now I see more where you're coming from about no laws. If we recognized basic rights, which is a damn complicated concept to work out when people are acting in group interests... but doable! then laws would be self evident? I think its possible but there is a real bridge we are in the process of crossing which we are not socially well equipped as we evolved to organize in big numbers and consolidate the vastly different interests, hope we learn good though, resilient we humans are! good vid :)
@GoldenFinchFellow Well I don't remember exactly where I was 3 years ago when I made this... I believe we need ethics, not legal systems. Laws and lawmakers are not necessarily ethical. Law is based on the use of force which is deemed as unethical except when used by the Law... making Law hypocritical at best.
@RVqueen I totally agree and I like the world you see but tribal societies had laws that were orally shared and made agreements between nations and smaller tribes too, so its just tough we are not good at understanding each other in #'s bigger then a couple 100's. I find the big problem now is that tribal instinct of organizing daily life has shifted to companies where you have one boss who's interests have bigger political weight and so there is a divide in our life styles of disempowerment.
@GoldenFinchFellow Tribalism on its own isn't safe, either. Because it is systematized it also can be exploited, like what happened with the Zulus. Traditional tribalism often lacks ethics respecting women, such as in the Middle East.
But I agree the social patterns added to current understanding of morality could be useful. Society has broken down the family, when the family is the basic unit of society. We've lost our sense of community and culture has become irrelevantly homogeneous.
You seem very autodidactic. It is very refreshing, since most of the other people sharing their perspective on YouTube seem either to not know what they're talking about, or don't recognize where their perspectives are actually coming from.
Props for explicitly stating the foundations of your position.
You have the right to do anything! Problem comes when you brake the God's laws. The right to kill your own unborn baby, but what are the results? Satan, the fallen angel, has the right to go to God and say, 'can I?' God says 'by my own laws, she/he broke my law, YES you can!' Satan then has the rights to do with you as he then pleases. Sickness, desise, hate, pane, fear, hurt, abuse etc. You choose Christian girl, create your own god a reap the rewards, I dare you...
The Natural Law Tradition, or Moral Reality, is inscribed in Logos (the Word) and the World around us, through the nature of man, and his ability to reason. The connatural ends or good, moral realism, is in accordance with it's nature -- or teological conformity.
The connatural ends or good of sex is in procreation -- the explicit nature of human sexuality. Similarly, abortion interrupts the connatural operation and frustrates the natural ends and vitality of the feminine form.
You said so much in only two sentences! Until last year I didn't even know the terms for what I believed. I had only observed and recognized a Natural Law. I still haven't read much about it. The reality is so natural and reasonable that I feel it is a very simple fact, and I can't understand why not everyone sees it.
"God always forgives; men sometimes forgive; Nature never forgives." The problem, however, is that modern society has devoured nature with science and produced contraceptives, condoms and treatments for venereal diseases; thus, neglecting teleological arguments.
I am entirely opposed to birth controls which cause physical harm, but because of the natural built-in birth control of the female cycle, I do not believe all s*x must be procreative, and do not find that harmless methods are against nature. *MERRY CHRISTMAS!*
My school neglected Aristotle. I only became interested in Natural Law theory through reading Harry V. Jaffa's A New Birth of Freedom. However, for a more narrow and Christian perspective, goggle J. Bdziszewski, i have his book, Written on the Heart.
human rights is one of my favorite topics. if we say " i am human " , by logical extension, we must accept that other people can claim the same thing. then... comes the discussion about the boundaries. so we must have the discussion. should institutions define "humanity" or should we make that determination ourselves ? good topic!!@@~~@@
The philosophy that "might makes right" is what I am against. Just because unborn people cannot legislate their births into "applied rights," does not change the Truth that they have the same Moral Right to life.
they might have the moral right , but they dont have the might to make moral right into lawful right and so there moral rights remain undefended and the (immoral?) right of women to have an abortion is defended.
I understand your beliefs perfectly. However, I firmly believe they are incorrect. I could repeat myself over again, but I am afraid it will do neither of us any good.
well, in society all coresponding 'rights' will be agreed upon and set as law. the others will be debated and argued over. in the end abortion loses out, why? because the rights do not correspond and when that happens 'freedom to choose' is the best solution.
And lastly, just because something is lawful does not make it Right. Killing babies is not a Right, even though it is currently lawful in many places.
well.. right has a few different emanings. theres directions, rights ..e.g. i have the right to eat a cake, and then theres the moral right. i believe we are talking about cake rights here and not what is morally right.
The thesis of my video is that True Rights are based on Morality. So for myself, I was talking about moral Rights and how they should be the basis for how we interact socially. That interacts with "cake rights," which I guess is how you feel about the right to travel through certain means. Hopefully you aren't calling baby-killing a "cake right" but recognize the moral nature there.
the truth is we do NOT have rights unless we have the nessecary power to demand them and enforce them. we form groups and as a group we demand such and such a right. your list of rights are your own personal beleifs. someone with different personal beliefs may have rigth sthat contradict yours... so what happens?
My belief, and that of the founders of my country, is that Rights are Inalienable -they cannot actually be taken away. Someone can do you wrong in response to you acting out your Rights, but that does not make what you did Wrong. The ability to enforce access to our rights would be very good.
thats a 'belief' . it's not the same as having actual rights. your actual rights are only what you have the power or society has the power to enforce for you. it's different from just believing you have such and such a right
And that, my friend, is YOUR belief. You believe that my rights do not exist unless they are agreed upon by some legislative body (non-human entity) which claims authority over real people. It really comes down to a disagreement about absolutes versus relativism, and what is absolute and what is relative and what is contrived.
my point is that you only have rights when you are under some kind of system that is able to give you those rights. You need power to have rigths. an ant does'nt have rights in our world because we dont give it any rights.
you are argueing that u have inalienable rights. but lets say tommorow you come up against a grizzly bear that gobbles you up. Did he recognise your rights? did your inalienable rights make a difference? did they infact have any effect what so ever other than give you a false sense of security? now if you had a gun..and you fired that gun , i think the grizzly bear would instantly recognise your right to live.
thats my point. the rights that thomas jefferson talks about are not universal. they only apply to the USA under the umbrella of the U.S. government ( when the us government feels like obeying th econstitution). the point is that rights have to be defended by some authority. other wise i anyone can say that they have the right to do anything. ulike to drive your car.. maybe I like to shoot peoples pets.
in the US my rigths wont be recognised. but say i was a dictator in some other country , then absolutely they would be recognised. ask anyone, they will say ' absoloutely you can shoot my pet sir, absolutely u have the right' see.. rights are not inalienable.. they passed the patriot act...
now they have the right to arrest u without charge ( or what ever it does) , and u wont be able to do anythign till you demand , as a group , a change n the law.
Your definition of RIGHTS is something like "that which one can do". Those are abilities. My definition is "that which is RIGHT for one to do." Abilities are power-based. Rights are based on morality.
The Patriot Act is repugnant to the constitution, and even if they should amend the constitution to allow it, the People have the Right and even the untapped power to dissolve the current government.
That is your opinion of Jefferson's ideals. Jefferson DID believe the God-given Rights of Man to be Universal. Please read the Virginia Declaration of Rights, by George Mason, and see that these men believed the Rights existed PRIOR TO and apart from any social compacts (government).
well god given rights are enforced by god.. so by your own reasoning u agree that rights are derived from power , i.e. the power of god. so for some one who doesnt believe in god , presumably thier rights will be enforced by society/law .
2/3 of the world population lives in places where their religious rights are violated on a continual basis. Violation of rights or the lack of ability to one's enforce rights does not change what is and is not Right. I do understand your concerns for enforcement, though.
I agree that we have reached an impasse. I understand your argument and beliefs entirely. But I still feel like you don't understand me. I am not asking to be agreed with, but only understood. I have already clarified that I only believe in Moral Rights. I am not confusing Rights with legal regulations. I am trying to separate them.
i think I understand, but I also think your point of view is very biased because you are not considering people who dont necissarily believe in a higher power. you have to understand that it becomes difficult defining what is morally right when you have people of different beliefs.
Wow this is wonderful! We are coming to a point on which we agree! The only question which I feel is logically debatable is how to determine what is Morally Right. And that IS difficult in a world in which people are deciding "morality doesn't exist" and such.
you say you have the right to drive your car without a license. but others would fear that you are not capable of driving a car without a license and demand the rigth to have protection from inexperienced drivers , maybe , say, in the form of a test.
It is absolutely right that people have the right not to be injured by another person. However, that does not mean that they have the right to determine what other people can and cannot do. I have the right to travel. They have the right to not be injured by me. If I injure someone they have the right to pursue restorative justice, and it is my right to restore what I did wrong. The wrong would be injuring someone or their property, not in traveling.
they dont want to be injured in the first place. thats why tehy want a test. in the begining the rate of fatalities was high. over time , to reduce these fatalities and injuries laws eveolved to protect people. it didnt just happen over night
The complicated thing is guarding the rights of the majority without trespassing the rights of individuals. Protection is not a right. But not being injured or losing property IS a right. Most people trade their freedom for alleged "safety". I believe this is very dangerous and puts us all at risk of being defrauded.
I think we only have rights when we are powerful enough to demand them. You can assign yourselves rights all you want . to the list you gave you could add ' i have the rigth to kill someone' . clearly this is frowned upon , lol, but in the army you DO get the rigth to kill.
I am not arbitrarily assigning rights. My point is that in Truth (not practice) Rights are based on Right and Wrong --Morality. If people can agree that Rights exist and are absolute apart from human understanding, then the only thing left to debate is how to discern what these rights and wrongs are and how to apply them. And that is what most people do.
thats the problem though. everyones interpretation of what IS right (morally) differs!. so again, it comes down to who has the most powerful voice.. then , as a group.. what we agree on becomee our rights.. and what we disagree on.. etc etc.. u get the idea
Rights are only perceived by us. We/majority decided to apply these rights to each other. Thus we/majority get to decide the limits and enforcement of them. There is something really wrong when the minority are ignored. We shouldn't need our rights limited by guidelines as long as they don't effect other people's individual rights.
Do you mean that Rights are perceptions of something that IS there, or that ISN'T there? Like there are many Laws that scientists did not realize existed and only in the past 4 hundred years began to perceive, and have adjusted their perceptions on, but these natural functions have not changed.
I agree that People try to apply Rights based on their interpretations of Truth (perceptions) and I think (as you probably also do) that people's perceptions are often messed up and that people are not properly perceiving what is Actually Right. But I do not see how perceiving something could be valuable unless it is something which actually exists. I think that if Rights don't exist apart from our understanding of them, then we are wrong to arbitrarily contrive them.
There is no purpose or value in existence. Nothing is valuable, only valued. There is no such thing as Right and Wrong. That's why we perceive our rights and protect them, for we value them. We are not wrong to arbitrarily contrive our rights if they are not real things.
By the way, I wanted to say I like your videos and this argument could go all the way to the idea of God. I know that you believe in God and I thought you would be interested in knowing what I believe because of all the hard edge view on rights. I don't believe in God. I believe in the possibility of a God. I'm hoping to work up the courage to post videos on all my ideas and thoughts soon.
I like "arguing" about these sort of things. And I like it when people with views different than mine make logical progressions and strive for internally coherent beliefs. So it is good to know what you believe. You should make some videos!
Scientific Laws are guidelines to physical existence which means they describe something that is not perceived but is real. Rights are not perceptions of any real, physical thing. This is what makes rights themselves only perceptions.
If only things with physical (material) existence can be real, and things are either Real or Non-Real (relative perceptions), then what is the value of non-realities? If non-material Truths do not exist, then what is the point of thinking?
I'm guessing what you are asking me is how can non-realities be valued, because there is no value nor right and wrong. Nonexistence or non-realities, such as our perceptions and possibilities that aren't real, are valued based on our willingness to act.(defending and enforcing them) There is no point of thinking, but only the point to think. We can't help but to think.
I love your vids on humon rights, they are intresting. Im not so keen on your tshirt though. Imagine a muslim man wearing one with the word "Men" instead of "Women". We would think it was vulgar since islam treats women as lesser beings than men.
Well In The Mainly Christian Society We Live In, many Times, Men Get Treated As Lesser Beings Than Women And Tshirts like that are gentle reminder of these often masked attitudes we have chosen to adopt. Other than that
Aww you're so nice. Well like I said, I believe in rights for unborn Men as well, I just don't have the right shirt for that statement. The shirt is just a play off the idea that abortion is a "woman's right"... something which I find very absurd since half the aborted persons are women.
i agree with ya position against abortion. Actually i was an unwanted child, and my mother wanted to abort me, but than she met some anti-abortion activists an she changed her mind. So basicly it's girls like you who made it possible for me to be born (-:
PS: of course i didn't mean the UN Charta, i meant the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - i just messed uo the names /-:
I get high from watching this (*_*)
batfly 1 month ago
I needed a Queen fix so i came back to this,,,where is the t shirt now ?
deeryker 6 months ago
now I see more where you're coming from about no laws. If we recognized basic rights, which is a damn complicated concept to work out when people are acting in group interests... but doable! then laws would be self evident? I think its possible but there is a real bridge we are in the process of crossing which we are not socially well equipped as we evolved to organize in big numbers and consolidate the vastly different interests, hope we learn good though, resilient we humans are! good vid :)
GoldenFinchFellow 8 months ago
@GoldenFinchFellow Well I don't remember exactly where I was 3 years ago when I made this... I believe we need ethics, not legal systems. Laws and lawmakers are not necessarily ethical. Law is based on the use of force which is deemed as unethical except when used by the Law... making Law hypocritical at best.
RVqueen 8 months ago
@RVqueen I totally agree and I like the world you see but tribal societies had laws that were orally shared and made agreements between nations and smaller tribes too, so its just tough we are not good at understanding each other in #'s bigger then a couple 100's. I find the big problem now is that tribal instinct of organizing daily life has shifted to companies where you have one boss who's interests have bigger political weight and so there is a divide in our life styles of disempowerment.
GoldenFinchFellow 8 months ago
@GoldenFinchFellow I'm using the word law in a general way though not meaning just this system as it is now, ethics would be better word
GoldenFinchFellow 8 months ago
@GoldenFinchFellow Tribalism on its own isn't safe, either. Because it is systematized it also can be exploited, like what happened with the Zulus. Traditional tribalism often lacks ethics respecting women, such as in the Middle East.
But I agree the social patterns added to current understanding of morality could be useful. Society has broken down the family, when the family is the basic unit of society. We've lost our sense of community and culture has become irrelevantly homogeneous.
RVqueen 8 months ago
@RVqueen you in inspire the brain to work properly :)
GoldenFinchFellow 8 months ago
I think God would agree that driving is a privilege not a right.
barrydope 3 years ago
You seem very autodidactic. It is very refreshing, since most of the other people sharing their perspective on YouTube seem either to not know what they're talking about, or don't recognize where their perspectives are actually coming from.
Props for explicitly stating the foundations of your position.
GabrielKoulikov 3 years ago
And mad props to you for sitting through this video!
Really thank you, I appreciate what you said very much.
RVqueen 3 years ago
You have the right to do anything! Problem comes when you brake the God's laws. The right to kill your own unborn baby, but what are the results? Satan, the fallen angel, has the right to go to God and say, 'can I?' God says 'by my own laws, she/he broke my law, YES you can!' Satan then has the rights to do with you as he then pleases. Sickness, desise, hate, pane, fear, hurt, abuse etc. You choose Christian girl, create your own god a reap the rewards, I dare you...
aaronkraicshtein 3 years ago
The Natural Law Tradition, or Moral Reality, is inscribed in Logos (the Word) and the World around us, through the nature of man, and his ability to reason. The connatural ends or good, moral realism, is in accordance with it's nature -- or teological conformity.
Kataphraktoi17 4 years ago
The connatural ends or good of sex is in procreation -- the explicit nature of human sexuality. Similarly, abortion interrupts the connatural operation and frustrates the natural ends and vitality of the feminine form.
Kataphraktoi17 4 years ago
Wait, were you homeschooled?
RVqueen 4 years ago
You said so much in only two sentences! Until last year I didn't even know the terms for what I believed. I had only observed and recognized a Natural Law. I still haven't read much about it. The reality is so natural and reasonable that I feel it is a very simple fact, and I can't understand why not everyone sees it.
RVqueen 4 years ago
I was educated in public schools.
"God always forgives; men sometimes forgive; Nature never forgives." The problem, however, is that modern society has devoured nature with science and produced contraceptives, condoms and treatments for venereal diseases; thus, neglecting teleological arguments.
Kataphraktoi17 4 years ago
I thought government schools neglected Aristotle!
I am entirely opposed to birth controls which cause physical harm, but because of the natural built-in birth control of the female cycle, I do not believe all s*x must be procreative, and do not find that harmless methods are against nature. *MERRY CHRISTMAS!*
RVqueen 4 years ago
My school neglected Aristotle. I only became interested in Natural Law theory through reading Harry V. Jaffa's A New Birth of Freedom. However, for a more narrow and Christian perspective, goggle J. Bdziszewski, i have his book, Written on the Heart.
Kataphraktoi17 4 years ago
I really like what you had to say. I am a political scientist and commend you for stating the facts instead of opinion. Great video.
prolifediaries 4 years ago
Thank you so much!!!! I'm learning a lot.
RVqueen 4 years ago
human rights is one of my favorite topics. if we say " i am human " , by logical extension, we must accept that other people can claim the same thing. then... comes the discussion about the boundaries. so we must have the discussion. should institutions define "humanity" or should we make that determination ourselves ? good topic!!@@~~@@
matrixcmitech 4 years ago
The philosophy that "might makes right" is what I am against. Just because unborn people cannot legislate their births into "applied rights," does not change the Truth that they have the same Moral Right to life.
RVqueen 4 years ago
they might have the moral right , but they dont have the might to make moral right into lawful right and so there moral rights remain undefended and the (immoral?) right of women to have an abortion is defended.
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
I understand your beliefs perfectly. However, I firmly believe they are incorrect. I could repeat myself over again, but I am afraid it will do neither of us any good.
RVqueen 4 years ago
anyway , sorry to be bashing your arguements, but i am quite arguementative. look forward to more videos. bye
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
Hey you didn't "bash," friend, you give me pleasure! I too am rather feisty and like to "argue." I'm not done yet, anyway. ;)
I recognize your right to disagree and hope you practice it.
RVqueen 4 years ago
well, in society all coresponding 'rights' will be agreed upon and set as law. the others will be debated and argued over. in the end abortion loses out, why? because the rights do not correspond and when that happens 'freedom to choose' is the best solution.
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
And lastly, just because something is lawful does not make it Right. Killing babies is not a Right, even though it is currently lawful in many places.
RVqueen 4 years ago
well.. right has a few different emanings. theres directions, rights ..e.g. i have the right to eat a cake, and then theres the moral right. i believe we are talking about cake rights here and not what is morally right.
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
The thesis of my video is that True Rights are based on Morality. So for myself, I was talking about moral Rights and how they should be the basis for how we interact socially. That interacts with "cake rights," which I guess is how you feel about the right to travel through certain means. Hopefully you aren't calling baby-killing a "cake right" but recognize the moral nature there.
RVqueen 4 years ago
the truth is we do NOT have rights unless we have the nessecary power to demand them and enforce them. we form groups and as a group we demand such and such a right. your list of rights are your own personal beleifs. someone with different personal beliefs may have rigth sthat contradict yours... so what happens?
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
My belief, and that of the founders of my country, is that Rights are Inalienable -they cannot actually be taken away. Someone can do you wrong in response to you acting out your Rights, but that does not make what you did Wrong. The ability to enforce access to our rights would be very good.
RVqueen 4 years ago
thats a 'belief' . it's not the same as having actual rights. your actual rights are only what you have the power or society has the power to enforce for you. it's different from just believing you have such and such a right
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
And that, my friend, is YOUR belief. You believe that my rights do not exist unless they are agreed upon by some legislative body (non-human entity) which claims authority over real people. It really comes down to a disagreement about absolutes versus relativism, and what is absolute and what is relative and what is contrived.
RVqueen 4 years ago
my point is that you only have rights when you are under some kind of system that is able to give you those rights. You need power to have rigths. an ant does'nt have rights in our world because we dont give it any rights.
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
you are argueing that u have inalienable rights. but lets say tommorow you come up against a grizzly bear that gobbles you up. Did he recognise your rights? did your inalienable rights make a difference? did they infact have any effect what so ever other than give you a false sense of security? now if you had a gun..and you fired that gun , i think the grizzly bear would instantly recognise your right to live.
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
thats my point. the rights that thomas jefferson talks about are not universal. they only apply to the USA under the umbrella of the U.S. government ( when the us government feels like obeying th econstitution). the point is that rights have to be defended by some authority. other wise i anyone can say that they have the right to do anything. ulike to drive your car.. maybe I like to shoot peoples pets.
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
in the US my rigths wont be recognised. but say i was a dictator in some other country , then absolutely they would be recognised. ask anyone, they will say ' absoloutely you can shoot my pet sir, absolutely u have the right' see.. rights are not inalienable.. they passed the patriot act...
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
now they have the right to arrest u without charge ( or what ever it does) , and u wont be able to do anythign till you demand , as a group , a change n the law.
to sum up.. RIGHTS ARE DERIVED FROM POWER
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
Your definition of RIGHTS is something like "that which one can do". Those are abilities. My definition is "that which is RIGHT for one to do." Abilities are power-based. Rights are based on morality.
RVqueen 4 years ago
The Patriot Act is repugnant to the constitution, and even if they should amend the constitution to allow it, the People have the Right and even the untapped power to dissolve the current government.
RVqueen 4 years ago
That is your opinion of Jefferson's ideals. Jefferson DID believe the God-given Rights of Man to be Universal. Please read the Virginia Declaration of Rights, by George Mason, and see that these men believed the Rights existed PRIOR TO and apart from any social compacts (government).
RVqueen 4 years ago
well god given rights are enforced by god.. so by your own reasoning u agree that rights are derived from power , i.e. the power of god. so for some one who doesnt believe in god , presumably thier rights will be enforced by society/law .
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
and anyway screw this arguement it has gone beyond fun.
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
2/3 of the world population lives in places where their religious rights are violated on a continual basis. Violation of rights or the lack of ability to one's enforce rights does not change what is and is not Right. I do understand your concerns for enforcement, though.
RVqueen 4 years ago
i think u r confusing moral right and 'rights'. its impossible to debate you if you keep confusing them .
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
I agree that we have reached an impasse. I understand your argument and beliefs entirely. But I still feel like you don't understand me. I am not asking to be agreed with, but only understood. I have already clarified that I only believe in Moral Rights. I am not confusing Rights with legal regulations. I am trying to separate them.
RVqueen 4 years ago
i think I understand, but I also think your point of view is very biased because you are not considering people who dont necissarily believe in a higher power. you have to understand that it becomes difficult defining what is morally right when you have people of different beliefs.
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
Wow this is wonderful! We are coming to a point on which we agree! The only question which I feel is logically debatable is how to determine what is Morally Right. And that IS difficult in a world in which people are deciding "morality doesn't exist" and such.
RVqueen 4 years ago
how CAN you determine what is morally right ( for everyone)?
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
you say you have the right to drive your car without a license. but others would fear that you are not capable of driving a car without a license and demand the rigth to have protection from inexperienced drivers , maybe , say, in the form of a test.
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
It is absolutely right that people have the right not to be injured by another person. However, that does not mean that they have the right to determine what other people can and cannot do. I have the right to travel. They have the right to not be injured by me. If I injure someone they have the right to pursue restorative justice, and it is my right to restore what I did wrong. The wrong would be injuring someone or their property, not in traveling.
RVqueen 4 years ago
they dont want to be injured in the first place. thats why tehy want a test. in the begining the rate of fatalities was high. over time , to reduce these fatalities and injuries laws eveolved to protect people. it didnt just happen over night
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
The complicated thing is guarding the rights of the majority without trespassing the rights of individuals. Protection is not a right. But not being injured or losing property IS a right. Most people trade their freedom for alleged "safety". I believe this is very dangerous and puts us all at risk of being defrauded.
RVqueen 4 years ago
I think we only have rights when we are powerful enough to demand them. You can assign yourselves rights all you want . to the list you gave you could add ' i have the rigth to kill someone' . clearly this is frowned upon , lol, but in the army you DO get the rigth to kill.
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
I am not arbitrarily assigning rights. My point is that in Truth (not practice) Rights are based on Right and Wrong --Morality. If people can agree that Rights exist and are absolute apart from human understanding, then the only thing left to debate is how to discern what these rights and wrongs are and how to apply them. And that is what most people do.
RVqueen 4 years ago
thats the problem though. everyones interpretation of what IS right (morally) differs!. so again, it comes down to who has the most powerful voice.. then , as a group.. what we agree on becomee our rights.. and what we disagree on.. etc etc.. u get the idea
sinjinnsinjinn 4 years ago
Rights are only perceived by us. We/majority decided to apply these rights to each other. Thus we/majority get to decide the limits and enforcement of them. There is something really wrong when the minority are ignored. We shouldn't need our rights limited by guidelines as long as they don't effect other people's individual rights.
universalwhat 4 years ago
So do you disagree that Rights exist absolutely (with or without our perception)?
RVqueen 4 years ago
Yes, what I mean is rights are perceptions. Thou perceptions to be valued.
universalwhat 4 years ago
Do you mean that Rights are perceptions of something that IS there, or that ISN'T there? Like there are many Laws that scientists did not realize existed and only in the past 4 hundred years began to perceive, and have adjusted their perceptions on, but these natural functions have not changed.
RVqueen 4 years ago
I agree that People try to apply Rights based on their interpretations of Truth (perceptions) and I think (as you probably also do) that people's perceptions are often messed up and that people are not properly perceiving what is Actually Right. But I do not see how perceiving something could be valuable unless it is something which actually exists. I think that if Rights don't exist apart from our understanding of them, then we are wrong to arbitrarily contrive them.
RVqueen 4 years ago
There is no purpose or value in existence. Nothing is valuable, only valued. There is no such thing as Right and Wrong. That's why we perceive our rights and protect them, for we value them. We are not wrong to arbitrarily contrive our rights if they are not real things.
universalwhat 4 years ago
By the way, I wanted to say I like your videos and this argument could go all the way to the idea of God. I know that you believe in God and I thought you would be interested in knowing what I believe because of all the hard edge view on rights. I don't believe in God. I believe in the possibility of a God. I'm hoping to work up the courage to post videos on all my ideas and thoughts soon.
universalwhat 4 years ago
I like "arguing" about these sort of things. And I like it when people with views different than mine make logical progressions and strive for internally coherent beliefs. So it is good to know what you believe. You should make some videos!
RVqueen 4 years ago
Scientific Laws are guidelines to physical existence which means they describe something that is not perceived but is real. Rights are not perceptions of any real, physical thing. This is what makes rights themselves only perceptions.
universalwhat 4 years ago
I hope you don't mind discussing this. :)
If only things with physical (material) existence can be real, and things are either Real or Non-Real (relative perceptions), then what is the value of non-realities? If non-material Truths do not exist, then what is the point of thinking?
RVqueen 4 years ago
I'm guessing what you are asking me is how can non-realities be valued, because there is no value nor right and wrong. Nonexistence or non-realities, such as our perceptions and possibilities that aren't real, are valued based on our willingness to act.(defending and enforcing them) There is no point of thinking, but only the point to think. We can't help but to think.
universalwhat 4 years ago
Hi! I understood that is what you believe. Thanks for restating it, though. Maybe we should both make videos on this topic. What do you think?
RVqueen 4 years ago
Booo - when are you making more videos ?
Hope your doing good.
Ross.
shrouded60606 4 years ago
HI! The system won't let me message you back unless you add me to "friends".
RVqueen 4 years ago
........continued
I liked what you have to say, and your a cutey ;-) Thank you for posting on page btw, Ill check soon 2 c if u do ne more new vids, take care Ross
shrouded60606 4 years ago
I love your vids on humon rights, they are intresting. Im not so keen on your tshirt though. Imagine a muslim man wearing one with the word "Men" instead of "Women". We would think it was vulgar since islam treats women as lesser beings than men.
Well In The Mainly Christian Society We Live In, many Times, Men Get Treated As Lesser Beings Than Women And Tshirts like that are gentle reminder of these often masked attitudes we have chosen to adopt. Other than that
shrouded60606 4 years ago
Aww you're so nice. Well like I said, I believe in rights for unborn Men as well, I just don't have the right shirt for that statement. The shirt is just a play off the idea that abortion is a "woman's right"... something which I find very absurd since half the aborted persons are women.
RVqueen 4 years ago
i agree with ya position against abortion. Actually i was an unwanted child, and my mother wanted to abort me, but than she met some anti-abortion activists an she changed her mind. So basicly it's girls like you who made it possible for me to be born (-:
PS: of course i didn't mean the UN Charta, i meant the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - i just messed uo the names /-:
Supenmanu 4 years ago