I disbelieve in human rights. These should be done away with. You have a right to nothing in life.
You do not have a right to free speech.
You do not have a right to affirmative action.
You do not have a right free from discrimination.
You have no rights.
You have no privileges.
You have no entitlements.
I present this argument, because I see that entitlement is destroying western culture and society. These children grow up and have false expectations of life. Life handed down to spoiled children on a silver platter, but, where is the cost? Where is the sacrifice? Where is the payback, the karma? What is the price of a right, entitlement, and privilege, except, somebody else’s suffering? Just a minimal amount of curiosity will expose western hypocrisy.
The rights of one, or a few, are not the rights of all. Rights are not equal. And you do not have a right to privacy, or equality. Where oh where, do you believe that you “earned” such rights within your lifetime? Did you fight for them? Did you struggle and take risks for them? Did you wage a war and crusade for them?
No, but our ancestors did, centuries ago. But like a monetary inheritance, the money eventually runs out. Say your billionaire mother and father left you a billion, and you leave your children 10 million, and they leave their children 1 million, and they leave their children 100000, and they leave their children 10000, and then, finally, nothing is left.
How many generations is required to squander a fortune? Can’t it all be blown apart at once?
Rights are an inheritance. But haven’t they run out? How do you justify yours? You have a right to NOTHING! This entitlement, rights, privilege culture is destroying our future. Because children, these days, believe that it comes out of nothing, or “god did it”. No, god didn’t do it. Rights came from something, from someone. People fought, but for what? Don’t you know, don’t you care?
You will care when the inheritance runs out. Because then you will rejoin those who are stepped on everyday, the downtrodden, the hateful, the miserly. Those that you have convinced yourself, that you are “above”. And maybe you are “above” them, but, for forever? Or just for a limited time?
If people have no rights, then why is it right for anyone to listen to that proposition?
Without rights, you might as well just have an anarchic society of might makes right. Forget contracts, property, or just being treated with respect on a regular basis for being a conscious being.
What you end up with instead is socialism. Only those who are normally popular get treated with respect, and everyone in society gets driven into paranoia where they conform to norms in order to avoid being socially outcast as weird. The subjectivity of people’s sense of time and utility preferences goes “bye bye”. Without rights, elite individuals in society who apply themselves to become successful might as well be victimized by mob justice.
No rights equals a bunch of bums tearing everyone down to their level and calling people lazy for no reason other than just because they’re not willing to be a slave. If you’re talented and honest, then incompetent jerks can abuse you for no reason.
Do you know the difference? It is the difference between one group having rights, entitlements, and privileges, but not others. Okay fine, but why should one group get rights and not others? Where do privileges come from, out of nothing? As I mentioned, no, this is inheritance. Rights mostly translate into protections. People understand them as protection, against anarchy and “the mighty”. Without these fences, privileges, the mighty warriors will come and take everything you own. So a right is a protection, a fence, a wall, that keeps “bad people” out. And who are bad people?
They’re everybody without rights. Because human rights, is an idea. It is an idea that intentionally appeals to everybody, humanity. “All HUMANS deserve rights”.
But this is immediately a problem. If everybody is protected, and everybody has rights, then who will be the scapegoat? Who will represent the oppressed and the slaves? This is already happening in America. Since blacks, and women, are running out of excuses, the “oppressed” group switches. Who is truly oppressed? Who is truly without rights? Blacks and women have fought so much for their “rights”, but they only uncover differences of rights. Why is the right of one person, different than another?
Why does one person DESERVE more protection than another? As if these protections were not sacrificed for. Because they are. And most people are blind to this fact, that rights are sacrificed for.
“Without rights, you might as well just have an anarchic society of might makes right.”
That’s what we already have - always have had and always will have. That’s why we live in a society based around the notion of rights - because that is the society that we have built and that we defend.
And many people defend an illusion. Because, what do people actually have a “right” to? Or from?
Not even the common liberal can extrapolate what is meant by her “rights”. Define “human rights”, in your own words, using your own voice and personal opinion.
For example, let’s use the phrase, “right to life”.
What, the fuck, does that even mean? Why would any organism have a “right to life” that other organisms do not have? Is this some mystical notion that all life deserves life? Tell that to the animals, bugs and insects, which get eaten everyday by other animals.
Why does a wolf or deer have anymore “right to life” than the other? Wolves shouldn’t kill deers? And deers shouldn’t eat vegetation or step on bugs?
How can you do away with something that doesn’t exist?
This is actually true, rights are created by the people, for the people. We get together as a group and say, these are the things we all agree we all have these freedoms.
Don’t tell me what I do or don’t, you can go fuck yourself. See, turns out, you don’t have the right to be treated as useful or interesting or with care as though what you have to say means anything… We do our best on forms like this to come up with agreed upon rules to reduce such abuse.
Inappropriate expectations and entitled attitudes are not the same as rights, though I’ll agree too many get the two confused.
If rights are not equal then they are wrong. However, that does not mean all the stupid shit declared as rights should be. (I still can look at the United Nations “bill of rights” without throwing things, bunch of stupid ass hats.)
People have been good at giving up their few rights in the name of safety…
Some. No.
No, they must be reinforced with every generation.
No, but they must be reinforced with every generation.
Guns and violence, but only if I must.
Rights, that’s the thing we are talking about.
I do and I do.
I am above no one, but I am below no one. It shows when I talk to people.
OK. It sounds like you don’t understand where affirmative action really comes from.
The idea is that in general, once upon a time, minorities were discriminated against en masse in society. Others in society implicitly benefited because they weren’t held back.
Now obviously, this leads to a problem. It ignores the individuality of discrimination. Everyone isn’t a discriminator, and everyone doesn’t benefit from discrimination. Everyone isn’t discriminated against either…
…yet we still have affirmative action. Why?
Well there’s a few rationalizations, and I call them that because they’re excuses, not reasons.
The first is laziness. It’s difficult to filter in society between those who did versus those who didn’t discriminate, were discriminated against, and benefited from discrimination. Cost-benefit analysis tells us that the alternative of due diligence to actually investigate everything isn’t worthwhile. There’s also the matter that nobody wants to analyze it. Those who shouldn’t have to analyze it are the victims of affirmative action, and those who should have to analyze it are the beneficiaries of affirmative action. There’s a conflict of interest at stake.
The second is dodginess. Those who discriminated, benefited from discrimination, and didn’t get discriminated against want to spread the blame for their own self-interest. They don’t want to endure all of the blame, or be left out from redistributed damages.
The third is predation. Those who didn’t discriminate, etc. are looked upon as goody-two-shoes who bad people want to exploit. They’re called arrogant for being better than others, and they’re called selfish for expecting their individuality to be recognized by society. That’s not what selfishness actually is, but this is politics, not philosophy. Being wrong on purpose is part of the equation.
The fourth is pragmatism and Occam’s Razor. Discrimination still happens, but there’s no direct evidence of it. We can merely look at the results of what’s happened when processes aren’t transparent and people hide behind plausible deniability. Affirmative action seeks to get around this by playing dumb back at those who play dumb in the first place of saying that discrimination doesn’t happen because there’s no evidence even though it actually does.
I’m not saying affirmative action is right, and your perspective on humanity is indeed universal.
The problem is many people get away with taking particular rather than universal perspectives on rights. Politics is not purely philosophical. It’s psychological as well. Logic requires attention span to be processed, so if attention span is overloaded with gibberish, logic doesn’t happen.
That is not what is being talked about, is it right is different than rights.
Yes, no rights means anarchy.
Nope, Socialism is different than anarchy.
So, high school is rights free?
With rights the elite individuals in society who apply themselves to become successful also can be victimized by mob justice, it’s called democracy and its why the United States is a representative republic.
In my experience it has more to do with keeping the minorities inline and voting for the people that keep a bigoted system in place. Not much different than when whites didn’t allow blacks to do things. Well that and change is difficult.
A right to life refers to how sophisticated consciousness exists and is forced to exist. Therefore, it’s not obligated to give up its participation in our world. Instead, it’s entitled to the benefit of the doubt of being innocent before proven guilty, and not obligated to prove itself in advance of being treated with respect.
Animals are unsophisticated, so they don’t count. They simply act out biological impulses without categorical imagination.
Of course minorities should be discriminated against. Why are they a minority in the first place?
It’s because of group association and identity. If one black person enters into a group of 100 white people, then obviously black is the minority. And if one white person enters into a group of 100 black people, then obviously white is the minority.
But affirmative action is only justified by some “minorities” attempting to penetrate and infiltrate, unjustly, a majority group. This also revolves around defining a group and its individual members.
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, looks like I’ll have to be your private tutor to teach you basic concepts that children should know.
If a group doesn’t want new members, then it has the same “right” to refuse people who want entry as the “right” of those attempting to infiltrate the group “to belong”.
There is no intrinsic right to group association. By the very act of being born, you belong to a specie, a group. Furthermore, you belong to a race and gender. These are natural attributes that nobody can change, not even with makeup and cosmetics.
Whose interests are at stake?
There is discriminator and discriminatee.
Some claim that discrimination is an “evil unto itself”.
To discriminate between red and blue, is evil. To discriminate between country and classical music, is evil. To discriminate between kinky hair black people and smooth silky hair white people, is evil.
To have senses, and to experience the world, is evil. It is only good, morally good, to destroy all of your senses and experience nothing.
Senses evolve to discriminate and distinguish the world.
Ha, no direct evidence?!
The very act of seeing, smelling, touching, tasting, hearing, is discrimination. How DARE you see one color and not others? How, fucking, dare you???
How dare you distinguish between a green light and red light at a traffic intersection? How, fucking, dare you?
You need to expand your scope to understand HUMAN rights.
Why should a right apply to all “humanity”, or as the christians purport, a “right to life”. How could a right even exist “for all life”??? That hardly makes any sense.
How vain and entitled does a child have to be, to believe that life must be absolutely guaranteed, and for all people, and all organisms to ever exist?
That to be born, simply that act itself, ought to secure an entire lifetime of any dubious quality?
Eric_The_Pipe is a troll, adding nothing to this thread, diverting it off course, ignore him. I will report Eric_The_Pipe to the moderators and administrator, for trolling my thread.
He adds NOTHING, no QUALITY to this thread and discussion. I hate people who do this. ENTITLED people, who think they have important to say, when their opinion is worth NOTHING.
Nice justification, but humans have no special guarantees. How are humans anything but “simply acting out on biological impulses without categorical imagination”???
Prove that you have a categorical imagination. Objectively, scientifically, obviously.
How so? Both concepts refer to abstract legitimacy.
To be clear, I see your perspective. I’m saying your judgment is wrong.
Not according to socialists. The value of dialectic materialism comes from a refutation of abstract reason. Instead, there is an eternal helix of historical synthesis where thesis and antithesis clash to form synthesis.
This is in contrast to capitalism where theses are entitled to integrity. Hence, private property. In socialism, people’s theses are obligated to clash instead. The economic outcome is derived from clashing individual’s inputs instead of allowing them to remain intact. There is an immediate and constant enforcement of clashing. People are not entitled to isolate their investments.
In fact, socialists oppose religion because they recognize religion as instilling a sense of abstract reason upon irrational people by making an appeal to aesthetics instead. In turn, they lose their dialectically materialist species-being.
High school is a political institution run for children.
Rights require appreciation as much as everything else, yes.
Well you might have some justification there. Appeasement is an issue.
For example, you don’t need racism or sexism to be prejudiced. Even white males can have pecking orders among themselves where they collectivize towards popular norms instead of appreciating everyone’s individuality of who they are on the inside that counts…
…so you end up with a couple of weird scenarios.
The first is those individuals on the bottom of the pecking order might advocate racism or sexism as a form of primitive equality. “We’re all white! We’re all male! We should all be treated equally!”
In turn, affirmative action is a way to take those on the bottom of the pecking order and throw them at other groups so those on the top don’t have to be bothered with treating them equally anymore.
The second is those individuals on the top of the pecking order might not oppress the bottom enough to get what they want, so they might look at other groups to get more. “Look at those women! Look at those blacks! Let’s oppress them to get more!” It might even get so bad that those on the top promise those on the bottom respect if the bottom oppresses others enough.
In turn, affirmative action is a way to dissociate from those on the bottom after the bottom has oppressed other groups for their own group. It can also be a form of spreading the burden. The top can afford to pay damages, but the bottom really can’t, so by engaging in affirmative action, the bottom is destroyed, and the top gets away.
Daktoria, just a word to the wise, your words, reasoning, and intelligence, are all lost upon Eric_The_Pipe. You may as well talk to a brick wall. I sincerely doubt that individual is here to learn or engage philosophy in any relevant, minimal, meaningful way.
Don’t allow rude people to interrupt real philosophy. Ignore them, and treat them in a secondhand manner. For example, see above how I respond to your response, before his? I did this knowingly and intentionally, to demonstrate a lesson.
More productive philosophers should have PRIVILEGE here. We don’t want the naysayers and average people to interlude, interrupt, and disrupt productive philosophy.
Privilege. What is it and where does it come from? Why do I privilege some responses over others, except, that I value people who are most philosophical over those who are lesser? And this is also a matter of discrimination. So this is on track.
Why does one person deserve privilege and not another?
Why do I privilege Daktoria over Eric_The_Pipe? It should be obvious. Daktoria has made interesting posts on this forum, which I personally enjoy. Eric_The_Pipe has not. I value Daktoria more. I value people who add to this website and forum. I value productive conversations and interesting discussions. I DEVALUE interruptions and rudeness. I DEVALUE trolls and people who automatically believe they are entitled to opinions, without thinking them through or putting much thought into them.
However, I realize that this format and forum being what it is, I must treat many people, including adults, as if they were children. Because many people here, have never actually used their brain once in their lifetimes. It’s a new experience for them, to think. To start USING their natural endowments, their reasoning faculty.
Privilege comes from hard work, sacrifice, and risk. You work hard for your money.
Therefore you OUGHT TO have the PRIVILEGE to spend your money however you want to, and however you choose.
Yes, you, Daktoria. How many privileges do you take advantage of, do you give thanks for these privileges? Do you even realize them?