Another source of light pollution

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:06:24 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:20:46 -0500, Bill
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:31:32 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I don't believe it makes sense to consider non-sentient
entities as having rights. You need to understand the concept
of rights to have rights.

You need to be able to understand the concept of rights to
appreciate that you have them; but you need not understand the
concept of rights them to have rights. After all, a newly born
infant, or comatose person, does not have the capacity to
understand much of anything - yet they have rights under our
(U.S.) law.

Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law
does).

Which is to say, you choose to use words differently than anyone
else, and not admit it until called out on it.

I make it clear how I'm using words. This usage is not different from
anyone else. It's a perfectly common usage within moral philosophy.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:06:24 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
m:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:20:46 -0500, Bill
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:31:32 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I don't believe it makes sense to consider non-sentient
entities as having rights. You need to understand the
concept of rights to have rights.

You need to be able to understand the concept of rights to
appreciate that you have them; but you need not understand the
concept of rights them to have rights. After all, a newly
born infant, or comatose person, does not have the capacity to
understand much of anything - yet they have rights under our
(U.S.) law.

Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law
does).

Which is to say, you choose to use words differently than anyone
else, and not admit it until called out on it.

I make it clear how I'm using words.

When you get called out on it, yes.

This usage is not different
from anyone else.

Then why did you explain how it was different?

It's a perfectly common usage within moral
philosophy.

And it's in conflict with other common usages, whether you're too
****ing stupid to accept it or not.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:18:16 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

I make it clear how I'm using words.

When you get called out on it, yes.

From the very first post, I was explicit in pointing out that I was
describing my usage.

This usage is not different
from anyone else.

Then why did you explain how it was different?

Because there are always ignorant people such as yourself who have
never learned that many words have different meanings.

It's a perfectly common usage within moral
philosophy.

And it's in conflict with other common usages, whether you're too
****ing stupid to accept it or not.

Why isn't it the "other common usages" that are in conflict with the
usage of philosophers?

It is a sign of the dogmatic and poorly informed when complaining
about how a word is used is the only argument they are capable of.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:18:16 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

I make it clear how I'm using words.

When you get called out on it, yes.

From the very first post, I was explicit in pointing out that I
was describing my usage.

After you got called out on it.

This usage is not different
from anyone else.

Then why did you explain how it was different?

Because there are always ignorant people such as yourself who
have never learned that many words have different meanings.

And idiots make up more all the time.

It's a perfectly common usage within moral
philosophy.

And it's in conflict with other common usages, whether you're
too ****ing stupid to accept it or not.

Why isn't it the "other common usages" that are in conflict with
the usage of philosophers?

Philosophers, like you, should drink less while posting to Usenet.
A *lot* less.

It is a sign of the dogmatic and poorly informed when
complaining about how a word is used is the only argument they
are capable of.

Indeed, that describes you quite accurately.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:59:52 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Which is to say, you choose to use words differently than anyone
else, and not admit it until called out on it.

I make it clear how I'm using words. This usage is not different
from
anyone else. It's a perfectly common usage within moral philosophy.

So your rights are merely a concept in theoretical philosophy, with
no implementation in the real world? And if those rights are severely
violated, some philosopher might make a note about it in a notebook
but apart from that nothing happens?

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:31:25 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So your rights are merely a concept in theoretical philosophy, with
no implementation in the real world?

There is no suggestion within moral philosophy that rights are merely
"theoretical". The question is one of what they are (the definition
problem) and where they come from (the origin problem).

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:56:47 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:31:25 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So your rights are merely a concept in theoretical philosophy,
with
no implementation in the real world?

There is no suggestion within moral philosophy that rights are
merely
"theoretical". The question is one of what they are (the definition
problem) and where they come from (the origin problem).

Has the definition problem been solved? Or do philosophers still
don't know what rights are?

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 19:56:58 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:56:47 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:31:25 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So your rights are merely a concept in theoretical philosophy,
with
no implementation in the real world?

There is no suggestion within moral philosophy that rights are
merely
"theoretical". The question is one of what they are (the definition
problem) and where they come from (the origin problem).

Has the definition problem been solved? Or do philosophers still
don't know what rights are?

These things are not strictly solvable, because rights are not matters
of fact. They depend upon definitions, and because those are always
value based, there will never be agreement.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:46:31 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 19:56:58 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:56:47 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:31:25 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So your rights are merely a concept in theoretical philosophy,
with
no implementation in the real world?

There is no suggestion within moral philosophy that rights are
merely
"theoretical". The question is one of what they are (the
definition
problem) and where they come from (the origin problem).

Has the definition problem been solved? Or do philosophers still
don't know what rights are?

These things are not strictly solvable, because rights are not
matters
of fact. They depend upon definitions, and because those are always
value based, there will never be agreement.

Which means that the WWII Nazis had the right to do the Holocaust:
their value system said so, and they even had laws supporting that
right.

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 6:59:30 AM UTC, Paul Schlyter wrote:


Which means that the WWII Nazis had the right to do the Holocaust:
their value system said so, and they even had laws supporting that
right.

Value system indeed, they borrowed directly from the empirical notion of sub-human or anthropomorphous as it was called in mid-19th century academic circles. If the Nazi ideology was an application then the operating system is Darwin.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.� Darwin

What was anthropomorphous in the 19th century (negroes, aborigines, famine Irish) became untermensch (Jews, disabilities) in the 20th century and foetus (developing child) in the 21st century and each term bound by extermination or the turning of a life into a corpse for some political/social excuse..