[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]No, you have not. If you believe that morality follows law, then you believe there is nothing inherently wrong with murdering someone. You believe that if there wasn't a law specifically saying that murder is illegal, then it would be perfectly fine for people to murder whoever they want.Laihendi
Actually I believe that law follows morality but that not everyone has the same morality. If you had a society that thought murdering people was fine then there would be no law against murder and thus no right to life. Society of communists wouldn't believe in a right to property. Rights exist because our current society wants them to and has established government and authority to enforce those morals. Man came first, then we made morality. Again if you can prove God exists and that he gave us our morality and that all men believe in the same moral code then you can be right. Until then you are not. So you believe consensus determines morality? So if I live surrounded by a group of people who believe it's okay to murder me, they have a right to, and I don't have a right to live, because society has arbitrarily decided it's okay to murder me? That makes no sense at all. See? You can't refute it.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Actually I believe that law follows morality but that not everyone has the same morality. If you had a society that thought murdering people was fine then there would be no law against murder and thus no right to life. Society of communists wouldn't believe in a right to property. Rights exist because our current society wants them to and has established government and authority to enforce those morals. Man came first, then we made morality. Again if you can prove God exists and that he gave us our morality and that all men believe in the same moral code then you can be right. Until then you are not. So you believe consensus determines morality? So if I live surrounded by a group of people who believe it's okay to murder me, they have a right to, and I don't have a right to live, because society has arbitrarily decided it's okay to murder me? That makes no sense at all. See? You can't refute it. I did. Please reread my hypothetical scenario.
Actually it's not because this is about social conventions. That logical fallacy is for things like "Gangnam style has over 1 billion views on youtube and is therefore the best song". Because rights are a concept it requires belief to exist and thus more belief is directly related to the strength and existence of the concept. If no one believes in rights then they don't exist because we humans make them exist.
Actually it's not because this is about social conventions. That logical fallacy is for things like "Gangnam style has over 1 billion views on youtube and is therefore the best song". Because rights are a concept it requires belief to exist and thus more belief is directly related to the strength and existence of the concept. If no one believes in rights then they don't exist because we humans make them exist. Murdering someone against his will is not a social convention.
Actually it's not because this is about social conventions. That logical fallacy is for things like "Gangnam style has over 1 billion views on youtube and is therefore the best song". Because rights are a concept it requires belief to exist and thus more belief is directly related to the strength and existence of the concept. If no one believes in rights then they don't exist because we humans make them exist. Murdering someone against his will is not a social convention.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice No?
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Actually it's not because this is about social conventions. That logical fallacy is for things like "Gangnam style has over 1 billion views on youtube and is therefore the best song". Because rights are a concept it requires belief to exist and thus more belief is directly related to the strength and existence of the concept. If no one believes in rights then they don't exist because we humans make them exist. Murdering someone against his will is not a social convention.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice No? Human sacrifice is murder. Do you really believe there is nothing objectionable about a gang of people of a religion you do not even practice deciding to kill you in order to sacrifice you to their gods that you don't believe in? Do you really believe that?
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Murdering someone against his will is not a social convention.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice No? Human sacrifice is murder. Do you really believe there is nothing objectionable about a gang of people of a religion you do not even practice deciding to kill you in order to sacrifice you to their gods that you don't believe in? Do you really believe that? So are you going to actually make an argument or are you going to try to apply objective reality to my subjective beliefs? You see it doesn't matter if I believe it or not because someone at some point did and that belief and it's proliferation within a single society renders your argument incorrect.
If you believe that people decide for themselves what rights are, and that rights are not inherent, then you must believe there was nothing wrong with enslaving Africans and sending them to work on farms in America, because society determined that it was okay. You must believe there was nothing wrong with the nazis sending millions of jews to die in gas chambers, because their society determined it was morally good to do that. You must believe there was nothing wrong with women not having a right to vote in America for ~150 years, because society determined they shouldn't. You must believe it's okay that countless homosexuals have been murdered, because society determined it's okay.
If you believe that people decide for themselves what rights are, and that rights are not inherent, then you must believe there was nothing wrong with enslaving Africans and sending them to work on farms in America, because society determined that it was okay. You must believe there was nothing wrong with the nazis sending millions of jews to die in gas chambers, because their society determined it was morally good to do that. You must believe there was nothing wrong with women not having a right to vote in America for ~150 years, because society determined they shouldn't. You must believe it's okay that countless homosexuals have been murdered, because society determined it's okay.Laihendi
So your attempt to save your floundering argument is to claim your opponent is a horrible person? Nice.
If you believe that people decide for themselves what rights are, and that rights are not inherent, then you must believe there was nothing wrong with enslaving Africans and sending them to work on farms in America, because society determined that it was okay. You must believe there was nothing wrong with the nazis sending millions of jews to die in gas chambers, because their society determined it was morally good to do that. You must believe there was nothing wrong with women not having a right to vote in America for ~150 years, because society determined they shouldn't. You must believe it's okay that countless homosexuals have been murdered, because society determined it's okay.Laihendi
You must believe that people don't have the capacity to change and evolve, that if a right didn't exist in the beginning of a society, it doesn't exist now.
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"] You must believe that people don't have the capacity to change and evolve, that if a right didn't exist in the beginning of a society, it doesn't exist now. Lai can't conceptualize rights. It's okay though, because the rest of society will ensure he has them whether he believes he should or not. Because we care.
Its not Obama trying to take away your guns, but the +50% of the population that wants more control. Over 50% of americans want gun control not because they want to take away your rights but because they fear getting shot, and anything that leads to less shootings they will support. Don't blame Obama for following the will of the people.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]If you believe that people decide for themselves what rights are, and that rights are not inherent, then you must believe there was nothing wrong with enslaving Africans and sending them to work on farms in America, because society determined that it was okay. You must believe there was nothing wrong with the nazis sending millions of jews to die in gas chambers, because their society determined it was morally good to do that. You must believe there was nothing wrong with women not having a right to vote in America for ~150 years, because society determined they shouldn't. You must believe it's okay that countless homosexuals have been murdered, because society determined it's okay.Ace6301
So your attempt to save your floundering argument is to claim your opponent is a horrible person? Nice. :lol: You're making it pretty clear you can't refute anything I just said. I'm not making any claims about what kind of person you are, I am merely pointing out the horrific implications of your theories concerning rights.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]If you believe that people decide for themselves what rights are, and that rights are not inherent, then you must believe there was nothing wrong with enslaving Africans and sending them to work on farms in America, because society determined that it was okay. You must believe there was nothing wrong with the nazis sending millions of jews to die in gas chambers, because their society determined it was morally good to do that. You must believe there was nothing wrong with women not having a right to vote in America for ~150 years, because society determined they shouldn't. You must believe it's okay that countless homosexuals have been murdered, because society determined it's okay.jimkabrhel
You must believe that people don't have the capacity to change and evolve, that if a right didn't exist in the beginning of a society, it doesn't exist now. That is not relevant. The slave trade was an abomination. The holocaust was an abomination. Unequal "rights" between genders is an abomination. Murdering someone because he is homosexual is an abomination. They are abominations now, and they are abominations in any time period.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]If you believe that people decide for themselves what rights are, and that rights are not inherent, then you must believe there was nothing wrong with enslaving Africans and sending them to work on farms in America, because society determined that it was okay. You must believe there was nothing wrong with the nazis sending millions of jews to die in gas chambers, because their society determined it was morally good to do that. You must believe there was nothing wrong with women not having a right to vote in America for ~150 years, because society determined they shouldn't. You must believe it's okay that countless homosexuals have been murdered, because society determined it's okay.Laihendi
So your attempt to save your floundering argument is to claim your opponent is a horrible person? Nice. :lol: You're making it pretty clear you can't refute anything I just said. I'm not making any claims about what kind of person you are, I am merely pointing out the horrific implications of your theories concerning rights. What's there to refute? You aren't making any points you're just trying to say "wow you must believe these things are perfectly fine" which has nothing to do with anything being said.
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]If you believe that people decide for themselves what rights are, and that rights are not inherent, then you must believe there was nothing wrong with enslaving Africans and sending them to work on farms in America, because society determined that it was okay. You must believe there was nothing wrong with the nazis sending millions of jews to die in gas chambers, because their society determined it was morally good to do that. You must believe there was nothing wrong with women not having a right to vote in America for ~150 years, because society determined they shouldn't. You must believe it's okay that countless homosexuals have been murdered, because society determined it's okay.Laihendi
You must believe that people don't have the capacity to change and evolve, that if a right didn't exist in the beginning of a society, it doesn't exist now. That is not relevant. The slave trade was an abomination. The holocaust was an abomination. Unequal "rights" between genders is an abomination. Murdering someone because he is homosexual is an abomination. They are abominations now, and they are abominations in any time period. You say that with hindsight. If you live in those times, such things a would have been perfectly acceptable. You can claim moral superiority now, and I agree that by today's standards, such things are terrible. If you are going to be an enlightened person, you cannot judge by absolutes, but instead understand things in the context of the times. Suggesting that someone trying to use critical thinking and more subtle understanding is an abomination for greater understanding shows how ignorant you are.
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"] You must believe that people don't have the capacity to change and evolve, that if a right didn't exist in the beginning of a society, it doesn't exist now. That is not relevant. The slave trade was an abomination. The holocaust was an abomination. Unequal "rights" between genders is an abomination. Murdering someone because he is homosexual is an abomination. They are abominations now, and they are abominations in any time period. You say that with hindsight. If you live in those times, such things a would have been perfectly acceptable. You can claim moral superiority now, and I agree that by today's standards, such things are terrible. If you are going to be an enlightened person, you cannot judge by absolutes, but instead understand things in the context of the times. Suggesting that someone trying to use critical thinking and more subtle understanding is an abomination for greater understanding shows how ignorant you are. It doesn't take hindsight to understand that slavery is wrong, that genocide is wrong, that institutionalized sexism and homophobia are wrong. There were many individuals saying all of those things were wrong back when "society" still believed they were okay. There are still people saying those things are wrong in "societies" that still believe they are not wrong. That is because those individuals exhibit critical thinking and do not blindly conform to the abominable social norms of their time.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] That is not relevant. The slave trade was an abomination. The holocaust was an abomination. Unequal "rights" between genders is an abomination. Murdering someone because he is homosexual is an abomination. They are abominations now, and they are abominations in any time period. You say that with hindsight. If you live in those times, such things a would have been perfectly acceptable. You can claim moral superiority now, and I agree that by today's standards, such things are terrible. If you are going to be an enlightened person, you cannot judge by absolutes, but instead understand things in the context of the times. Suggesting that someone trying to use critical thinking and more subtle understanding is an abomination for greater understanding shows how ignorant you are. It doesn't take hindsight to understand that slavery is wrong, that genocide is wrong, that institutionalized sexism and homophobia are wrong. There were many individuals saying all of those things were wrong back when "society" still believed they were okay. There are still people saying those things are wrong in "societies" that still believe they are not wrong. That is because those individuals exhibit critical thinking and do not blindly conform to the abominable social norms of their time. You must really, really hate the founding fathers of America.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] So your attempt to save your floundering argument is to claim your opponent is a horrible person? Nice. :lol: You're making it pretty clear you can't refute anything I just said. I'm not making any claims about what kind of person you are, I am merely pointing out the horrific implications of your theories concerning rights. What's there to refute? You aren't making any points you're just trying to say "wow you must believe these things are perfectly fine" which has nothing to do with anything being said.Yes or no question Do you believe the nazis were within their rights to murder 11 million civilians during the holocaust?
Its not Obama trying to take away your guns, but the +50% of the population that wants more control. Over 50% of americans want gun control not because they want to take away your rights but because they fear getting shot, and anything that leads to less shootings they will support. Don't blame Obama for following the will of the people.Diablo-B
Obama swore an oath to uphold the constitution, not to undermine it because that's "the will of the people".
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] :lol: You're making it pretty clear you can't refute anything I just said. I'm not making any claims about what kind of person you are, I am merely pointing out the horrific implications of your theories concerning rights. What's there to refute? You aren't making any points you're just trying to say "wow you must believe these things are perfectly fine" which has nothing to do with anything being said.Yes or no question Do you believe the nazis were within their rights to murder 11 million civilians during the holocaust? The question isn't whether the Nazis were within their rights as much as it is "Did the Nazis violate the rights of those killed in the holocaust" to which the answer is "They didn't have rights to violate" much like slavery in the US before the Emancipation Proclamation. A historical fact however doesn't mean I can't find what happened to be horrific.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] :lol: You're making it pretty clear you can't refute anything I just said. I'm not making any claims about what kind of person you are, I am merely pointing out the horrific implications of your theories concerning rights.Laihendi
What's there to refute? You aren't making any points you're just trying to say "wow you must believe these things are perfectly fine" which has nothing to do with anything being said.Yes or no question Do you believe the nazis were within their rights to murder 11 million civilians during the holocaust?
Do you believe that owning slaves was a right in the US before it was made illegal? And before you say that it was abomnation before and after the Emmancipation Proclamation, that is beside the point.
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]Its not Obama trying to take away your guns, but the +50% of the population that wants more control. Over 50% of americans want gun control not because they want to take away your rights but because they fear getting shot, and anything that leads to less shootings they will support. Don't blame Obama for following the will of the people.Laihendi
Obama swore an oath to uphold the constitution, not to undermine it because that's "the will of the people". Regulating firearms isn't undermining the constitution. The supreme court has already ruled that its constitutional for the government to have some level of gun regulation. The issue is how do you find the right balance. You can't impeach someone because you dont agree with the steps they are taking to find that balance. Its a tricky situation with many differing view points. Obama has done nothing unlawful or irrational so far.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] What's there to refute? You aren't making any points you're just trying to say "wow you must believe these things are perfectly fine" which has nothing to do with anything being said.Yes or no question Do you believe the nazis were within their rights to murder 11 million civilians during the holocaust? The question isn't whether the Nazis were within their rights as much as it is "Did the Nazis violate the rights of those killed in the holocaust" to which the answer is "They didn't have rights to violate" much like slavery in the US before the Emancipation Proclamation. A historical fact however doesn't mean I can't find what happened to be horrific.So you are saying the jews did not have rights to violate, and therefore the nazis were within their rights murder 6,000,000 of them? I just want to be clear about your position.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] What's there to refute? You aren't making any points you're just trying to say "wow you must believe these things are perfectly fine" which has nothing to do with anything being said.jimkabrhel
Yes or no question Do you believe the nazis were within their rights to murder 11 million civilians during the holocaust?
Do you believe that owning slaves was a right in the US before it was made illegal? And before you say that it was abomnation before and after the Emmancipation Proclamation, that is beside the point.
Slavery is never a right. Slavery is and can only ever be a privilege granted to a group of people at the expense of another by a force of authority (the government). @Diablo - There is no balance to be made. The 2nd amendment states that because a well regulated militia is a necessity, and that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Handguns that only shoot 6 rounds (or whatever these arbitrary standards being promoted are) is not enough to form a militia. Obama is corrupt. The supreme court is corrupt.
It's funt to keep it going just to see what Lai will say next. College freshman arrogance at it's finest.
Ace just explicitly stated that the jews who died during the holocaust did not have rights to violate. That has nothing to do with arrogance on my part.
It's funt to keep it going just to see what Lai will say next. College freshman arrogance at it's finest.
I think you overestimate his age. 16 is my guess. Ace, please explain why the 6,000,000 jews who were murdered during the holocaust did not have rights to violate. I really would like to know.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Yes or no question Do you believe the nazis were within their rights to murder 11 million civilians during the holocaust?Laihendi
Do you believe that owning slaves was a right in the US before it was made illegal? And before you say that it was abomnation before and after the Emmancipation Proclamation, that is beside the point.
Slavery is never a right. Slavery is and can only ever be a privilege granted to a group of people at the expense of another by a force of authority (the government). @Diablo - There is no balance to be made. The 2nd amendment states that because a well regulated militia is a necessity, and that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Handguns that only shoot 6 rounds (or whatever these arbitrary standards being promoted are) is not enough to form a militia. Obama is corrupt. The supreme court is corrupt.
There were many times in history where slavery was acceptable in society, and in groups that weren't regulated by governments. Slavery is general known to have predated recorded history, yet it was only abolished in the US 150 years ago. How do you explain thousands of years of recorded history?
It's funt to keep it going just to see what Lai will say next. College freshman arrogance at it's finest.
Laihendi
I think you overestimate his age. 16 is my guess. Ace, please explain why the 6,000,000 jews who were murdered during the holocaust did not have rights to violate. I really would like to know. Because they were not granted rights by anyone. Same with the slaves in the US. No one gave them rights so they didn't have them. An abstract concept isn't going to save anyone. You need to actually have backing for an abstract concept to exist. If it doesn't have backing it doesn't exist. We make rights up. It just so happens the Nazis didn't believe Jews had rights. So they did what they pleased with them and it was horrible.
[QUOTE="Abbeten"]SCOTUS is corrupt because they don't agree with you huehuehuehue Every single other person is irrational because they don't agree with me! I'm not crazy! YOU'RE all crazy!
[QUOTE="Abbeten"]SCOTUS is corrupt because they don't agree with you huehuehuehue Reminds me of the judicial activism argument. It's only judicial activism if you don't like the opinion.
Do you believe that owning slaves was a right in the US before it was made illegal? And before you say that it was abomnation before and after the Emmancipation Proclamation, that is beside the point.
jimkabrhel
Slavery is never a right. Slavery is and can only ever be a privilege granted to a group of people at the expense of another by a force of authority (the government). @Diablo - There is no balance to be made. The 2nd amendment states that because a well regulated militia is a necessity, and that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Handguns that only shoot 6 rounds (or whatever these arbitrary standards being promoted are) is not enough to form a militia. Obama is corrupt. The supreme court is corrupt.
There were many times in history where slavery was acceptable in society, and in groups that weren't regulated by governments. Slavery is general known to have predated recorded history, yet it was only abolished in the US 150 years ago. How do you explain thousands of years of recorded history?
Most people are sheep. They don't think for themselves and they blindly conform to social norms. This thread is proof enough of that. If we were all living 200 years ago, I would be arguing about the immorality of slavery while the rest of you would be rolling your eyes and calling me crazy.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Slavery is never a right. Slavery is and can only ever be a privilege granted to a group of people at the expense of another by a force of authority (the government). @Diablo - There is no balance to be made. The 2nd amendment states that because a well regulated militia is a necessity, and that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Handguns that only shoot 6 rounds (or whatever these arbitrary standards being promoted are) is not enough to form a militia. Obama is corrupt. The supreme court is corrupt.Laihendi
There were many times in history where slavery was acceptable in society, and in groups that weren't regulated by governments. Slavery is general known to have predated recorded history, yet it was only abolished in the US 150 years ago. How do you explain thousands of years of recorded history?
Most people are sheep. They don't think for themselves and they blindly conform to social norms. This thread is proof enough of that. If we were all living 200 years ago, I would be arguing about the immorality of slavery while the rest of you would be rolling your eyes and calling me crazy. Yes, all of us are brainwashed. That's easily the most logical conclusion from all of this.
Log in to comment