Another source of light pollution

Quadibloc wrote in
:

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:28:25 AM UTC-7, Jibini Kula
Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

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?

And out of the other side of his mouth, he acknowledges that
rights are created by laws.

Boy can't keep his bull**** straight from one post to the next.

No, rights are absolute and eternal and independent of human
laws.

Only in your diseased mind.

--
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 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 07:57:59 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:26:33 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:13:43 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law
does).
I recognize them as legal obligations placed on people to protect
those unable to protect themselves. This could apply to animals,
as

Can you give some examples of what you consider rights which have
no
corresponding legal obligations? And if the law doesn't enforce
those
rights, who will? God? A lynch mob near you? Anyone else - who?

You're understanding my comment wrong. All rights imply legal
obligations. But there are legal obligations that don't involve
rights.

Do you consider the right to not be killed a legal obligation only
but not a right?

On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:58:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 2:16:07 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter
wrote:
If
your absolutes had been present then, there would have been no
holocaust, and no Armenian genocide either for that matter.

For a value of "present" that no one subscribes to.

The absolutes were present in the sense I mean before both
events; thinking people recognized the Armenian genocide as a
bad thing when it happened, and in the case of the Holocaust,
nearly the whole world condemned it along with the Axis
aggression.

Bad people do wrong things. That is dealt with by the police
using force against the bad people, as the very wrongness of
those things, unfortunately, does not cause the ground itself to
rise up and restrain them.

John Savard

However the main reason that Hitler was fought by a majority of the
world was not the holocaust but that Hitler tried to conquer the
whole world. His contemporary Franssco Franco, who was content by
being a dictator over only Spain and didn't try to conquer other
countries, remained in power until his death in 1975, 30 years after
Nazi Germany had ceased to exist.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:58:45 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:19:16 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:31:32 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Just calling them "rights" could imply that they also apply to
non-human such as animals.

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

However, you can get punished for torturing e.g. your dog. So some
non-sentinent but living entities do have some rights according to
law, even if those rights aren't human rights.

A law against cruelty to animals does not mean that animals have
rights.

From a human perspective it certainly does.

Bill wrote in
:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:00:21 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc wrote:

Well, one of the things that happens is that when people use
force to enforce those rights, they can now do it with a
clearer conscience.

John Savard

Provided that the enforcement would be justly metered to the
nature of the offense, yes.

And, of course, we can always consult Quaddie a to whether someone is
useing force to enforce the natural rights inherent in the structure
of hte universe (as defined by Qauddie), or only pretending to in
furtherance of their own agenda. Cuz there's no expert on morality in
the universe than Quaddie. Just ask him.

--
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 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:00:21 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc wrote:

Well, one of the things that happens is that when people use force
to enforce those rights, they can now do it with a clearer
conscience.

John Savard

Provided that the enforcement would be justly metered to the nature of
the offense, yes.
--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:08:12 PM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:58:45 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

A law against cruelty to animals does not mean that animals have
rights.

From a human perspective it certainly does.

Maybe the law against cruelty to animals is only there to allow the
authorities to have a pretext to lock up sadistic people before they
graduate to humans, and is not there because anyone (among those making
the laws, that is) really cares about animals.

So even the most outrageous tortures done to animals for some legitimate
practical reason would remain perfectly legal.

John Savard

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 19:59:56 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:57:59 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:26:33 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:13:43 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law
does).
I recognize them as legal obligations placed on people to protect
those unable to protect themselves. This could apply to animals,
as

Can you give some examples of what you consider rights which have
no
corresponding legal obligations? And if the law doesn't enforce
those
rights, who will? God? A lynch mob near you? Anyone else - who?

You're understanding my comment wrong. All rights imply legal
obligations. But there are legal obligations that don't involve
rights.

Do you consider the right to not be killed a legal obligation only
but not a right?

There is no legal right not to be killed, only a legal right not to be
killed under specific circumstances (or lack of circumstances). To the
extent it exists, it's a legally granted status that we call a
"right".