• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are rights objectively real?

devildavid said:
Commenting on my "likes" is stooping to ad hominem. You did not comment on the substance of my post.
Click to expand...

Plus, the fact, when it comes to the women's right's , did indeed create the right of a woman to vote. ..
 
RAMOSS said:
They do pass the 'show me' test. They can be shown physically to exist. They can be tested, and predictions made about their behavior.
Click to expand...
What about logic/math?
If they are not real, then how do we differentiate them from everything else that is not real, such as "nothing", or random strings of language, etc.?
 
Mach said:
What about logic/math?
If they are not real, then how do we differentiate them from everything else that is not real, such as "nothing", or random strings of language, etc.?
Click to expand...

When it comes to math/logic, you can use math to make predictions. Both math and logic are tools that when applied to real world things, allows those predictions to be made. Math and logic, used in combination with real world examples, allow for prediction to be made and tested. They, in and of themselves, are not 'objectively true'... but are conceptual tools that allow models to predict behavior of the physical world.

So, neither math or logic is objectively real. .. but they are useful conceptual tools.
 
RAMOSS said:
When it comes to math/logic, you can use math to make predictions. Both math and logic are tools that when applied to real world things, allows those predictions to be made. Math and logic, used in combination with real world examples, allow for prediction to be made and tested. They, in and of themselves, are not 'objectively true'... but are conceptual tools that allow models to predict behavior of the physical world.

So, neither math or logic is objectively real. .. but they are useful conceptual tools.
Click to expand...
Until applied to reality, both mathematics and logic are abstract.
 
RAMOSS said:
When it comes to math/logic, you can use math to make predictions. Both math and logic are tools that when applied to real world things, allows those predictions to be made. Math and logic, used in combination with real world examples, allow for prediction to be made and tested. They, in and of themselves, are not 'objectively true'... but are conceptual tools that allow models to predict behavior of the physical world.So, neither math or logic is objectively real. .. but they are useful conceptual tools.
Click to expand...
Why/how are these non-real concepts able to be used to predict things about REALITY if they are not real? Look at these not-real concepts:
A not-real concept of a barrier in the middle of the road. - does it affect drivers? Predictions? No.

An not-real concept of a code you can enter into a radio to contact alien life - does it work? no.
An not-real concept of a ritual you can do to summon a demon - does it work? No.
vs
Using mathematics to calculate the distance between two points does it work? yes.
Or logic: to deny the basic laws of logic is contradictory, they are self-evident in any communication of this/that.

Clearly there is a difference between these things, I'm very curious as to how you explain it.
 
Mach said:
Why/how are these non-real concepts able to be used to predict things about REALITY if they are not real? Look at these not-real concepts:
A not-real concept of a barrier in the middle of the road. - does it affect drivers? Predictions? No.

An not-real concept of a code you can enter into a radio to contact alien life - does it work? no.
An not-real concept of a ritual you can do to summon a demon - does it work? No.
vs
Using mathematics to calculate the distance between two points does it work? yes.
Or logic: to deny the basic laws of logic is contradictory, they are self-evident in any communication of this/that.

Clearly there is a difference between these things, I'm very curious as to how you explain it.
Click to expand...

They are symbols that are used to describe the observed patterns. Since the condition known as 'reality' apparently has patterns, these are tools to describe those patterns and observations.
 
RAMOSS said:
They are symbols that are used to describe the observed patterns. Since the condition known as 'reality' apparently has patterns, these are tools to describe those patterns and observations.
Click to expand...
Being a symbol used to describe reality, is not a sufficient answer.
I may use demonology symbols to describe reality, and yet they do not hold the same relationship to reality (if we're differentiating it) as logic/math does.
That's reasonable not a difference.

Also, you appear to be claiming patterns are real when you write "describe the observed patterns". And later saying "reality has patterns".
 
Mach said:
Being a symbol used to describe reality, is not a sufficient answer.
I may use demonology symbols to describe reality, and yet they do not hold the same relationship to reality (if we're differentiating it) as logic/math does.
That's reasonable not a difference.

Also, you appear to be claiming patterns are real when you write "describe the observed patterns". And later saying "reality has patterns".
Click to expand...

They are useful only to the degree in which the can predict behavior. If the symbols can be used to create a model and predict behavior that is what gives them their usefulness.
 
the point i made was clear, you attached a "like" to Ramoss's post, who stated that the 19th amendment created a right to vote, which is ridiculous because it does not do that.

the 19th grants congress a new power to write federal legislation, to prevent state laws from being written which would bar women from voting.

rights are not written law, they are not created by governments, they are only recognized by our government, privileges of the constitution are created by government.

no where will you find a right created in/by any American law, because to do so would violate America's founding principles, which the states and federal government recognize.
 
Master PO said:
the point i made was clear, you attached a "like" to Ramoss's post, who stated that the 19th amendment created a right to vote, which is ridiculous because it does not do that.

the 19th grants congress a new power to write federal legislation, to prevent state laws from being written which would bar women from voting.

rights are not written law, they are not created by governments, they are only recognized by our government, privileges of the constitution are created by government.

no where will you find a right created in/by any American law, because to do so would violate America's founding principles, which the states and federal government recognize.
Click to expand...

Rights ARE created by govts.
There is nothing else than can create them.
 
Master PO said:
where are they created at, where is the paper granting rights, please produce it.
Click to expand...

Already answered over and over and over again.

The US constitution,
The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms,
British common law.

Heres a new one for you
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen From the French constitution.
Etc... etc... etc...

Now you try to defend your claim
If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
How do we know what they are? and why do you claim they are objective?
 
Quag said:
Already answered over and over and over again.

The US constitution,
The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms,
British common law.

Heres a new one for you
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen From the French constitution.
Etc... etc... etc...

Now you try to defend your claim
If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
How do we know what they are? and why do you claim they are objective?
Click to expand...

:lamo do you even realize that the constitution went into effect in march 1789 and the bill of rights did not until December 1791

so according to you, the American people had no rights for almost 3 years.
 
Master PO said:
:lamo do you even realize that the constitution went into effect in march 1789 and the bill of rights did not until December 1791

so according to you, the American people had no rights for almost 3 years.
Click to expand...

No they had limited rights. All the jurisprudence that went before was what they relied upon
Why do you think this is impossible situation?

But lets forget the diversion
Now you try to defend your claim
If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
How do we know what they are? and why do you claim they are objective?
 
Quag said:
No they had limited rights. All the jurisprudence that went before was what they relied upon
Why do you think this is impossible situation?

But lets forget the diversion
Now you try to defend your claim
If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
How do we know what they are? and why do you claim they are objective?
Click to expand...

limited rights?:lamo

dude... you have sighted the u.s. constitution, and life liberty and property are stated twice in the constitution and are natural rights even before the DOI was ever created, added to the fact that is the judicial section of the constitution article 3 section 2 , cases of equity are stated, and they are adjudicated by natural law.


and your links meaning nothing.

your links are the same as me saying, Napoleon had an influence on the u.s. postal system, and then providing a link to a Bio on Napoleon.
 
Master PO said:
the point i made was clear, you attached a "like" to Ramoss's post, who stated that the 19th amendment created a right to vote, which is ridiculous because it does not do that.

the 19th grants congress a new power to write federal legislation, to prevent state laws from being written which would bar women from voting.

rights are not written law, they are not created by governments, they are only recognized by our government, privileges of the constitution are created by government.

no where will you find a right created in/by any American law, because to do so would violate America's founding principles, which the states and federal government recognize.
Click to expand...


It created the right for women to vote. Before the 19th amendment, women were not universally allowed to vote in the United States.

19th Amendment - Women?s History - HISTORY.com
 
RAMOSS said:
It created the right for women to vote. Before the 19th amendment, women were not universally allowed to vote in the United States.

19th Amendment - Women?s History - HISTORY.com
Click to expand...



wrong, you need to read the amendment itself:


AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


the amendment is granting congress a power to WRITE federal legislation to prohibit laws from being made which would deny voting based on sex.

the constitution is about powers of government, it only recognizes rights of the people
 
Master PO said:
limited rights?:lamo

dude... you have sighted the u.s. constitution, and life liberty and property are stated twice in the constitution and are natural rights even before the DOI was ever created, added to the fact that is the judicial section of the constitution article 3 section 2 , cases of equity are stated, and they are adjudicated by natural law.
Click to expand...
Diversion noted.

and your links meaning nothing.

your links are the same as me saying, Napoleon had an influence on the u.s. postal system, and then providing a link to a Bio on Napoleon.
Click to expand...
No they show you that rights are created by legislation

You however have done nothing but use subjective opinions to claim rights are objective. provided no actual evidence that "natural" rights even exist and continually confuse rights with abilities.

Now you try to defend your claim
If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
How do we know what they are? and why do you claim they are objective?
 
Master PO said:
wrong, you need to read the amendment itself:


AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


the amendment is granting congress a power to WRITE federal legislation to prohibit laws from being made which would deny voting based on sex.

the constitution is about powers of government, it only recognizes rights of the people
Click to expand...

So in your opinion women always had the right to vote?
 
Master PO said:
wrong, you need to read the amendment itself:


AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


the amendment is granting congress a power to WRITE federal legislation to prohibit laws from being made which would deny voting based on sex.

the constitution is about powers of government, it only recognizes rights of the people
Click to expand...

Did the rights of people exist before there were people? If not did the rights of people slowly emerge out of nature along with the evolution of humans? What evidence is there to support a belief along these lines of thought?

If natural rights always existed, even before humans, what enjoyed those rights for any part of the 13.8 billion years predating humans?

You see, if we try to follow a line of logic which allows for natural rights we run into these absurdities. Maybe you can push them under the rug, but I can't.

The concept of rights is a human construct which does not exist outside the human consciousnesses. Like love, there is nothing tangible about it which can exist absent one who feels it.
 
Quag said:
Diversion noted.

limited rights:lol:


No they show you that rights are created by legislation

You however have done nothing but use subjective opinions to claim rights are objective. provided no actual evidence that "natural" rights even exist and continually confuse rights with abilities.

Now you try to defend your claim
If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
How do we know what they are? and why do you claim they are objective?
Click to expand...

i know this already, in S. Africa the new constitution granted rights, however this is America.
 
Russell797 said:
Did the rights of people exist before there were people? If not did the rights of people slowly emerge out of nature along with the evolution of humans? What evidence is there to support a belief along these lines of thought?

If natural rights always existed, even before humans, what enjoyed those rights for any part of the 13.8 billion years predating humans?

You see, if we try to follow a line of logic which allows for natural rights we run into these absurdities. Maybe you can push them under the rug, but I can't.

The concept of rights is a human construct which does not exist outside the human consciousnesses. Like love, there is nothing tangible about it which can exist absent one who feels it.
Click to expand...

rights come from ones own humanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom