gores and kills a matador, Not to forget scorpions, copperheads, and sundry other critters that kill humans. So much for a human right to life when the critter wins.
Rights are a human mental construct. Rights are a human concept. 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans." Obviously the bull has no mental capacity to understand the concept of a human's right to life.
Who assigned the Natural Right to the bull to gore the matador that is harassing and attempting to kill him?
Are you going to reject the concept of "Natural Rights"?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?""
What is your point? Humans kill other humans all the time. Yes, I absolutely completely 100% reject the idea of "natural rights". They don't exist.
"Just to hit that dead horse one more time:
Do you have a right to hold the opinions you hold?"
I have the ability to hold my opinions. In this country, I also have the right to say them out loud.
"Do you have a right to choose to interact with me?"
I have the ability.
"Do you have a right to choose to ignore me?"
I have the ability.
I don't conflate rights with ability, as you appear to do. It is very telling that many of the"rights" we take for granted in this country would equal imprisonment or death in another.
--- End quote ---
https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid02ERkQ9fuoNTy2vgau5wPUa1dhomkUBUJrTd5ohQVK2vbx6gzDq4rBDNuD33rok732l?comment_id=944471259869080&reply_comment_id=502511831989876
𝓓:
𝓢:
Dale Eastman:
It is my right to use whatever level of escalating defensive force and violence against you that is sufficient to end your aggressive initiatory attack.
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=660.0
Natural Law is the right to defend against depredations using whatever level of defensive or responsive harm or violence as is required to halt the initiatory and offensive harm. Natural Law was the justification for the United State's Declaration of Independence. Natural Law was also the justification for the Magna Carta. Per both these documents, any human being harmed by an alleged ruler has a Natural Law, Natural Right to halt such an alleged ruler's depredations and attacks.
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=961.msg15406#msg15406
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version