Iowa FTW

[TheoK]

I can take another example of how you just "proclaim" yourself to be right. There was a discussion about suicide. You seem to think that suicide is wrong. Pig said that if life has a negative value and death has the value 0, suicide is better than to live. This is extremely simple to understand. Yet you said that that was wrong, not because Pig was reasoning in an illogical way but simply because you are against people committing suicide.

[odeon]

If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?

Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.

See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.

Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.

And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.

[TheoK]

If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?

Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.

See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.

Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.

And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.

That's not modern philosophy. That is how Plato and Aristoteles etc. argued. Those arguments are hardly looked upon as valid today.

[odeon]

I can take another example of how you just "proclaim" yourself to be right. There was a discussion about suicide. You seem to think that suicide is wrong. Pig said that if life has a negative value and death has the value 0, suicide is better than to live. This is extremely simple to understand. Yet you said that that was wrong, not because Pig was reasoning in an illogical way but simply because you are against people committing suicide.

Links, please. I honestly don't recognise this.

But just to point it out: I argue my viewpoints, whatever they may be. I do not claim to be universally right (note the use of the word "universal" here), and I doubt most other here claim to be either. But I do argue.

There's an implied "IMHO" with most of my opinion pieces here, in other words, the same as with most other people's posts. Should I start including that in my posts?

I think most people will realise this. Let me know if that is unclear.

[odeon]

If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?

Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.

See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.

Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.

And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.

That's not modern philosophy. That is how Plato and Aristoteles etc. argued. Those arguments are hardly looked upon as valid today.

Then don't use "immanent".

[TheoK]

I can take another example of how you just "proclaim" yourself to be right. There was a discussion about suicide. You seem to think that suicide is wrong. Pig said that if life has a negative value and death has the value 0, suicide is better than to live. This is extremely simple to understand. Yet you said that that was wrong, not because Pig was reasoning in an illogical way but simply because you are against people committing suicide.

Links, please. I honestly don't recognise this.

But just to point it out: I argue my viewpoints, whatever they may be. I do not claim to be universally right (note the use of the word "universal" here), and I doubt most other here claim to be either. But I do argue.

There's an implied "IMHO" with most of my opinion pieces here, in other words, the same as with most other people's posts. Should I start including that in my posts?

I think most people will realise this. Let me know if that is unclear.

Some people suffer from mental problems, especially depression, to an extent comparable with excruciating physical illness.

If they always feel unhappy then feeling nothing would be an improvement.  By killing themselves they improve their emotional state.

No, they *end* their emotional state.

Let's say emotions are like positive and negative values.  Misery is negative, happiness is positive, and no-emotion is zero.  Going from a negative value to zero is a positive.

I guess.    That's how I've always thought of it, anyway.

I don't buy that. Between good and bad emotions should be those that are neither good or bad, but that still are emotions.

Suicide

[TheoK]

If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?

Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.

See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.

Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.

And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.

That's not modern philosophy. That is how Plato and Aristoteles etc. argued. Those arguments are hardly looked upon as valid today.

Then don't use "immanent".

Splitting hairs again. I used one word from an outdated terminology, and because of  that you demand that I accept everything that has to do with the outdated philosophy that it relates to.

But the logical fact that something either exists or deosn't is in accordance with modern philosophy.

[odeon]

I can take another example of how you just "proclaim" yourself to be right. There was a discussion about suicide. You seem to think that suicide is wrong. Pig said that if life has a negative value and death has the value 0, suicide is better than to live. This is extremely simple to understand. Yet you said that that was wrong, not because Pig was reasoning in an illogical way but simply because you are against people committing suicide.

Links, please. I honestly don't recognise this.

But just to point it out: I argue my viewpoints, whatever they may be. I do not claim to be universally right (note the use of the word "universal" here), and I doubt most other here claim to be either. But I do argue.

There's an implied "IMHO" with most of my opinion pieces here, in other words, the same as with most other people's posts. Should I start including that in my posts?

I think most people will realise this. Let me know if that is unclear.

Some people suffer from mental problems, especially depression, to an extent comparable with excruciating physical illness.

If they always feel unhappy then feeling nothing would be an improvement.  By killing themselves they improve their emotional state.

No, they *end* their emotional state.

Let's say emotions are like positive and negative values.  Misery is negative, happiness is positive, and no-emotion is zero.  Going from a negative value to zero is a positive.

I guess.    That's how I've always thought of it, anyway.

I don't buy that. Between good and bad emotions should be those that are neither good or bad, but that still are emotions.

Suicide

Proving what, exactly? That I think there are emotions that are neither good nor bad? That he was reading too much into the word "selfish"?

And how does any of this prove that I am against suicide? Because I think it's ultimately selfish?

[TheoK]

I can take another example of how you just "proclaim" yourself to be right. There was a discussion about suicide. You seem to think that suicide is wrong. Pig said that if life has a negative value and death has the value 0, suicide is better than to live. This is extremely simple to understand. Yet you said that that was wrong, not because Pig was reasoning in an illogical way but simply because you are against people committing suicide.

Links, please. I honestly don't recognise this.

But just to point it out: I argue my viewpoints, whatever they may be. I do not claim to be universally right (note the use of the word "universal" here), and I doubt most other here claim to be either. But I do argue.

There's an implied "IMHO" with most of my opinion pieces here, in other words, the same as with most other people's posts. Should I start including that in my posts?

I think most people will realise this. Let me know if that is unclear.

Some people suffer from mental problems, especially depression, to an extent comparable with excruciating physical illness.

If they always feel unhappy then feeling nothing would be an improvement.  By killing themselves they improve their emotional state.

No, they *end* their emotional state.

Let's say emotions are like positive and negative values.  Misery is negative, happiness is positive, and no-emotion is zero.  Going from a negative value to zero is a positive.

I guess.    That's how I've always thought of it, anyway.

I don't buy that. Between good and bad emotions should be those that are neither good or bad, but that still are emotions.

Suicide

Proving what, exactly? That I think there are emotions that are neither good nor bad? That he was reading too much into the word "selfish"?

And how does any of this prove that I am against suicide? Because I think it's ultimately selfish?

If life has a negative value, death means 0 and is thus more worth than life. How is that hard to understand?

I remember that you once said that it wasn't wrong that suicidal people were taken into psychiatric ward. Don't remember which thread now.

[odeon]

If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?

Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.

See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.

Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.

And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.

That's not modern philosophy. That is how Plato and Aristoteles etc. argued. Those arguments are hardly looked upon as valid today.

Then don't use "immanent".

Splitting hairs again. I used one word from an outdated terminology, and because of  that you demand that I accept everything that has to do with the outdated philosophy that it relates to.

But the logical fact that something either exists or deosn't is in accordance with modern philosophy.

You used a *key* word, practically the definition, actually. But no, I don't require you to accept everything that the theory of divine presence brings with it. I do want you to consider context, however, because while you claim everything to be black and white, I wish to bring nuances into the equation. Context. Immanence is useful from a philosophical point of view because it can be used to deconstruct binary opposition. I would argue that since about 90% of the earth's population believes in some kind of deity, the concept is not outdated.

BTW, a common objection to binary opposition is its deconstruction in things like modern gender theory. Do you accept the new German gender legislation?

[TheoK]

If rights exist, how would they exist if they are not immanent?

Immanence is basically the theory of divine presence in philosophy, IIRC. You can postulate divinity on any number of levels, from the strictly local (such as a typical Roman emperor ) to the regional (such as Greek gods in the Roman world) to the universal.

See how this works? A "right" can easily be defined in a context and still be outside mere legislation, if you choose to argue from that viewpoint, but does not have to be universal.

Now, you can postulate that some rights are universal instead of regional or local or whatever other definition there might be (including that there are none, btw), but if you do that, you'd better build consistency around what you postulate because it's not something that is obvious.

And never mind that you start from the theory of divine presence when the people you are talking to tend to reject that presence.

That's not modern philosophy. That is how Plato and Aristoteles etc. argued. Those arguments are hardly looked upon as valid today.

Then don't use "immanent".

Splitting hairs again. I used one word from an outdated terminology, and because of  that you demand that I accept everything that has to do with the outdated philosophy that it relates to.

But the logical fact that something either exists or deosn't is in accordance with modern philosophy.

You used a *key* word, practically the definition, actually. But no, I don't require you to accept everything that the theory of divine presence brings with it. I do want you to consider context, however, because while you claim everything to be black and white, I wish to bring nuances into the equation. Context. Immanence is useful from a philosophical point of view because it can be used to deconstruct binary opposition. I would argue that since about 90% of the earth's population believes in some kind of deity, the concept is not outdated.

BTW, a common objection to binary opposition is its deconstruction in things like modern gender theory. Do you accept the new German gender legislation?

Well, then I should use some other terminology.

I know nothing about the new German law. I'm not interested in modern gender theory.

[RageBeoulve]

still waiting for you to back up this:

I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.

I already did. Its in the quote I used to make that statement.

Which I contested.

Fucking weak, Rage. Shows me that you aren't man enough to back up your words. Don't mistake my contempt for your words with a contempt for the country in which you live.

I'm not wrong on the grounds that you disagree with me. And I did not have a problem with your contempt for my words, so cut the politics ok? Lets play ball like men. You were making derogatory statements about my country and its laws. Do you deny this?

[Adam]

No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.

Im not replying to all this properly yet but skimming thru before I go to bed

just seen this though and...

what?

[RageBeoulve]

No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.

Im not replying to all this properly yet but skimming thru before I go to bed

just seen this though and...

what?

I think that's what Lit was trying to say. "what?"

[Adam]

Ah ok thanks, I probably should read this through properly