Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:27 am
I have ALREADY asked the question, What does the word 'rights' mean, to 'you', ANY one. I am still waiting for CLARIFICATION.

I have already answered your question ad nauseum. Now it’s your turn to repeat or restate what “rights” means to you. Feel free to go off on a tangent rather than answering the question, or perhaps you’d like to cry foul in some way.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:52 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:35 pm You're autistic, and your thinkin' and writing reflects it.

Will you provide any examples?

And, WHEN was the first time you discovered/decided 'I' am "autistic", and HOW, exactly, did you make this discovery/decision, or in other words, WHAT, exactly, led 'you' to this discovery/decision?

Henry's diagnosis is a very reasonable one, and an easy one to make, for the following reasons:

1. Obsessive-compulsive behaviours, such as writing copiously when nobody is responding.

2. Complete lack of awareness of social cues...inability to 'read' the effects of your behaviour on others.

3. Detail-fixation...pointing our every feature of somebody's message and criticizing every minor detail, especially the secondary and less relevant ones.

4. Inability to filter...everything looks of equal importance to you. Your messages never pick out the important from the trivial.

5. Reasonably good vocabulary and precocious behaviour...typical of the diagnosis, of course. Asperger's people are often developmentally far "ahead" in one particular way, though not in others. Often Asperger's people will have one "window" of intense interest -- like in this case, debate -- and will invest copious amounts of energy to that, to the exclusion of other aspects of life.

6. Naive worldview, such as that which bifurcates the world into "me" versus "adults," but shows no real understanding of the issues. Asperger's people have limited ability to process the information they receive from external cues, so they often simplify and misinterpret, even while thinking their assumptions are profoundly true, because those assumptions give them a sort of limited purchase of the facts, but one they otherwise lack.

7. Limited impulse control...every message seems to cause you to "spurt" contention like an incontinent fountain.

8. Preference for the negative...Asperger's people find being negative and critical more serviceable to them than trying to be positive and constructive, since they find that the latter never seems to work out for them. Paradoxically, this makes their situation worse, both socially and otherwise.

9. Anger. Being a person with Asperger's Syndrome hurts. It's confusing. It's perplexing. And it means one is continually making mistakes one does not understand, and getting flattened for it. Asperger's kids are often bullied and always rejected and marginalized. So that makes them feel volatile; and lacking the physical means to respond, or the knowledge of how to change their situation, they become antisocial, imperious or withdrawn, and make the situation even worse for themselves. It's a tough way to live.

One could go on: but these are enough for anybody to say that either you're trying to mimic Asperger's Syndrome, and doing a pretty good job of it, or you have Asperger's Syndrome, and like anybody with that condition, don't know how to manage it by yourself, and are only working on developing the required skills. But what such a person really needs to do is to settle down, find the people who are sympathetic, and get their help to learn how to manage their condition; because it CAN turn out to be an advantage, actually, if managed properly.

And by the way, no criticism implied in this list. These are just some ordinary things that Asperger's entails. But it sure fits the way you write.

P.S. -- if you are an Asperger's person, or borderline Autistic, the first thing I'll get back from you is an angry, detailed list of every reason you think I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, you'll be able to bring that under control and speak coolly and in a measured, thoughtful way, with understanding that this message is an invitation, not an attack. But so far, that is not the kind of conversation anybody's ever been able to get from you. Always, we get rage and detail.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:43 pm So what’s it going to be? Rights must be guaranteed or rights need only have the authority, the means and the accountability to be rights.

By your 3 criteria, basic healthcare is a right, but just not guaranteed.

Basic health care is a blessing. But it cannot be a "right," because it totally depends on the ability of the government to deliver it. If that government lacks the means, it can't be held accountable for not having provided it: you can't give what you don't have. And if it has no authority to make its will happen, then the alleged "right" is no more powerful than the government that delivers it.

"Guaranteed" is a tricky word. Does it mean "guaranteed to be given?" Then there are no rights. Or does it mean, "guaranteed that even if it's not given, that's a violation of your rights?" And I think it's in the latter sense that people really want to use the word: they want to say, "if you don't give me freedom, you have done something intrinsically evil to me, something contrary to the actual nature of what I am." That's how they want it to play. Otherwise, "rights" talk gives no grounds for calling any government "a violator of rights," since "rights" extend no farther than the government's whims.

George Floyd had the right to breathe,

He shouldn't have taken so my fentanyl, then. He would probably still be breathing, like all the other people in his car.

Apparently, his suffocation was drug induced; he was saying "I can't breathe" long before the cops wrestled with him, and his coroner says he didn't have the normal signs of suffocation, such as a crushed hyoid bone or retinal petechiae. So it looks like he signed off on his own life.

But in that reference you're talking about one of the real human rights...the right to life. And yes, everybody has that. However, nobody could stop George Floyd from choosing a life of crime and drug abuse; another fundamental right gave him that ability. He had a right to choose; he had freedom.

Human rights are for humans, but just not always enjoyed by all humans.

You are correct in the above. We are agreeing. But then, they are not a human construct.

If you were to agree that rights are wishful thoughts about what might be good for anyone to have,

Well, "wishful thoughts" have no power, no justification, and no authority behind them. They're only wishes.

You might be "wishful thinking" you want a Lamborghini. That doesn't mean one appears in your driveway. And it doesn't make Lamborghini ownership a "right."

Pulling a splinter out of a finger is an example of medical care that can be completed without medical tools or a medical degree. Whether that’s a right or not depends upon who’s definition we rely.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:03 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:40 pm but reasoning isn't what its all cracked up to be, is it?

I agree, in one sense...not in another.

It depends on whether or not the person in question knows what "reasoning" really means.

"Reason" is not a particular set of conclusions, anymore than mathematics is. And it's not designed to lead only to certain conclusions; only to make sure that whatever conclusions you reach are well-structured and logically sound. That's all.

So just as you can plug any values into X + Y, as a mathematical equation, you can plug anything -- true or false -- into a rational syllogism. And the result will be "mathematically" or "rationally" correct, but not ultimately true, necessarily.

In order for reason to "be all it's cracked up to be," you have to first guarantee that the premises you're plugging into it are also true. If they are, then you'll get solid conclusions; but if one or both of your premises is false, your conclusion will be false, too.

That's not the fault of reason, but a failure of truth. So reason is a very good thing, and, if employed on truthful premises, leads to true conclusions: but its success depends entirely on the having of true premises.

what you're describing here is logic, as in compute, garbage in garbage out, though reasoning can include logic, I wouldn't limit reasoning to just logic.
plus there is the reason, as apposed to reasoning.

...but you know belief and trust are above such or salvation wouldn't be by faith, it would be by reasoning.

No, I don't agree. I would say that faith and reason are friends, actually, not opponents.

Faith is not a matter of believing in irrational things, or believing without good reasoning being involved. I would suggest that faith is actually taking the premises God provides as true, and working forward rationally from them.

In fact, I suggest that faith not only can be rational; I would point out that it must be. For for one of us to refuse to reason from the premises God has provided is essentially to disbelieve them, to regard them, and treat them, as "not true," and hence to refuse to go forward on the conviction of them.

But to reason that what God says is true, and then to act rationally on that, is what it means to "have faith." You see this over and over again in a chapter like Hebrews 11: look there at all the things that people did because they believed what God told them. Their actions confirmed their faith, because they reasoned based on the premises God gave them.

Reason wasn't the problem. Unbelief was (Heb. 3:19).

people today believe and trust what media says and says about what they show pictures of. this has nothing to do with some religious views on faith. just as the Israelites were to trust the Lord of Hosts (armies) not the latest greatest weapons of the day. no religious concepts there is there? or you trust the bridge will not fall down when you cross it. you trust the car will stop when you step on the break pedal.

faith is simply a combination of belief and trust.

but belief and trust may or may not use reasoning or even reasons. though in the case of the born again, God is the reason. as in God is the reason one is, therefore one trusts and believes. which goes the other way one trust and believes God is the reason until you know (experience). then faith is fulfilled. what is trusted for and believed for is fulfilled and there's certainly no reasoning required.


King David trusted his God the Lord of Hosts to win the day, once fulfilled the trusting for is over and he would write Psalms and make the priest hood sing them at the tabernacle as a testimony to the nation of Israel of his God's deliverance and salvation experienced.

King David didn't need reasoning or even reasons. he needed his God according to him, and his God required David's belief and trust.

you don't think your way into God's presence, God accepts your belief and trust in Him which places you in His Presence. I do believe it was Paul who stated that you can't please God without faith. one can go on about love and this and that but if you don't believe the Word of God you don't believe God. and if you don't believe and or trust the Word of God you will not live and do accordingly. and the Almighty has no use for that which will not do, though He does put them to His uses anyway.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:28 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:07 am

OF COURSE i cause 'problems' as well. Why would you even think otherwise?

Also, and furthermore, what a 'problem' ACTUALLY IS, to 'me', might be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, to 'you', correct?

Probably correct. It could also be the case that others are not causing the problems you assume we are.

But I NOT 'assuming" 'you' are. I KNOW 'you' are.

If it was NOT for the judgments, ridicule, and punishment 'you', adult human beings, put on "others", each other, "yourselves", then the "world" would NOT be in such a mess as it is was, with ALL of those problems, in the days when this was being written.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am So what should we do about the problems we are causing?

I suggest, first:

'Accepting responsibility', that is; being Truly Honest and admitting the problems, which 'you' cause. Then,

'Taking responsibility', that is; doing ALL it takes to changing your ways, for the better.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am I know I try to obey laws and be kind when I meet others in person (though online seems to be a different matter).

'Trying to' is NOT 'doing'.

'Laws' can be made just for the benefit of SOME and NOT for ALL. Obeying laws certainly does NOT necessarily stop the 'problems' and make the "world" a better place

WHY does meeting "others" online, instead of in person, make you NOT 'try to' be kind to those ones?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am What do you do to try to mitigate the problems you are causing?

Not that much other than learn how to communicate in a way that I can and will be FAR BETTER UNDERSTOOD. I KNOW the solution, and the formula, that can and will lead to a Truly peaceful "world".

But, saying things that seem UNBELIEVABLE to some people, like for example, 'I KNOW what 'it' is, which WILL create a Truly heaven-like existence for EVERY one' usually makes most people NOT want to listen. So, for future peoples' sake, I just continue to learn how to be FULLY HEARD, and UNDERSTOOD.

By the way, what 'problems' do you think or believe 'I' am causing?

You stated that everyone creates problems. Therefore you create them too and if I can work on fixing them you can work on fixing them. Fair enough? "Communicating" is no more "doing" than me being kind to others I meet personally. So work on yourself too, bud, if you are so concerned about the world not being a good place.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:40 pm Pulling a splinter out of a finger is an example of medical care that can be completed without medical tools or a medical degree. Whether that’s a right or not depends upon who’s definition we rely.

No, really, it doesn't depend on that at all. If it's only a matter of social "definition," or worse, of personal "definition," then it goes no farther than the society -- or person -- who holds that definition.

Now, a duty to mutual care...maybe you have that, if God says you have that. And since He does, ("Love your neighbour as yourself," for instance) then you do have such a duty. But if there's no God, then nobody says you have any such duty, and any sense of that duty is merely a fiction in one's own mind or in the consent of his/her society. Nothing in the natural world compels any such duty.

The Law of Nature seems to be, "Devil take the hindmost," or, in Darwinian terms, "Survival of the fittest." So any countermanding of that principle would need some justification. After all, in the Darwinian story, "Survival of the fittest" got us where we are right now; so you'd best "dance with the one that brung ya."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm...in the Darwinian story, "Survival of the fittest" got us where we are right now...

And in the christian story, "Jesus is lovely" got us to exactly the same place.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:02 pm what you're describing here is logic, as in compute, garbage in garbage out, though reasoning can include logic, I wouldn't limit reasoning to just logic.

Well, I'd say that logic is disciplined use of reason.

plus there is the reason, as apposed to reasoning.

One's a verb, and one's a noun...so really, they're cognates, essentially the same concept. But what's the difference you're wanting to point out here? Can you explain?

people today believe and trust what media says and says about what they show pictures of. this has nothing to do with some religious views on faith.

Actually, I think it's the same process...it's only a question of what one's "faith" is being placed in.

faith is simply a combination of belief and trust.

Yeah, I can kind of agree with that...

but belief and trust may or may not use reasoning or even reasons.

Oh, quite true. There are false "beliefs," for sure. But the question is really this: can one ((literally) "have faith" in NOTHING? I mean, is it intelligible for a person to say, "I have faith," and when you ask, "In what?" They just say..."In nothing in particular. I just have faith." Does that make sense?

though in the case of the born again, God is the reason.

Absolutely. But how does one know that there is a God, or there is a salvation, a "being born again"? Is it not from passages like John 3? And how, if we don't read them and use our reasoning to understand them, will we ever know what we are to put our faith in?

I'm totally on board with the idea that our faith has to be in God. But we have to know God in order to "have faith" in Him. That means we need to know stuff, to process it, to understand what we are being asked to believe, and then actually to believe it. As the Lord Himself says, "Come, let us reason together..."(Is. 1:18)

as in God is the reason one is, therefore one trusts and believes. which goes the other way one trust and believes God is the reason until you know (experience). then faith is fulfilled. what is trusted for and believed for is fulfilled

So far, this is true.

and there's certainly no reasoning required.

Hmmm..this part is not. If you don't know anything, you have nothing to believe IN. Belief has rational content. It's not a sort of "magical zap" from the skies, far less a free-floating, unanchored hoping in things one has no reason to expect to come about.

King David trusted his God the Lord of Hosts to win the day

,
Well, he had been told he would, and he already knew who God is, so he had good reason for his trust, didn't he?

I see what you're struggling with. There is a legend within Christianity that says, "If you have reasons, it's not faith." Or "If you're going to have faith, it has to be in defiance of facts." Or even, "Faith is forced upon the individual by God." I think all three are not Biblical. In contrast, we never find a single person in the whole Bible who believed without knowing who or what he was putting his faith in.

Let me put it another way, if I may. Faith is not contrary to reason. Faith begins with reasons: you have to know who God is, what He wants, and how that impinges on your own personal situation. Faith comes in when you actually have to decide whether you're going to go with that, or go your own way. Faith is the investing of the self in what one knows, what one has reason to believe, about God.

I do believe it was Paul who stated that you can't please God without faith

Correct. But did you read the whole passage there? It reads,

"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him...."(Heb. 11:6) And it goes on to list all the things people did because they already knew who God is, and what He required of them.

Abraham, for example, knew God and knew His command. He reasoned that he would get his son back, even though he didn't know quite how it was going to be done; because he knew God had promised that son to him. (v.19) So his faith springboard off the reasons he had, and it turned out that his faith was right...though he had not correctly figured out the means God would use.

...if you don't believe the Word of God you don't believe God. and if you don't believe and or trust the Word of God you will not live and do accordingly.

True. But notice again, your faith is always IN something. In the case of the above, it's IN God, and IN His Word. You have to have the knowledge of God and the possession of His Word. But who will tell you what that word means, and what your particular obedience must look like, if you use no reasoning?

In fact, obedience depends on reasoning. But it depends on reasoning from correct premises. And that's what I've been saying.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:52 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:20 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:21 pm
What occurs naturally, does not necessarily need enforcing.

RIghts are not natural

Besides the FACT that there is NOT a single 'thing', in the WHOLE Universe, that is 'not natural', what do you mean here by, "Rights are not natural"?

If everything in the univers is natural, then the word is utterly meaningless.

Will you elaborate on YOUR CLAIM here?

Distinctions as to what is and what is not called natural is usually cultural.

Also, do you agree that new born children have a right to not be abused?

Depends where they are born and what species they are.
It depends on whether or not their local cultural has conceived on the notion of rights and abuses.
Where such concepts do not exist, there is no prospect that children have rights.

...

Or, do you NOT agree that new born children have a right to not be abused, and so the rest was just moot anyway?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:21 pm

And the reason for this is ...?

Because there are no natural rights, and rights need to be fought for.

Sounds like a VERY WEAK EXCUSE for allowing and permitting 172 children to die from dirty water every ten seconds.

Funny you should say that because 5000 children every year do, in fact, die of lack of clearn water despite claims that every child should have a right to clean water.
And if you are claiming that such a right exists, then I ask YOU WTF are you doing to preserve that right. MY guess is F ALl.

Are you here really 'trying to' suggest that the only 'right' children have to accessing clean enough water, so that they do not needlessly die, is if one of 'you', adult human beings, makes and/or writes that 'right' up, which 'you' then have to, supposedly, "fight for"?

I am suggesting that we discuss whether or not, or if, the idea of rights actually helps children get clean water. It seems to have failed to do that.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:29 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:27 am
I have ALREADY asked the question, What does the word 'rights' mean, to 'you', ANY one. I am still waiting for CLARIFICATION.

I have already answered your question ad nauseum. Now it’s your turn to repeat or restate what “rights” means to you. Feel free to go off on a tangent rather than answering the question, or perhaps you’d like to cry foul in some way.

???

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:10 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:40 pm Pulling a splinter out of a finger is an example of medical care that can be completed without medical tools or a medical degree. Whether that’s a right or not depends upon who’s definition we rely.

No, really, it doesn't depend on that at all. If it's only a matter of social "definition," or worse, of personal "definition," then it goes no farther than the society -- or person -- who holds that definition.

Now, a duty to mutual care...maybe you have that, if God says you have that. And since He does, ("Love your neighbour as yourself," for instance) then you do have such a duty. But if there's no God, then nobody says you have any such duty, and any sense of that duty is merely a fiction in one's own mind or in the consent of his/her society. Nothing in the natural world compels any such duty.

The Law of Nature seems to be, "Devil take the hindmost," or, in Darwinian terms, "Survival of the fittest." So any countermanding of that principle would need some justification. After all, in the Darwinian story, "Survival of the fittest" got us where we are right now; so you'd best "dance with the one that brung ya."

IC, Would it be fair to say that we cannot have rights if there is no God? That only God can guarantee rights? Am I correct in getting that impression from what you've been saying so far? Or what is your take on rights with respect to how we can have them or what makes them effective?

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:29 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:27 am
I have ALREADY asked the question, What does the word 'rights' mean, to 'you', ANY one. I am still waiting for CLARIFICATION.

I have already answered your question ad nauseum.

Forgive me, I have MISSED IT.

What does 'rights' mean, to 'you'?

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:29 pm Now it’s your turn to repeat or restate what “rights” means to you.

I am trying to get feedback and clarification from "others", so that I can then decide how to word what 'rights' means, to 'me'.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:29 pm Feel free to go off on a tangent rather than answering the question, or perhaps you’d like to cry foul in some way.

When have I "gone off tangent" or "cried foul in some way" when I have just been asked a simple CLARIFYING QUESTION, like you asked 'me' here?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:37 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:52 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:35 pm You're autistic, and your thinkin' and writing reflects it.

Will you provide any examples?

And, WHEN was the first time you discovered/decided 'I' am "autistic", and HOW, exactly, did you make this discovery/decision, or in other words, WHAT, exactly, led 'you' to this discovery/decision?

Henry's diagnosis is a very reasonable one, and an easy one to make, for the following reasons:

1. Obsessive-compulsive behaviours, such as writing copiously when nobody is responding.

2. Complete lack of awareness of social cues...inability to 'read' the effects of your behaviour on others.

3. Detail-fixation...pointing our every feature of somebody's message and criticizing every minor detail, especially the secondary and less relevant ones.

4. Inability to filter...everything looks of equal importance to you. Your messages never pick out the important from the trivial.

5. Reasonably good vocabulary and precocious behaviour...typical of the diagnosis, of course. Asperger's people are often developmentally far "ahead" in one particular way, though not in others. Often Asperger's people will have one "window" of intense interest -- like in this case, debate -- and will invest copious amounts of energy to that, to the exclusion of other aspects of life.

6. Naive worldview, such as that which bifurcates the world into "me" versus "adults," but shows no real understanding of the issues. Asperger's people have limited ability to process the information they receive from external cues, so they often simplify and misinterpret, even while thinking their assumptions are profoundly true, because those assumptions give them a sort of limited purchase of the facts, but one they otherwise lack.

7. Limited impulse control...every message seems to cause you to "spurt" contention like an incontinent fountain.

8. Preference for the negative...Asperger's people find being negative and critical more serviceable to them than trying to be positive and constructive, since they find that the latter never seems to work out for them. Paradoxically, this makes their situation worse, both socially and otherwise.

9. Anger. Being a person with Asperger's Syndrome hurts. It's confusing. It's perplexing. And it means one is continually making mistakes one does not understand, and getting flattened for it. Asperger's kids are often bullied and always rejected and marginalized. So that makes them feel volatile; and lacking the physical means to respond, or the knowledge of how to change their situation, they become antisocial, imperious or withdrawn, and make the situation even worse for themselves. It's a tough way to live.

One could go on: but these are enough for anybody to say that either you're trying to mimic Asperger's Syndrome, and doing a pretty good job of it, or you have Asperger's Syndrome, and like anybody with that condition, don't know how to manage it by yourself, and are only working on developing the required skills. But what such a person really needs to do is to settle down, find the people who are sympathetic, and get their help to learn how to manage their condition; because it CAN turn out to be an advantage, actually, if managed properly.

And by the way, no criticism implied in this list. These are just some ordinary things that Asperger's entails. But it sure fits the way you write.

P.S. -- if you are an Asperger's person, or borderline Autistic, the first thing I'll get back from you is an angry, detailed list of every reason you think I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, you'll be able to bring that under control and speak coolly and in a measured, thoughtful way, with understanding that this message is an invitation, not an attack. But so far, that is not the kind of conversation anybody's ever been able to get from you. Always, we get rage and detail.

LOL I wrote in capital letters sometimes, and the readers in the days when I wrote like that, INSTANTLY made the ASSUMPTION that I was writing from "rage".

NEVER ANY CLARIFICATION made. Just ASSUMPTIONS construct, undeniable CONCLUSIONS formed, with BELIEFS ensuing. As can be CLEARLY SEEN above.

When will these people start listening and HEAR MY MESSAGE? That is; if you CLARIFY BEFORE you ASSUME, then 'you' will NOT be so WRONG, so OFTEN?

I do NOT write from "rage", but rather from amusement.

Adult human beings, in those days, did not like the FACT that what I have said and claimed can NOT be refuted.

That is; EVERY child has a 'right' NOT to be abused. The reason those adults do NOT like this FACT is because thee ACTUAL Truth HURTS, and perpetrators of abuse have a tendency to DENY and MINIMIZE their Wrong behaving.

As has ALREADY BEEN proven throughout these writings.

Is that AUTISTIC ENOUGH for 'you', "immauel can"?

AND, I could NOT be bothered correcting ALL of your Wrong ASSUMPTIONS above.

By the way, HOW EXACTLY do you measure "anger" and "speaking coolly" in WRITTEN WORDS, without MAKING ASSUMPTIONS?

If you had ANY INTELLIGENCE AT ALL, then you WOULD answer this clarifying question OPENLY and Honestly.

We will WAIT and SEE what 'you' do here now.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:43 pm So what’s it going to be? Rights must be guaranteed or rights need only have the authority, the means and the accountability to be rights.

By your 3 criteria, basic healthcare is a right, but just not guaranteed.

Basic health care is a blessing. But it cannot be a "right," because it totally depends on the ability of the government to deliver it. If that government lacks the means, it can't be held accountable for not having provided it: you can't give what you don't have. And if it has no authority to make its will happen, then the alleged "right" is no more powerful than the government that delivers it.

"Guaranteed" is a tricky word. Does it mean "guaranteed to be given?" Then there are no rights. Or does it mean, "guaranteed that even if it's not given, that's a violation of your rights?" And I think it's in the latter sense that people really want to use the word: they want to say, "if you don't give me freedom, you have done something intrinsically evil to me, something contrary to the actual nature of what I am." That's how they want it to play. Otherwise, "rights" talk gives no grounds for calling any government "a violator of rights," since "rights" extend no farther than the government's whims.

George Floyd had the right to breathe,

He shouldn't have taken so my fentanyl, then. He would probably still be breathing, like all the other people in his car.

Apparently, his suffocation was drug induced; he was saying "I can't breathe" long before the cops wrestled with him, and his coroner says he didn't have the normal signs of suffocation, such as a crushed hyoid bone or retinal petechiae. So it looks like he signed off on his own life.

But in that reference you're talking about one of the real human rights...the right to life. And yes, everybody has that. However, nobody could stop George Floyd from choosing a life of crime and drug abuse; another fundamental right gave him that ability. He had a right to choose; he had freedom.

Human rights are for humans, but just not always enjoyed by all humans.

You are correct in the above. We are agreeing. But then, they are not a human construct.

If you were to agree that rights are wishful thoughts about what might be good for anyone to have,

Well, "wishful thoughts" have no power, no justification, and no authority behind them. They're only wishes.

You might be "wishful thinking" you want a Lamborghini. That doesn't mean one appears in your driveway. And it doesn't make Lamborghini ownership a "right."

Pulling a splinter out of a finger is an example of medical care that can be completed without medical tools or a medical degree. Whether that’s a right or not depends upon who’s definition we rely.

I agree.

Absolutely EVERY thing is dependent upon who's definition we rely. This is because ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:03 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:28 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am

Probably correct. It could also be the case that others are not causing the problems you assume we are.

But I NOT 'assuming" 'you' are. I KNOW 'you' are.

If it was NOT for the judgments, ridicule, and punishment 'you', adult human beings, put on "others", each other, "yourselves", then the "world" would NOT be in such a mess as it is was, with ALL of those problems, in the days when this was being written.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am So what should we do about the problems we are causing?

I suggest, first:

'Accepting responsibility', that is; being Truly Honest and admitting the problems, which 'you' cause. Then,

'Taking responsibility', that is; doing ALL it takes to changing your ways, for the better.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am I know I try to obey laws and be kind when I meet others in person (though online seems to be a different matter).

'Trying to' is NOT 'doing'.

'Laws' can be made just for the benefit of SOME and NOT for ALL. Obeying laws certainly does NOT necessarily stop the 'problems' and make the "world" a better place

WHY does meeting "others" online, instead of in person, make you NOT 'try to' be kind to those ones?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am What do you do to try to mitigate the problems you are causing?

Not that much other than learn how to communicate in a way that I can and will be FAR BETTER UNDERSTOOD. I KNOW the solution, and the formula, that can and will lead to a Truly peaceful "world".

But, saying things that seem UNBELIEVABLE to some people, like for example, 'I KNOW what 'it' is, which WILL create a Truly heaven-like existence for EVERY one' usually makes most people NOT want to listen. So, for future peoples' sake, I just continue to learn how to be FULLY HEARD, and UNDERSTOOD.

By the way, what 'problems' do you think or believe 'I' am causing?

You stated that everyone creates problems.

I also stated something like; what a 'problem' ACTUALLY IS, to 'me', might be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, to 'you', correct?

You answered, "Probably correct". But, instead of CLARIFYING ANY thing, you have just continued on with YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:03 pm Therefore you create them too and if I can work on fixing them you can work on fixing them. Fair enough?

I would usually now ask, 'What is 'them'?' (because I do NOT like to ASSUME ANY thing). But because I rarely get Honest answers to these type of CLARIFYING questions, and because 'you', adult human beings, obtain the feeling of 'annoyance' way to quickly and easily, I will just ask if by the word 'them' you mean 'problem' is correct, then what does the word 'problem' mean, to 'you', here?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:03 pm "Communicating" is no more "doing" than me being kind to others I meet personally. So work on yourself too, bud, if you are so concerned about the world not being a good place.

Who and/or what, EXACTLY, is "yourself", or 'me', which you TELL 'me' to "work on"?

Also, HOW is one learning how to communicate BETTER, to 'you', NOT working on "them self"?