Minority Rights = Majority Rights?

>>135032392
Group A = right. Group B = privilege

>>135032552
> trans rights are human rights
> gay rights are human rights
> etc

Aren't these tautologies, and not really arguments?

File: group-abc.jpg (57KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1024x1024px

Revision, and maybe a better question.

>>135032392
Rights don't exist. Show me the box in which they are kept. Universal rights especially don't exist.

>>135034452
Positive rights or negative rights don't exist?
For that matter, no laws exist. If you're an anarchist then I understand your argument but if you want to live in a society then we have to agree on a set of rights and corresponding responsibilities for everyone.

>>135035007
Responsibilities, yes. Rights, no. Laws absolutely exist but this idea of objective, universal rights is foolishness. Who defines and enforces them?
>If you're an anarchist
Gross.

>>135034452

Rights do exist, and our experience of liberty as positively existing is one of the main components of consciousness. Your claim that anything which isn't kept in a box doesn't exist is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. I imagine your head looks like box, lmao, like you have a big meaty cube sitting on your neck, ya fucking block head lmfao

>>135035664
Have you heard of the term "negative rights" though?

A positive right:
> people have a right to healthcare

A negative right:
> the government MAY NOT stop you from speaking freely

Positive rights must be supplied. Negative rights are freedoms you naturally have, which others may not take away.

>>135035664

Laws exist but rights don't? What an absurd thing to say. Your question: "who defines and enforces them?" is stupid as fuck, because that question applies to laws, and makes no sense in regards to rights. And that's right after you claim laws exist but rights don't. I wonder what kind of deranged and broken mind would write something something this retarded.

>>135036285

Everyone on earth knows the difference between negative and positive rights since it is stupid shit that is told to everyone who takes an intro to philsophy course. Its also not clear why you are bringing this up in the first place.

>>135036686
>Its also not clear why you are bringing this up in the first place
Did you read what I was responding to?

>>135035734
Liberty is an empty value. The word doesn't actually mean anything.
>>135036285
I know "negative rights". They just don't actually exist. If we are to have a state then we can not have unlimited rights; even negative ones. If the survival of the state requires the government to stop people from speaking freely than so be it.
>>135036494
The government defines and enforces laws as it sees fit. Likewise the government defines and enforces rights as they see fit. Which implies that rights are limited by the will of the government. Which means they are not "rights" in the traditional God/nature granted fashion.

If the government has a say in whether your rights, either positive or negative, are enforced (and they certainly do seeing as might makes right) then your rights or subjective and limited.

>>135036903

No. When I was trying to figure out why you gave us all examples of positive and negative rights I didn't think to check the post you were responding to. What is this thread about again? Why is this website pink?

>>135037374
Was thinking about this because of the "trans rights are human rights" outcry today.

>>135036285

That's not how "rights" work. What is with you retards always redefining words to fit some stupid agenda?

>>135037170
> Liberty is an empty value. The word doesn't actually mean anything.
Actually, the word 'liberty' is a symbol rich with meaning.
It has been discussed and explored in great deal by many different thinkers for centuries. People have written entire books describing exactly what they understand as liberty. So when you say that the word doesn't actually mean anything, YOU'RE the one saying meaningless garbage, and wasting everyone's time. Let me know if you have anything to say about liberty that isn't just empty words.


> The government defines and enforces laws as it sees fit. Likewise the government defines and enforces rights as they see fit. Which implies that rights are limited by the will of the government. Which means they are not "rights" in the traditional God/nature granted fashion.

I agree that laws are defined and enforced as governments see fit. This is not true of rights, which are commonly understood by many to exist regardless of whether or not any other body 'recognizes' them. Hence a person's rights can be violated in such a way that complies with a given set of laws. Your argument becomes completely incoherent as you go on to claim that since 'rights are limited by the will of the government' (moronically re-stating your premise itself as an argument) then they are not in the purview of god or nature. But a person who believes their rights come from god or nature would merely claim that they DO have their god/nature-given rights, and the government was merely violating them.

I'm not sure what to tell you besides none of what you said has any merit as an argument, or even illustrates a coherent pattern of thought. Either you don't understand what is commonly meant by the word 'rights' or you think that saying 'nah they don't exist' is an argument in support of the idea that rights don't exist.

>>135034215
This

>>135037602

I was being sarcastic, of course I read what you were responding to. What I'm not sure about is what you think the positive/negative rights idea has to do with what the person you were responding to was saying.

>>135039644
>People have written entire books describing exactly what they understand as liberty
So hundreds of people over thousands of years have been unable to define liberty? Neat. Is liberty the ability to do as thou wilt? Is it liberty under constraints? It certainly is. You can't fight for liberty or organize of civilization around because every single person has a different understanding of the word.
>which are commonly understood by many to exist regardless of whether or not any other body 'recognizes' them
How exactly? Magic, God? Things don't just exist.
> But a person who believes their rights come from god or nature would merely claim that they DO have their god/nature-given rights, and the government was merely violating them.
Then rights are completely unlimited. They are defined by an individuals's magical belief in them. "I have the right to rape babies but the government is violating my rights." There is no argument against this notion when rights/liberty are undefinable constructs fashioned by rootless individuals.
>Either you don't understand what is commonly meant by the word 'rights' or you think that saying 'nah they don't exist' is an argument in support of the idea that rights don't exist.
The way I figure it the burden of proof is on those claiming that objective rights exist. They must show how these rights came to be and under whose authority they claim these rights. Until then I will continue to understand "rights" as privileges granted by the State.

>>135037870
They're just as bad as the left, see: racism, sexism

>>135037870

What a shitty post. You bitterly complain that rights don't 'work' in the way that guy described, even though that conception of rights is one of the most popularly understood means by which people come to know the nature of rights. Then you vaguely charge that the other poster is a member of a nondescript group which is always 'redefining words' to fit an unknown agenda. You don't have a single concrete thing to say and just bitch and condemn like a woman. Do you have a single clear minded thought in your head?

>>135040663
You know the "positive vs negative" rights definition has been around since at least the 1800s right?

>>135040476
> So hundreds of people over thousands of years have been unable to define liberty?
Are you retarded? The text you are quoting right above this question SAYS THEY DESCRIBED EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEANT BY 'LIBERTY'. I mean what the fuck are you gonna do about your brain when you don't even know what the word 'define' means? The rest of your post is exactly this stupid.

> You can't fight for liberty
'Fighting for liberty' is something which is so commonly referred to its practically a cliche, innumerable individuals and political movements have explicitly claimed to be pursuing / fighting for liberty. The phrase 'freedom fighter', as far as I can tell, is a unanimously recognized symbol among the English speaking public to refer to a person fighting for some kind of liberation. What short coming in your mind makes you think that blandly stating 'you can't fight for liberty' is an argument, or even a worthwhile thing to state under any circumstances?

> ...or organize of civilization around because every single person has a different understanding of the word.
Once again, you make an outrageous claim, and don't expand on what the fuck you could possibly be talking about at all. I have no idea what you think civilizations are, how they come to be, or how they are 'organized' around a single idea. It doesn't seem like you know what a word is, either. Please tell me what word you know of whose meaning is homogeneous among all conscious minds, and how you verified that, or how any of that could even be possible.

>>135040476
> How exactly? Magic, God? Things don't just exist.
The only necessary preconditions for existence you can conceive of are, 'what others say exists', and possibly 'magic', or 'god'? How does anything come to exist, in your mind? Do conscious beings need to enter into a social pact and agree that something exists before it exists? What the fuck is going on in your head? Judging by your depth of undestanding of concepts like 'words' and their 'definitions' I highly doubt that 'existence' means anything to you besides a bunch of syllables you heard, remembered, and repeated.

> Then rights are completely unlimited. They are defined by an individuals's magical belief in them.
I don't know where the fuck you are going with this or what you are trying to illustrate to me with this. You say, 'then rights....' as though the ensuing madness followed logically from what I said, but it isn't clear what you are saying, much less how it is a necessary conclusion.

> "I have the right to rape babies but the government is violating my rights." There is no argument against this notion when rights/liberty are undefinable constructs fashioned by rootless individuals.
Once again I don't see how you could say something like this unless you were retarded. If rights/liberty are undefinable constructs, then you are right that there is no argument argument the statement that 'I have the right to do X'. That's because if we are assuming rights are UNDEFINABLE and hence MEANINGLESS than the statement is necessarily MEANINGLESS by extension! Wow so you're telling me that you can't argue against a statement that is meaningless if we assume the statement is meaningless? Good point, you absolute fucking lunatic.

>>135042602
NUH UH YOUR STOOPID.
> SAYS THEY DESCRIBED EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEANT BY 'LIBERTY
So every agreed then? Super. Please define what liberty is then.
>I don't know where the fuck you are going with this or what you are trying to illustrate to me with this. You say, 'then rights....' as though the ensuing madness followed logically from what I said, but it isn't clear what you are saying, much less how it is a necessary conclusion.
You said rights were defined by the people who believe that they have them. This is pure madness. Call me stupid all you like but you are the one who is unable to define a supposedly simple term like "liberty".
>trying to illustrate
If rights are not privileges ceded by the State then where do they come from? According to you they come from the subjective beliefs of individuals. This seems to me to be a poor foundation.
>Good point, you absolute fucking lunatic.
If rights and liberty are real they should be easily definable. You seem incapable of doing this beyond your assertion that "lots of guys wrote books about it". You're worldview is groundless. You seem to have little or no understanding of what your ideology leads to. If rights/liberty are defined by the individual than everything is permissible, government is an evil oppressor, and we should begin the war of all against all as soon as possible for we are each the definers of our own liberty and as such any contrary definitions to my own constitute oppression.

>>135040476
> The way I figure it the burden of proof is on those claiming that objective rights exist.
The burden of proof is on anyone who puts forth an assertion. So if you rush forward to say "rights don't exist objectively and the idea itself meaningless" the burden of proof is on YOU to illustrate why that statement is true. You don't get to trip all over yourself and say the dumbest shit a person can conceive of and then act as though your claim stands to reason merely because you are saying something DOESN'T exist to save face.

> They must show how these rights came to be and under whose authority they claim these rights.
Wrong again, dumbass. Once again you are ASSUMING YOUR PREMISE MUST BE true and that 'rights' can ONLY be defined in terms of what an authority of some sort allows -- this is exactly your original claim:

> Until then I will continue to understand "rights" as privileges granted by the State.

Wow, so the proper conception of rights is as privileges granted by the state, and the only way someone could prove to you otherwise is if they show you how exactly rights come to exist as privileges granted by some authority (read: the state)? You are absolutely the most incapable thinker I have ever engaged with on this board.

only individuals have rights wtf are you on about?

>>135045718

> NUH UH YOUR STOOPID.
Since you said literally nothing worthwhile so far while at once hopelessly confusing yourself and stretching the limits of comprehension, what else is there for me to do besides point out the magnitude of your failure? If you get insulted I don't blame you put I'm not just calling you names, I'm demonstrating that you are ignorant, a poor communicator, and a poor thinker in a way that is profound in my mind.

>You said rights were defined by the people who believe that they have them.
No I didn't, you fucking imbecile. YOU SAID THAT:
>>135037170
> Which means they are not "rights" in the traditional God/nature granted fashion.

YOU said that the 'traditional' understanding of rights is that they are 'granted' by god/nature.
I said that EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE THAT THIS WAS THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING, your internal logic still fails and you haven't made an actual argument against this understanding because stating that rights are only 'granted' on the nation's authority doesn't confront the claim that rights are granted on the authority of god/nature.

>This is pure madness. Call me stupid all you like but you are the one who is unable to define a supposedly simple term like "liberty".

The first time you asked me to define liberty was in this very post, genius. Did you expect to break into your house to provide my definition after you finished typing this line:

> So every agreed then? Super. Please define what liberty is then.

, but before posting? I mean, seriously dude, what the fuck is going on with your brain?

> According to you they come from the subjective beliefs of individuals
Lmfao how did you convince yourself of this. I mean YOU JUST THAT in your last post, and now just a few minutes later you are so certain that I said that you claimed as much twice.

> If rights and liberty are real they should be easily definable.
Nothing too complicated in reality please! If its hard to understand it isn't real!

File: problem solved.png (199KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1024x1024px

>>135034215
>>135032392
And this is how we can easily solve minority rights!

> You seem incapable of doing this beyond your assertion that "lots of guys wrote books about it".
Lmfao why isn't this valid to you. You made the claim that rights are meaningless as a concept, and specifically that when people refer to 'rights' they are referring to something undefinable, and then did literally nothing to elaborate on what you meant or back up your claim. So when I say, "really? what about all the existing literature where the author explicitly defines what they mean by the word 'rights' and 'liberty' and then explores those ideas in great detail? the literature which informs our common understanding of what is meant by these ideas?" THAT IS 100% A VALID ARGUMENT. Why the fuck are numerous, clearly described and fully realized descriptions of the concepts of liberty and rights not acceptable as evidence to you against your claim that the words are meaningless or undefinable. Because you don't want to read them, or haven't? I'm not asking for an exhaustive refutation of everyone's claims about liberty, a single paragraph of analysis of someone's conception of liberty / rights and your problem with that would be sufficient to describe what your actual problem with rights is beyond merely state and restating your idea that they are undefinable over and over again.

> You seem to have little or no understanding of what your ideology leads to. If rights/liberty are defined by the individual than everything is permissible, government is an evil oppressor, and we should begin the war of all against all as soon as possible for we are each the definers of our own liberty and as such any contrary definitions to my own constitute oppression.
You sound exactly like a terrified religious person describing their unjustifiable, dogmatic beliefs. That's not an argument Care to explain what you mean by 'rights/liberty are defined by the individual' and why if that were true than necessarily everything would have to be permissible?

>>135032392
Accommodate everyone's "rights" is literally anarchy.