Log in

View Full Version : The basic, inalienable human rights


Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 11:25 PM
What do you think they are?

Yiuel
March 23rd, 2009, 03:29 AM
To me, simple : None are.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 23rd, 2009, 03:31 AM
The right to google

tagnostic
March 23rd, 2009, 05:45 AM
you have the right
to believe in your
own existance
other than that
itś not a right
itś socialization

Daruko
March 23rd, 2009, 07:54 AM
I has the right to eat your forumz.

OM NOM NOM

/troll

sam the moderately wize
March 23rd, 2009, 10:36 AM
Food, shelter, clean water, education, freedom from opression, freedom of thought, the right to choose their own leaders.

winwun
March 23rd, 2009, 11:48 AM
Al, you will have to establish some parameters in order to get substantive definitions . . .

Fallen Hero
March 24th, 2009, 01:42 AM
Depends on a few things and who you ask.

I am not too certain there are rights that are inalienable; atleast not natural ones.

djura
March 24th, 2009, 10:28 AM
you have a right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be ...

tagnostic
March 24th, 2009, 02:02 PM
rofl
and the supreme court ruled that ¨reading¨ you your rights
as applicable under Miranda is no longer legally necessary

Tsar Phalanxia
March 24th, 2009, 03:43 PM
Maximum political freedom. From that, personal freedom, and the amount of economic freedom so desired by the populace will arrive.
However, I feel the state has a duty to provide water, shelter, as clean air as possible and unemployment benefit.

Al Farabi
March 24th, 2009, 11:23 PM
but what is freedom?

Daruko
March 24th, 2009, 11:57 PM
but what is freedom?
there are no rules anywhere

Al Farabi
March 25th, 2009, 12:07 AM
there are no rules anywhere

What about the laws of physics. If they bind us, are we still free?

Daruko
March 25th, 2009, 12:15 AM
What about the laws of physics. If they bind us, are we still free?
we put the lines on the map

edit:
last two posts are straight out the principia discordia, or RAW's books or some shit
but why reinvent an appropriate metaphor?

Al Farabi
March 25th, 2009, 12:59 AM
we put the lines on the map

edit:
last two posts are straight out the principia discordia, or RAW's books or some shit
but why reinvent an appropriate metaphor?


You think that if nobody knew that objects should fall, they wouldn't?

sam the moderately wize
March 26th, 2009, 10:35 AM
If nobody was around to watch an object fall, would it still do so?

The laws of physics do make us less free, but as we have no way to remove them, being as free as possible means being free within those laws.

PS Wittgenstein says hey

sudikics
March 26th, 2009, 03:12 PM
If nobody was around to watch an object fall, would it still do so?
Of course it would: we could measure its properties later and reverse engineer the events.

Alternatively, you could take a quantum look at it, and show that those properties do not exist until observation, at which point a past is ascribed to the system.

Daruko
March 26th, 2009, 11:11 PM
My point to Al was that nature doesn't have physics.
Men do.

tagnostic
March 27th, 2009, 12:03 AM
good point
humans require
measurements
reasons
&
classifications
nothing else does

Al Farabi
March 27th, 2009, 01:30 AM
My point to Al was that nature doesn't have physics.
Men do.

Ah but my point was that the phenomena that our physics describe would be there even if we couldn't (or didn't) describe them.

tagnostic
March 27th, 2009, 01:52 AM
ah but if there is no sentient being to describe it
what's the point?

a rock can sit in the desert
obeying all physical laws
but if no sentient being
appreciates it, what's the point?

big fun

Al Farabi
March 27th, 2009, 01:57 AM
ah but if there is no sentient being to describe it
what's the point?

a rock can sit in the desert
obeying all physical laws
but if no sentient being
appreciates it, what's the point?

big fun

Doesn't the idea that a person needs to be present at a given phenomena for it to matter seem a bit arrogant and homocentric?

I mean, what was the point of dinosaurs?

tagnostic
March 27th, 2009, 02:03 AM
certainly
but if nothing sentient
is around
who cares?

grass grows
rocks wear down
volcanoes erupt
if it has no sentient's
to effect, describe or dodge
who really cares?

(lovin this)

Al Farabi
March 27th, 2009, 02:13 AM
certainly
but if nothing sentient
is around
who cares?

grass grows
rocks wear down
volcanoes erupt
if it has no sentient's
to effect, describe or dodge
who really cares?

(lovin this)

Ah, the age old "I don't know and I don't care" attitude. There is no argument I could possibly present that can derail this one, because it presupposes a fundemental disinterest in truth, which I do not share.

So in answer to your questions, I care about that which I don't see. I care about why grass grows and rocks wear down and volcanoes erupt. My attitude is opposed to yours: I don't know, but I care deeply.

"man can endure almost any ‘what’ provided he has a sufficient ‘why’"
-Victor Frankl

tagnostic
March 27th, 2009, 02:15 AM
not don't know don't care,
always seeking
but knowing
limitations
big diff

Daruko
March 27th, 2009, 02:51 AM
Al, I'm afraid you may be so full of shit, you can't see it clearly flying right over your head.
Ah but my point was that the phenomena that our physics describe would be there even if we couldn't (or didn't) describe them.Yep. Still missing the point.

Doesn't the idea that a person needs to be present at a given phenomena for it to matter seem a bit arrogant and homocentric?How much does the universe matter? What is the value of a dust storm? What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of a sunset? What is the point of the universe? These are not scientific questions.

Furthermore, they are useless questions. But I encourage you to follow them through to the end.

Veteris
March 27th, 2009, 03:45 AM
Furthermore, they are useless questions. But I encourage you to follow them through to the end.
Useless in the sense we cant answer them or useless in the sense that they don't matter?

Al Farabi
March 27th, 2009, 05:55 AM
Firstly, lets keep it classy here, eh? Ad hominem attacks: not called for.

Secondly, perhaps Daruko could explain his point in detail, since our lack of understanding is clearly causing him considerable distress.

Thirdly, as Veratis perceptibly asked, what do you mean by useless?

Daruko
March 27th, 2009, 08:51 AM
Firstly, lets keep it classy here, eh? Ad hominem attacks: not called for.
Eat a dick.

Secondly, perhaps Daruko could explain his point in detail, since our lack of understanding is clearly causing him considerable distress.
OMGZ! R U SRS?

Thirdly, as Veratis perceptibly asked, what do you mean by useless?
Yuo are asking questions that, by the very nature of the language you are asking with, can not be answered; YOUR rules. This and that is a limitation of language, as well as a benefit.

How many senses do you have? Do you truly think you even represent that tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny etc portion of understandable space within the scope of the FIVE HUMAN processing interacting stimuli? Your measuring tools represent an unimaginably small portion of variant observal phenomena concurrent with potentially infinite possible models of physically viable phenomena; there are models of physical laws not viable (logically impossible environments). You have your "knowledge", which you're quite sure represents "real knowledge", and armed with your beliefs, your models, and your "no, not the model. the real thing". :facepalm: you set out into the world to FURTHER THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH FOR ALL MANKIND.

Get off it dood. You barely know "this" from "that".

Nature doesn't need to know this from that. Yuo can simulate nature. Yuo can boil everything down to quantum computations, or even simulate a universe as real as this* one (theoretically), and yuo still won't have the territory. Modern physics demonstrates clearly that many models are necessary for serious scientific inquiry. Doubt is the SEED of knowledge, and yet you cultivate, in good confidence of your virtue, and deep belief in the TRUTH and MEANING of your goals, a black iron prison that prevents you from observing the universe beyond those bars you call "knowledge". Knowledge is meant to be an innovation, not a fucking false idol.

In Zen Buddhist tradition, there is an effective way to deal with students who KNOW about God and Life and all sorts of other goofy naive ideas about After Death and The Beginning and End of the Universe and the Fundamental Building Block of Matter or the infinite amount of other stupid shit men (and women... don't think i forget that bitch eve) think they know. Force them to dedicate themselves entirely to this pursuit of TRUE UNDERSTANDING with total dedication... never ceasing, relentlessly pounding away at these ULTIMATE QUESTIONS, until the sheer boredom and frustration with their inadequacy either turns all to shit or, in some scarce batch, results in some sort of beneficial mindfuck, when they realize they don't know a goddamn thing.

You must first empty your cup, the zen buddhist koan teaches. But over and over again. Quit trying to pin down GOD and MEANING and other naive intellectual garbage. Or Pin it down. Look for "god" in every which place. Better yet, look for yourself. Find out what YUO really are. And look. And look. I don't care. For me, life/god/self/meaning/etc doesn't boil down to answers. "And sweet babies cry for that cool taste of milking; that milky delight that invited us all, and if there's a taste in this life more inviting, then wake up your windows and watch as those sweet babies crawllllllll awayyyayaay"

And THEN! Then, we can do science. Then we can play whatever games we wish to play, because it's not what you do. It's yuo doing.

EDIT: But I forgot to mention. You're still in prison. fnord

Daruko
March 27th, 2009, 09:00 AM
For those who found the previous post tl;dr:

Just send thirty dollars to "Bob", at the Church of the Subgenius, and "Bob" guarantees your salvation or TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK!

Pray to Google. It will open the way.

There's my furtherment of mankind. :icon_lol:
large text is unfunny

sudikics
March 27th, 2009, 03:13 PM
Science exists to model the universe. If our model doesn't work, then we must fix it using the scientific method to make it fit again.

Tag, I'd agree with you about the rock in the desert, were it not for two things, namely chaos theory and quantum weirdness. Because of the butterfly effect, everything affects everything else. That rock sitting in the desert? It's not totally inanimate. A photon from the sun strikes one of the electrons inside one of the atoms in the rock. As a result from the energy increase, the electron moves to a higher orbit in the atom in the rock. This repels an oxygen atom stumbling by a little more strongly than it would otherwise, which bumps into other atoms, which shift the atmosphere, which adds just enough energy to kickstart the vortex over the Mid-Atlantic which turns into a Category 5 Hurricane.

Doesn't sound plausible? That's chaos theory for you.

Daruko
March 27th, 2009, 03:43 PM
"Science exists to model the universe."
Well certainly, that's what it does.

"Doesn't sound plausible?"
It does.fnord

Perna de Pau
March 27th, 2009, 05:59 PM
My answer to the first question is that the most fundamental human right is the right to life: whithout this all other rights are irrelevant.

Second, imho, is the right to think, to hold and to express your own opinions.

Al Farabi
March 27th, 2009, 07:19 PM
My answer to the first question is that the most fundamental human right is the right to life: whithout this all other rights are irrelevant.

Second, imho, is the right to think, to hold and to express your own opinions.
What do you think of opinions that may cause distress to others? Should they be expressed?

rmw
March 27th, 2009, 07:39 PM
What do you think of opinions that may cause distress to others? Should they be expressed?

I realize this question was addressed toward Perna, but I'd like to add my two cents. Looking at the example of the bishop who denies the Holocaust happened, I do believe he has the right to express that opinion. I think he's wrong, and an idiot as well, but IMO, the point of free speech is to protect the opinions that we might find distasteful, disrespectful, or distressing. Why? Because if you have an opinion that someone may not like, you would still want the chance to express it, right?

Al Farabi
March 27th, 2009, 07:41 PM
I realize this question was addressed toward Perna, but I'd like to add my two cents. Looking at the example of the bishop who denies the Holocaust happened, I do believe he has the right to express that opinion. I think he's wrong, and an idiot as well, but IMO, the point of free speech is to protect the opinions that we might find distasteful, disrespectful, or distressing. Why? Because if you have an opinion that someone may not like, you would still want the chance to express it, right?

Absolutely. I totally agree...I was just trying to start a discussion :P

rmw
March 27th, 2009, 07:44 PM
Absolutely. I totally agree...I was just trying to start a discussion :P

Well, you're no fun. :icon_razz:

Al Farabi
March 27th, 2009, 08:54 PM
Well, you're no fun. :icon_razz:

Haha yeah your response was not really what I was expecting. High five though!

Daruko
March 28th, 2009, 05:17 AM
I was just trying to start a discussion :P
Don't sweat it. You're an intelligent guy, Al. All I was trying to say is that you should not take your own beliefs so srsly. I don't have anything against you personally. I'm less of a dick than it might seem if you don't get my humor.

Dolores
March 28th, 2009, 06:45 AM
I care deeply. Modern physics demonstrates clean air as real as possible and yuo still arrive.
Howeverything the TRUTH and those beyond those bars your question, not a fucking down and the territory. Maximum political freedom. From that. Yuo can simulate a universe beyond the state a universe bars you cultivate, in answer to provide water, I feel the universe bars your question, not share.
So in and the amount of your question, not a fucking the TRUTH and deep belief in answer to quantum computation.

Daruko
March 28th, 2009, 08:56 AM
lolwut?

winwun
March 28th, 2009, 01:15 PM
Smoking old fan belts again, are we, Dolores, hmmm?

Perna de Pau
March 28th, 2009, 02:58 PM
I realize this question was addressed toward Perna, but I'd like to add my two cents. Looking at the example of the bishop who denies the Holocaust happened, I do believe he has the right to express that opinion. I think he's wrong, and an idiot as well, but IMO, the point of free speech is to protect the opinions that we might find distasteful, disrespectful, or distressing. Why? Because if you have an opinion that someone may not like, you would still want the chance to express it, right?

I would not have said it any better. This is exactly what I think

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 28th, 2009, 04:45 PM
Don't sweat it. You're an intelligent guy, Al. All I was trying to say is that you should not take your own beliefs so srsly. I don't have anything against you personally. I'm less of a dick than it might seem if you don't get my humor.

This is true actually.

Dolores
March 28th, 2009, 08:52 PM
lolwut?

Instead of then what appeared the was a wave. In mathematical terms, it is a wave detector the most overlap, and detect using a wave wave generator that large as large as that of the results open. In mathematical terms, it with both slits of what pass. Then smaller that measures that measures then the results of the wave, the originating the squares of the resulting the pattern 8; in some places the results open, you see a wave, in the sum of what largest wave wave, though not nearly as large.

pclamb
March 29th, 2009, 07:10 AM
you have the right
to believe in your
own existance
other than that
itś not a right
itś socialization

depends on who u socialize with bubba...

Sister Faith
March 29th, 2009, 10:21 PM
K, who's been cutting the head cheese in here? It smells to High Heaven of brain farts. :icon_evil:

Sheesh, Doh. When I told you to get fucked (in my quirky but polite Cdn way (http://media.photobucket.com/image/captain%20kirk/FartyMcFly/captain-kirk-wtf.jpg):icon_lol:) I didn't mean your head. :icon_rolleyes:

Ah, well, hon. Shat happens (http://www.tshirtwatch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/william-shatner-shirt.gif), eh. :icon_twisted:

tagnostic
March 30th, 2009, 01:18 AM
depends on who u socialize with bubba...

I'm kinda particular
you don't make the cut