Cart before the horse there Rev.rEvolutionist wrote:No we don't. We coalesce into societies for safety. Part of ensuring safety is agreeing on a set of pragmatic rights. Without society agreeing to enforce and defend individual rights, there would be no rights in any practical definition of the word.Cormac wrote:Society doesn't grant rights.rEvolutionist wrote:In your opinion.
There's no natural rights. There's what society and/or the constitution grants. And yes, before you waste our time, I know your constitution grants that, but I'm talking wider than that. There simply aren't natural rights.
We create society and its structures to protect rights.
Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
The quote may or may not agree with you. It is silent as to whether we create rights before or after we create "society"rEvolutionist wrote:There were literally hundreds of pages (and quite possibly hundreds of threads) on this subject on the two forums. They are an authority on the fact that this has been discussed at length with Seth before, and nothing was "asserted" out of the blue.Cormac wrote:Isn't that "We" an appeal to collective authority?rEvolutionist wrote:Except that we've spent hundreds of pages debunking this crap at rdf and ratskep. We don't just proclaim it out of the blue. But most of us (those of us who still have the "pleasure" of reading your rants) are sick of having the same tired old arguments over and over again.
Wiki - "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;" - i.e. subjective. Not absolute nor objective.
And can you clarify what precisely was debunked and by whom on RDF and Ratskep? What makes or made those fora authorities to respect?
Really? So where do you think they come from in regards to that quote?And that Wiki definition is neutral as to your assertion that "society" grants rights.
.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
Societies have existed.rEvolutionist wrote:Society has existed since before language. What are you talking about?Cormac wrote:They are indeed human creations - but they precede society, rather than being granted by it.JimC wrote:Humans can assert that they have rights, and call them "natural rights" if they wish. Such an assertion may be a valuable meme within the ecosystem of memes about society, as it pragmatically helps to stop the balance towards the collective tipping too far.Cormac wrote:Society doesn't grant rights.rEvolutionist wrote:In your opinion.
There's no natural rights. There's what society and/or the constitution grants. And yes, before you waste our time, I know your constitution grants that, but I'm talking wider than that. There simply aren't natural rights.
We create society and its structures to protect rights.
However, the existence of such rights remains a human construct (however valuable), not in the same league as the existence of giraffes in Africa...
In other words - we create them, and then we create society to vindicate and protect them.
Depends on what you define as "language", if we're going that far back with society. You'll need to define "society" too then.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60982
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
Nonsense. What evidence or reasoning do you have for the assertion that "we create society and its structures to protect rights"? We have never been an individualistic species. Why would you assume that we would organise our communities around the basis of individual rights? Communities have always been about safety from before we even had language. Why would you assume that that would be turned on its head and the focus changed to individual rights?Cormac wrote:Cart before the horse there Rev.rEvolutionist wrote:No we don't. We coalesce into societies for safety. Part of ensuring safety is agreeing on a set of pragmatic rights. Without society agreeing to enforce and defend individual rights, there would be no rights in any practical definition of the word.Cormac wrote:Society doesn't grant rights.rEvolutionist wrote:In your opinion.
There's no natural rights. There's what society and/or the constitution grants. And yes, before you waste our time, I know your constitution grants that, but I'm talking wider than that. There simply aren't natural rights.
We create society and its structures to protect rights.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60982
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
So they aren't natural? Glad you agree with me.Cormac wrote:The quote may or may not agree with you. It is silent as to whether we create rights before or after we create "society"rEvolutionist wrote:There were literally hundreds of pages (and quite possibly hundreds of threads) on this subject on the two forums. They are an authority on the fact that this has been discussed at length with Seth before, and nothing was "asserted" out of the blue.Cormac wrote:Isn't that "We" an appeal to collective authority?rEvolutionist wrote:Except that we've spent hundreds of pages debunking this crap at rdf and ratskep. We don't just proclaim it out of the blue. But most of us (those of us who still have the "pleasure" of reading your rants) are sick of having the same tired old arguments over and over again.
Wiki - "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;" - i.e. subjective. Not absolute nor objective.
And can you clarify what precisely was debunked and by whom on RDF and Ratskep? What makes or made those fora authorities to respect?
Really? So where do you think they come from in regards to that quote?And that Wiki definition is neutral as to your assertion that "society" grants rights.
.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
I think the semantics are just confusing the issue.rEvolutionist wrote: Nonsense. What evidence or reasoning do you have for the assertion that "we create society and its structures to protect rights"? We have never been an individualistic species. Why would you assume that we would organise our communities around the basis of individual rights? Communities have always been about safety from before we even had language. Why would you assume that that would be turned on its head and the focus changed to individual rights?
Looking back at tribal society, you sort of had the right not to be robbed or murdered because the tribe would probably punish the offender. Does that really count as a right? Tribes have rules even if they don't have a codified legal system, but you could argue that the concept of rights can't exist unless they could be codified into an existing law system. Meaning the concept of law must exist before the concept of right.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
rEvolutionist wrote:Nonsense. What evidence or reasoning do you have for the assertion that "we create society and its structures to protect rights"? We have never been an individualistic species. Why would you assume that we would organise our communities around the basis of individual rights? Communities have always been about safety from before we even had language. Why would you assume that that would be turned on its head and the focus changed to individual rights?Cormac wrote:Cart before the horse there Rev.rEvolutionist wrote:No we don't. We coalesce into societies for safety. Part of ensuring safety is agreeing on a set of pragmatic rights. Without society agreeing to enforce and defend individual rights, there would be no rights in any practical definition of the word.Cormac wrote:Society doesn't grant rights.rEvolutionist wrote:In your opinion.
There's no natural rights. There's what society and/or the constitution grants. And yes, before you waste our time, I know your constitution grants that, but I'm talking wider than that. There simply aren't natural rights.
We create society and its structures to protect rights.
So you've abandoned your balderdash, and are now recognising that communities were created to create safety - i.e. to allow people to live in greater safety - i.e. to vindicate rights.
Glad you're on board.

FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
Never said they were natural. I simply said we created them before we created society.rEvolutionist wrote:So they aren't natural? Glad you agree with me.Cormac wrote:The quote may or may not agree with you. It is silent as to whether we create rights before or after we create "society"rEvolutionist wrote:There were literally hundreds of pages (and quite possibly hundreds of threads) on this subject on the two forums. They are an authority on the fact that this has been discussed at length with Seth before, and nothing was "asserted" out of the blue.Cormac wrote:Isn't that "We" an appeal to collective authority?rEvolutionist wrote:Except that we've spent hundreds of pages debunking this crap at rdf and ratskep. We don't just proclaim it out of the blue. But most of us (those of us who still have the "pleasure" of reading your rants) are sick of having the same tired old arguments over and over again.
Wiki - "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;" - i.e. subjective. Not absolute nor objective.
And can you clarify what precisely was debunked and by whom on RDF and Ratskep? What makes or made those fora authorities to respect?
Really? So where do you think they come from in regards to that quote?And that Wiki definition is neutral as to your assertion that "society" grants rights.
.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
Nope - because a law requires a right to pre-exist as the subject of that law.Tyrannical wrote:I think the semantics are just confusing the issue.rEvolutionist wrote: Nonsense. What evidence or reasoning do you have for the assertion that "we create society and its structures to protect rights"? We have never been an individualistic species. Why would you assume that we would organise our communities around the basis of individual rights? Communities have always been about safety from before we even had language. Why would you assume that that would be turned on its head and the focus changed to individual rights?
Looking back at tribal society, you sort of had the right not to be robbed or murdered because the tribe would probably punish the offender. Does that really count as a right? Tribes have rules even if they don't have a codified legal system, but you could argue that the concept of rights can't exist unless they could be codified into an existing law system. Meaning the concept of law must exist before the concept of right.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60982
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
What the hell are you talking about? I was the one who made the point to YOU that communities coalesce for safety reasons. I also never said anything was "created", that's solely your balderdash, champ. YOU are the one that is arguing, without any cogent reasoning, that societies are about individual rights.Cormac wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:Nonsense. What evidence or reasoning do you have for the assertion that "we create society and its structures to protect rights"? We have never been an individualistic species. Why would you assume that we would organise our communities around the basis of individual rights? Communities have always been about safety from before we even had language. Why would you assume that that would be turned on its head and the focus changed to individual rights?Cormac wrote:Cart before the horse there Rev.rEvolutionist wrote:No we don't. We coalesce into societies for safety. Part of ensuring safety is agreeing on a set of pragmatic rights. Without society agreeing to enforce and defend individual rights, there would be no rights in any practical definition of the word.Cormac wrote:
Society doesn't grant rights.
We create society and its structures to protect rights.
So you've abandoned your balderdash, and are now recognising that communities were created to create safety - i.e. to allow people to live in greater safety - i.e. to vindicate rights.
Glad you're on board.
Are you going to address any of the questions or are you going to keep avoiding them? What's your reasoning for your assertion?
Last edited by pErvinalia on Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60982
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
Without any reasoning to back it up.Cormac wrote:Never said they were natural. I simply said we created them before we created society.rEvolutionist wrote:So they aren't natural? Glad you agree with me.Cormac wrote:The quote may or may not agree with you. It is silent as to whether we create rights before or after we create "society"rEvolutionist wrote:There were literally hundreds of pages (and quite possibly hundreds of threads) on this subject on the two forums. They are an authority on the fact that this has been discussed at length with Seth before, and nothing was "asserted" out of the blue.Cormac wrote:
Isn't that "We" an appeal to collective authority?
And can you clarify what precisely was debunked and by whom on RDF and Ratskep? What makes or made those fora authorities to respect?
Really? So where do you think they come from in regards to that quote?And that Wiki definition is neutral as to your assertion that "society" grants rights.
.

Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
I wasn't saying that, I was saying the concept of rights in general can not exist before a codified legal system is adopted.Cormac wrote: Nope - because a law requires a right to pre-exist as the subject of that law.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60982
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
Yep. Unless they are considered *cough* natural.
edit: although, having said that, a legal system is about rights anyway, isn't it?
edit: although, having said that, a legal system is about rights anyway, isn't it?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
Off the top of my drunken head, a legal system is about rights, limitations on rights, and responsibilities.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51716
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 8-34-20
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Sucks to be an incompetent burgler
There is a thought somewhere in there. Societies are NOT about individual rights. They are about rules to coexist.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests