> p00lman said on
11-06-2009 at
22:14:
You see, there's this bird called a stork . . . What point are you trying to make? I could answer you if you provided some context as to the end point you wanted to reach.
> pandyne said on
11-06-2009 at
21:59:
If human rights do exist outside of the definition of law where do they come from? That is all I want you to tell me, with out the retarded ad populum. Im beginning to think you are functionally illiterate, because you never answer the question.
> pandyne said on
11-06-2009 at
21:59:
If human rights supersede law then law cannot define human rights this includes international lawIf H > L then L != (H + n)If human rights are only a legal concept then there is no problem logicallyL = (H + n)But if human rights only exist as legal concept then they can be legislated away or slavery can be enactedL = (H + n), L - H == n, now define L = (S + n)See no more H. H might as well == 0
> p00lman said on
11-06-2009 at
21:02:
Thanks for supporting my argument.So what's your point?
> pandyne said on
11-06-2009 at
19:35:
More self contradiction "The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international LAW.""Thankfully, in modern society, human rights issues supercede the law" - p00lman
> p00lman said on
11-06-2009 at
19:23:
Wow, talk about an illogical argument.Guess you've never heard of the Geneva Conventions.
> pandyne said on
11-06-2009 at
19:20:
If you can show me evidence that human rights exist biologically, meaning the code of ethics that provides for appropriate human behavior that is genetic and generally universal (proof of objective morality), then you can claim human rights exist. But plurality of societies is Argumentum ad populum and is fallacious. If you cant show the evidence, then you must believe it in faith and should admit that you do so.
> pandyne said on
11-06-2009 at
19:19:
First, I never said that laws dont exist. There are those that have presumed authority that write laws and expect other people to follow. I can see the laws written on paper and have the ability to choose whether to follow or not to follow. You posit that human rights supercede laws thus human rights exist external to law. Maybe they are written on magic paper.
> p00lman said on
11-06-2009 at
13:52:
What the fuck are you arguing is "truth"? Are laws "true" or are they also just things a bunch of people agree on?I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to argue here. It sounds like a lot of bullshit for the sake of bullshit. Make a point so I can respond to it.
> pandyne said on
11-06-2009 at
12:57:
There are such things as human rights, as have been definied by a plurality of societies. You said the abstract concept of human rights exists and I just said just because a bunch of people agree something exists doesnt make it true.
> p00lman said on
11-06-2009 at
00:03:
What the hell are you rambling about?Why are you arguing against abstract concepts being "tangible reality" when no one is saying anything contrary?
> pandyne said on
11-05-2009 at
23:49:
Just because something is agreed upon doesn't mean it exists. If the U.N. wrote a resolution saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the one true God it doesnt make it so. There are mental concepts and there is tangible reality, popular opinion does not turn concepts into reality.
> p00lman said on
11-05-2009 at
18:09:
Human rights are internationally agreed upon, for the most part.
> pandyne said on
11-05-2009 at
18:07:
You said human rights supersede law. Where does the concept of human rights exist if not in law or morality, popular opinion?
> p00lman said on
11-01-2009 at
22:58:
"Human rights exist in the domain of objective morality."Nope, never said that, and I don't know why you believe that.
> pandyne said on
11-01-2009 at
15:16:
You are contradicting yourself. Human rights exist in the domain of objective morality. If all morality is subjective than human rights are just something someone wrote down on a piece of paper and can't exist other than in a legal concept. If it is wrong for one country to prohibit something but it is legal, how can you claim that what the people here are doing that is illegal aren't being oppressed by their country.
> p00lman said on
10-31-2009 at
22:32:
Of course. Blacks and women didn't use to have rights in the US, the law forbid it.Thankfully, in modern society, human rights issues supercede the law, which is why some countries protest the lack of human rights issues in other countries.
> pandyne said on
10-30-2009 at
15:57:
According to that logic then if a majority of society decides that blacks or women don't have human rights than they don't. So human rights only exist as a legal concept just like justice as you say.
> p00lman said on
10-30-2009 at
13:05:
There are such things as human rights, as have been definied by a plurality of societies.
> pandyne said on
10-30-2009 at
11:58:
First you say morals are a relative concept and now you make claims there are such things as human rights. Who defines what human rights are without an objective moral principle.
eMule
games
software
videos
> Emule > Videos > ron > NH: Politely bossy guard at state house income tax discussio
