Paradox for Conservatives

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

Agreed, but a person can believe in natural rights without believing in a creator. I'm not sure what you mean by treating everyone equally. In the context of our conversation should non-citizens have the right to vote?

No, of course non-citizens should not have the right to vote any more than Putin should be allowed to support candidate Trump both financially and through the use of his power. Our nation needs to draw the line somewhere.

The Right Wing Spin Machine wants to draw the line of humanity at our border; and has used the non-issue of immigration to spin the propaganda that illegal immigration is hurting our economy. But then some of the same people claim the economy is fabulous. So if immigration is hurting the economy, then how come it is doing so well?

It's not like the economic recovery only began after Trump took office.

Should illegals receive government benefits?

That would be a good question to build a whole new Thread around. I don't think there is a straight up yes or no answer for that. I believe we should have some compassion on those who throw themselves on our mercy, but obviously we lack the resources to take care of the whole world. This is an area which might suggest that one world government is a valid idea.

 

[TTQ64]

It doesn't surprise me that you'd attack a woman that you don't know. You've already proven yourself a coward in the other thread.

Fuck off.

Put me on ignore.

 

[Micawber]

Humans are no more born with some set of innate rights than a dung beetle.

Correct. If dung beetles were provided human rights or any rights, it is by virtue, or vice, of an artificial human construct. And no, “reason alone” cannot be inserted as a proxy for a deity. Just anticipating their arguments.

 

[TTQ64]

Hello TTQ64,



-Laughing-

I know, right?

As if there is some score keeping going on.

I just come here to discuss and learn. Maybe toss around an idea or three.

All of this shallow petulant stuff is just so sandbox.

This comes from racist white men, you want it to stop, address them. Stop acting like it comes from both sides.

 

[TTQ64]

Why isn't dumps racist white nationalist at the Canadian boarder putting them kids in jails?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello TTQ64,

This comes from racist white men, you want it to stop, address them. Stop acting like it comes from both sides.

Well the problem is: neither side is without fault.

Sure, I see more fault on the conservative side, but I'm liberal. So how much of the fault I see is real?

One thing is for certain. Some people only want to tell others off. If your beliefs place you into a stereotype of theirs, then all they want to do is tell you off. I don't see where anything is being accomplished by engaging with them.

If talking to some people only results in flames, there is not much point in addressing them. That would be like seeing a button on the wall with a little sign that says: "Press for flames," And pressing it repeatedly.

 

[Micawber]

Agreed, but a person can believe in natural rights without believing in a creator. I'm not sure what you mean by treating everyone equally. In the context of our conversation should non-citizens have the right to vote? Should illegals receive government benefits?

I’ll bite, how does an atheist believe in “natural rights.” Just to tip my hand, that concept seems oxymoronic. Natural rights are a construct, imo. They are not material. I can agree that this concept exists and that it is salubrious for human beings, but they are inanimate ideas either agreed to, applied by force or otherwise applied.

 

[Timshel]

Humans are no more born with some set of innate rights than a dung beetle.

So you think it is perfectly moral to do whatever you care to, to an animal? I mean, a dung beetle is a stretch, but what about a chimp. Is it perfectly acceptable to beat it to death with a hammer for mere amusement? Is it somehow less or more wrong because of what the law says?

The argument for natural rights is a normative statement. It's a claim that certain actions are immoral regardless of what the law says. It's not a positive statement. It does not guarantee enforcement on this earth or any other plane. It's a pure abstraction and not something that can be proven to exist.

Nonetheless, I strongly support the notion of natural rights, because morality is NOT dictated by the law alone.

For instance, Trump is an immoral piece of shit whether the law and power of his office protects him from retribution or not, whether God will punish him or not and whether it ever impacts his conscience.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Fuck off.

Put me on ignore.

LOL

Take your bat and ball and go home, bigot.

 

[Micawber]

Hello TTQ64,



Well the problem is: neither side is without fault.

Sure, I see more fault on the conservative side, but I'm liberal. So how much of the fault I see is real?

One thing is for certain. Some people only want to tell others off. If your beliefs place you into a stereotype of theirs, then all they want to do is tell you off. I don't see where anything is being accomplished by engaging with them.

If talking to some people only results in flames, there is not much point in addressing them. That would be like seeing a button on the wall with a little sign that says: "Press for flames," And pressing it repeatedly.

Except the button inflicts flames too.

 

[Micawber]

So you think it is perfectly moral to do whatever you care to, to an animal? I mean, a dung beetle is a stretch, but what about a chimp. Is it perfectly acceptable to beat it to death with a hammer for mere amusement? Is it somehow less or more wrong because of what the law says?

The argument for natural rights is a normative statement. It's a claim that certain actions are immoral regardless of what the law says. It's not a positive statement. It does not guarantee enforcement on this earth or any other plane. It's a pure abstraction and not something that can be proven to exist.

Nonetheless, I strongly support the notion of natural rights, because morality is NOT dictated by the law alone.

For instance, Trump is an immoral piece of shit whether the law and power of his office protects him from retribution or not, whether God will punish him or not and whether it ever impacts his conscience.

Let’s get down to brass tacks. There is physical reality and the realm of ideas. Though ideas are ultimately chemical they can be distilled to fight or flight on one hand or pathos and affinity on the other. Every more complex thought is a logical extension of a short list of primal chemical impulses. So while agree with all you said about morality, it’s basis not being legal or limited thereby, in the end morals do not need a natural rights justification. Natural rights is superfluous or at best a metaphor, like say the id ego and superego. If it helps some people understand what you very succinctly stated, fine. But it’s a nullify to me.

Do you need a tool in your toolkit to house things you consider immoral that are not illegal at some point in space and time. Just call it your morality compass. Why insist it’s a “natural law” as thought you are “right” about it?

 

[Truth Detector]

Rights come from God not the Government.

Immigrants don’t have the same rights as Americans!

Moron on steroids thinks that immigration is a right.

 

[Micawber]

Oh, and fuck off poof erector.

 

[Timshel]

Let’s get down to brass tacks. There is physical reality and the realm of ideas. Though ideas are ultimately chemical they can be distilled to fight or flight on one hand or pathos and affinity on the other. Every more complex thought is a logical extension of a short list of primal chemical impulses. So while agree with all you said about morality, it’s basis not being legal or limited thereby, in the end morals do not need a natural rights justification. Natural rights is superfluous or at best a metaphor, like say the id ego and superego. If it helps some people understand what you very succinctly stated, fine. But it’s a nullify to me.

Do you need a tool in your toolkit to house things you consider immoral that are not illegal at some point in space and time. Just call it your morality compass. Why insist it’s a “natural law” as thought you are “right” about it?

It's an abstraction, certainly.

I am not interested in debating whether it is appropriately named.

Of course, most everyone thinks they are right about what they assert, unless they are trolling.

 

[Micawber]

It's an abstraction, certainly.

I am not interested in debating whether it is appropriately named.

Of course, most everyone thinks they are right about what they assert, unless they are trolling.

My argument was deeper than semantic. Are you interested in giving me an example of a natural law and distinguishing it in character from a speeding infraction? Calling something a natural law and bringing to bear that intellectual baggage is a way of saying someone is missing the boat by not observing it and as a way to circumvent my ability to defend myself against undemocratic laws.

 

[Truth Detector]

Oh, and fuck off poof erector.

Cry harder lying leftist snowflake on steroids.

Definition of Micawber
: one who is poor but lives in optimistic expectation of better fortune

 

[Truth Detector]

My argument was deeper than semantic. Are you interested in giving me an example of a natural law and distinguishing it in character from a speeding infraction? Calling something a natural law and bringing to bear that intellectual baggage is a way of saying someone is missing the boat by not observing it and as a way to circumvent my ability to defend myself against undemocratic laws.

A system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.

Positive laws are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action.

 

[MSgt]

Humans are no more born with some set of innate rights than a dung beetle.

So, you think living in America is a mistake.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Micawber,

Except the button inflicts flames too.

No, it doesn't have to.

And if you make it that?

Still a bad deal compared to staying out of the fray.

The choices are:

a) Get immersed in the flaming, thus reducing yourself to the level of the trolls. You're flaming on them, but you're getting flamed back.

b) You're not getting flamed and you're not doing any flaming. Instead, you focus more on the subjects and the abstract.

But then staying out of it does require a rather unique quality, which is apparently illusive to flamers: The ability to simply not care about what is said about you, and refusing to comment on it, whatever it is. You have to assume some trolls will continue to rag on your comments even if you don't care to read them. At first, the curiosity is overwhelming. There is a temptation to peek. It should be avoided. Saying anything would be enabling the troll. If you read their comments you will think of things you want to say. But that needs to be avoided. Eventually, the urge wears off. And then you are free of being trolled. That's a tough transition. To go from being rather closely involved in a relationship, to no contact at all. It is a relationship, you know. The Enabler/Troll relationship. It takes two for those conversations. Otherwise the troll is reduced to trying to draw a response out of a party that everyone knows is not going to ever take the bait. When trolls find new enablers, they refocus their attention on easier marks.

You have to consider that people are going to talk about you. That's not unique to the internet. Your friends talk about you. And others do too. You're not going to stop that. It goes on anyway. All you can do is to try to conduct yourself in a manner which best results in the image you want out there. That way if anybody says something that doesn't sound like you? People who know you will know it is probably not true.

 

[Timshel]

My argument was deeper than semantic. Are you interested in giving me an example of a natural law and distinguishing it in character from a speeding infraction? Calling something a natural law and bringing to bear that intellectual baggage is a way of saying someone is missing the boat by not observing it and as a way to circumvent my ability to defend myself against undemocratic laws.

I was discussing natural rights.

Calling something by the commonly used term for it brings no baggage and implies nothing more than a desire to be understood.

When MLK spoke of the rights of African Americans would those who deny the existence of natural rights have said, "but you only have the rights afforded you by the law" or complained about baggage?

It seems strange for liberals of any sort to argue against the idea of natural rights.