Australian Politics Forum - What is a 'right'?

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 51464
Gender: male

Re: What is a 'right'?
Reply #195 - Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 10:35am

Quote:

Wrong of course. I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above.

No, you confused them.

Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings.

You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13884
Gender: male

Re: What is a 'right'?
Reply #196 - Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 11:05am

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 10:35am:

Quote:

Wrong of course. I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above.

No, you confused them.

Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings.

You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights.

I see....so the fact your postulated 'rights' as defined by you are subject to disagreement among individuals execising those 'rights' ...that fact doesn't worry you in any way?

eg, the UN posits rights which engender uiversal well-being and security (see the 30 Articles of the UNUniversalDHR) - and hence avoidence of conflict; you have a very different view of "rights".

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 51464
Gender: male

Re: What is a 'right'?
Reply #197 - Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 11:50am

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 11:05am:

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 10:35am:

Quote:

Wrong of course. I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above.

No, you confused them.

Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings.

You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights.

I see....so the fact your postulated 'rights' as defined by you are subject to disagreement among individuals execising those 'rights' ...that fact doesn't worry you in any way?

No. Disagreement is a universal human right.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13884
Gender: male

Re: What is a 'right'?
Reply #198 - Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 12:25pm

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 11:50am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 11:05am:

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 10:35am:

Quote:

Wrong of course. I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above.

No, you confused them.

Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings.

You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights.

I see....so the fact your postulated 'rights' as defined by you are subject to disagreement among individuals execising those 'rights' ...that fact doesn't worry you in any way?

No. Disagreement is a universal human right.

Until it destoys the world (in the age of MAD....)

"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe". HG Wells.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 51464
Gender: male

Re: What is a 'right'?
Reply #199 - Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 1:55pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 12:25pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 11:50am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 11:05am:

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 10:35am:

Quote:

Wrong of course. I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above.

No, you confused them.

Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings.

You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights.

I see....so the fact your postulated 'rights' as defined by you are subject to disagreement among individuals execising those 'rights' ...that fact doesn't worry you in any way?

No. Disagreement is a universal human right.

Until it destoys the world (in the age of MAD....)

"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe". HG Wells.

Your stupidity is there in a nutshell, parrot: total agreement as per Xi Who must be Obeyed - or disgreement leading to inevitable total destruction.

No civilised negotiation, compromise, piecemeal work. No. Total agreement versus total distruction.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 3:23pm by Frank »

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 87687 Always was always will be HOME Gender:	Re: What is a 'right'? Reply #200 - Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 4:12pm Confusion of action and thought is not a right...
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50568
At my desk.

Re: What is a 'right'?
Reply #201 - Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 7:08am

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 10:44am:

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 12:44pm:

Quote:

Still waiting for your description of what a human right is.

I told you what it is on the first page of this thread.

The first post of yours*** I can find in this thread ie #8 reads:

"It is an intersubjective reality."

...which surely means 'rights' are subjective, not objective reality.

[apart from the fact you still haven't given an example of an actual 'right'].

***disregarding your #4 which is obviously subjective propaganda

"If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?".

You already said rights are subjective - the irony of it.

No, that is not what it means. Google it if you don't know. There is no point guessing. You and your fellow CCP stooges devote enormous effort to discussing your ignorance and trying to use it to prove something.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 13182 Armidale Gender:	Re: What is a 'right'? Reply #202 - Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 7:29am 'It's my right to speak' 'Why?' 'It's inherent' 'Where's that?' 'In here'. 'Can't see it' 'Here. Look'. 'In there?' 'Here'.
Back to top	IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13884
Gender: male

Re: What is a 'right'?
Reply #203 - Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 9:09pm

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 7:08am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 10:44am:

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 12:44pm:

Quote:

Still waiting for your description of what a human right is.

I told you what it is on the first page of this thread.

The first post of yours*** I can find in this thread ie #8 reads:

"It is an intersubjective reality."

...which surely means 'rights' are subjective, not objective reality.

[apart from the fact you still haven't given an example of an actual 'right'].

***disregarding your #4 which is obviously subjective propaganda

"If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?".

You already said rights are subjective - the irony of it.

No, that is not what it means.

I wanted an example of a 'right'; Frank gives "freedom of speech", but it's illegal to shout "fire", in a crowded theatre when there is no fire....

So you, being your usual fraudulent self, ignore giving an example which you will need to be able to defend, and prefer to come up with:

"It" (sic) "is an inter-subjective reality".

(I assume "it" means a 'right', because we are trying to determine what a 'right' is).

Ok, so according to you, my first guess re what your statement means is wrong.

How about this interpretation of your mysterious statement:

A right is subject to the 'realities' of the individuals or entities who are together positing the 'right' with which each of them is concerned.

That covers the key words in your statement.

1. "inter", inferring 2 individuals or entities;
2. "subjective", inferring dependence on the view of each individual.
3. "reality", as perceived by each individual (in agreement, by necessity, if they are to both accept the reality of the 'right' in question).

Quote:

Google it if you don't know. There is no point guessing.

I use google to find facts, not opinions; but others will observe you using every trick in the book, to avoid giving an example of a 'right'.

What do YOU think "inter-subjective reality" means (in relation to 'rights'), and where is the error in my interpretation.

Quote:

You and your fellow CCP stooges devote enormous effort to discussing your ignorance and trying to use it to prove something.

Classic fraudiver: obfuscation ("that's not what it means, consult google to find out what it means"), and diversion "(....ignorant CCP stooges"....)

Consult the thread's title, and give an example, please....

(I'm slowly turning up the heat on that frying pan, it will be interesting to see you jump out eventually...

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13884
Gender: male

Re: What is a 'right'?
Reply #204 - Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 9:33pm

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 1:55pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 12:25pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 11:50am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 11:05am:

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 10:35am:

Quote:

Wrong of course. I correctly identified your sloppy usage of subject/subjectivity and object/objectivity above.

No, you confused them.

Examples of rights have been given: freedom of thought, conscience, speech. These are inherent characteristics, they are some of the things that make us distinct from all other things and beings.

You have not provided any explanation of your way of conceiving rights.

I see....so the fact your postulated 'rights' as defined by you are subject to disagreement among individuals execising those 'rights' ...that fact doesn't worry you in any way?

No. Disagreement is a universal human right.

Until it destoys the world (in the age of MAD....)

"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe". HG Wells.

Your stupidity is there in a nutshell, parrot: total agreement as per Xi Who must be Obeyed - or disgreement leading to inevitable total destruction.

No civilised negotiation, compromise, piecemeal work. No.

You postulated a "right" to disagreement, but:

"civilized negotiation" ...like NATO and Russia coming to an agreement, to avoid war? (US exceptionalism/triumphalism after the collapse of the USSR has definitely played a role in the current catastrophe; Putin actually wanted to join NATO in 1990, but was rebuffed).

"compromise" ....yes, that would be good, especially when unnecessary poverty is endemic.

"piecemeal work"..... like developing market gardens in remote communities where possible, to deal with the issue of expensive fresh food (Bob Catter's suggestion on telly tonight).

Quote:

Total agreement versus total distruction.

...says a typical comfortable conservative: apparently the war in Ukraine, not being "total", is acceptable, despite the loss of life, economic repercussions, especially on poor countries, and $trillions in property damage.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide Gold Member Offline Australian Politics<br /> Posts: 13884 Gender:	Re: What is a 'right'? Reply #205 - Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 9:38pm Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2023 at 4:12pm: Confusion of action and thought is not a right... Quite so, though confusion itself is certainly part of the human condition....
Back to top	IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 13182
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: What is a 'right'?
Reply #206 - Oct 4^th, 2023 at 5:45am

A right to land title or 'right of way' attaches to an external constructed amenity. A 'right' of humans is an informal created construct that is enforceable only after it's written and declared in law. An 'inherent right' means an internal possession of each person which naturally compels another person to submit.
'Ability to speak' is not 'right to speak'. Inherent right is impossible as no-one is born intruding into another person's activities. Even British lords had no right to the land apart from a will and weren't actually born with the title. If a human right can't be internal, it can't exist permanently either as 'inalienable'. They were not and will not be.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Online Posts: 52771 Gender:	Re: What is a 'right'? Reply #207 - Oct 4^th, 2023 at 6:46am Well that sounds about right.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50568
At my desk.

Re: What is a 'right'?
Reply #208 - Oct 4^th, 2023 at 8:33am

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 9:09pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 7:08am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 10:44am:

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 12:44pm:

Quote:

Still waiting for your description of what a human right is.

I told you what it is on the first page of this thread.

The first post of yours*** I can find in this thread ie #8 reads:

"It is an intersubjective reality."

...which surely means 'rights' are subjective, not objective reality.

[apart from the fact you still haven't given an example of an actual 'right'].

***disregarding your #4 which is obviously subjective propaganda

"If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?".

You already said rights are subjective - the irony of it.

No, that is not what it means.

I wanted an example of a 'right'; Frank gives "freedom of speech", but it's illegal to shout "fire", in a crowded theatre when there is no fire....

So you, being your usual fraudulent self, ignore giving an example which you will need to be able to defend, and prefer to come up with:

"It" (sic) "is an inter-subjective reality".

(I assume "it" means a 'right', because we are trying to determine what a 'right' is).

Ok, so according to you, my first guess re what your statement means is wrong.

How about this interpretation of your mysterious statement:

A right is subject to the 'realities' of the individuals or entities who are together positing the 'right' with which each of them is concerned.

That covers the key words in your statement.

1. "inter", inferring 2 individuals or entities;
2. "subjective", inferring dependence on the view of each individual.
3. "reality", as perceived by each individual (in agreement, by necessity, if they are to both accept the reality of the 'right' in question).

Quote:

Google it if you don't know. There is no point guessing.

I use google to find facts, not opinions; but others will observe you using every trick in the book, to avoid giving an example of a 'right'.

What do YOU think "inter-subjective reality" means (in relation to 'rights'), and where is the error in my interpretation.

Quote:

You and your fellow CCP stooges devote enormous effort to discussing your ignorance and trying to use it to prove something.

Classic fraudiver: obfuscation ("that's not what it means, consult google to find out what it means"), and diversion "(....ignorant CCP stooges"....)

Consult the thread's title, and give an example, please....

(I'm slowly turning up the heat on that frying pan, it will be interesting to see you jump out eventually...

Like I said, if you don't know what it means, there is no point trying to guess. It will just make you look silly. You are allowed to use google to find the meaning of words you do not understand.

Why do the CCP stooges always seem to think that their ignorance is some kind of valuable insight?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13884
Gender: male

Re: What is a 'right'?
Reply #209 - Oct 4^th, 2023 at 10:27am

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2023 at 8:33am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 9:09pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2023 at 7:08am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 1^st, 2023 at 10:44am:

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 12:44pm:

Quote:

Still waiting for your description of what a human right is.

I told you what it is on the first page of this thread.

The first post of yours*** I can find in this thread ie #8 reads:

"It is an intersubjective reality."

...which surely means 'rights' are subjective, not objective reality.

[apart from the fact you still haven't given an example of an actual 'right'].

***disregarding your #4 which is obviously subjective propaganda

"If it is not in your CCP handbook, then it doesn't exist. Right?".

You already said rights are subjective - the irony of it.

No, that is not what it means.

I wanted an example of a 'right'; Frank gives "freedom of speech", but it's illegal to shout "fire", in a crowded theatre when there is no fire....

So you, being your usual fraudulent self, ignore giving an example which you will need to be able to defend, and prefer to come up with:

"It" (sic) "is an inter-subjective reality".

(I assume "it" means a 'right', because we are trying to determine what a 'right' is).

Ok, so according to you, my first guess re what your statement means is wrong.

How about this interpretation of your mysterious statement:

A right is subject to the 'realities' of the individuals or entities who are together positing the 'right' with which each of them is concerned.

That covers the key words in your statement.

1. "inter", inferring 2 individuals or entities;
2. "subjective", inferring dependence on the view of each individual.
3. "reality", as perceived by each individual (in agreement, by necessity, if they are to both accept the reality of the 'right' in question).

Quote:

Google it if you don't know. There is no point guessing.

I use google to find facts, not opinions; but others will observe you using every trick in the book, to avoid giving an example of a 'right'.

What do YOU think "inter-subjective reality" means (in relation to 'rights'), and where is the error in my interpretation.

Quote:

You and your fellow CCP stooges devote enormous effort to discussing your ignorance and trying to use it to prove something.

Classic fraudiver: obfuscation ("that's not what it means, consult google to find out what it means"), and diversion "(....ignorant CCP stooges"....)

Consult the thread's title, and give an example, please....

(I'm slowly turning up the heat on that frying pan, it will be interesting to see you jump out eventually...

Like I said, if you don't know what it means, there is no point trying to guess. It will just make you look silly.

Apart from the fact you are desperately trying tp make me look silly (you fraud), there is every point in YOU saying what YOU think "inter-subjective reality" means, in relation to 'rights'.

The debate in this thread - in case you have forgotten - concerns 'what is a right'. Plenty of other commentators are offering their suggestions eg chimera's recent #206 (which in itself shows the insubstantiality of the concept), and they will certainly be interested to know what your posited "inter-subjective realities" are.

When I asked, you insisted you had already given an example of a right, when all you have really offered is your opinion on what you think a right is, namely, "an inter-subjective reality".

Now, in classic fraudiver style, not only do you refuse to say whay you think that means (...perhaps because google didn't tell you what it means....); but also you refuse to give an example of an "inter-subjective reality."

A double fraud - well done....even surpassing your usual level of fraudulence.

Quote:

You are allowed to use google to find the meaning of words you do not understand.

The issue is the meaning of the phrase "inter-subjective-reality", not (or as well as) the meaning of the individual words in the phrase.

You are now piling fraud upon fraud, up to 3 now...

Quote:

Why do the CCP stooges always seem to think that their ignorance is some kind of valuable insight?

A repetition of your already previously-stated diversionary tactic - an irrelevent non sequitur, in fact.

Congratulations, you have achieved a quadruple fraud, in the one post.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 4^th, 2023 at 10:40am by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged