The myth called "Human Rights"

[Hydesland]

why do i sense that these two bolded statements contradict each other?
I do not think even Marx himself could resolve this dialectic.

Easy, an employer can choose who works for him, for any reasons, subject to certain constrains. This is how it has been working for a long time, not hard.

[2nd PLT]

Now, as for the OP.
Using your logic...What right do you have to post this? Hmm? Not trying to sound sarcastic or angry.
Also, who would be the person who is driving the masses towards the greater good?
How is this person determined?
Who decides what is the greater good?

What says I don't have?

Who decides you are not allowed to bash my skull with a wooden baseball bat?

Who decides you are allowed or not allowed to do that?

Answering questions with questions, a sure sign that answers are nonexistent.
But I am above such things, I will answer your questions, and expect you to answer mine.
Apparently either you or society.
In my experience Physics but space and time have a say too. I lack a wooden baseball bat, and you are far out of my reach.
Each person decides what they are allowed to do and not do, and what others are allowed to do and not do. They are supported by their own strength and the combined strength of everyone they can get on their side.

I have a question to add.
Why do we want society to survive anyway?

Human instinct.
And because most of us(at least me) do not want to live in a lawless society where people are raped on a daily basis and you can't go out of your home without the fear of being attacked by cave dwellers trying to bash your skull with wooden baseball bats.

Mmhmm.
Why do you think that would happen?
I don't have much faith in Humanity (You've made me lose more of it) but I know how cowardly humans are. While there would be a lot of that, of course there would be people who would be protecting other, just like now (The Police)

Now, what are the answers to my other questions?
and what is with your obsession with wooden Baseball bats?
And why not just surrender your rights to me? You obviously don't want them.

[Ravea]

Do you want do go to jail? Any society that wants to prosper can't just have maniacs going around killing or discriminating against people they simply don't like. That's how wars and genocides start.

You know, villains do not want to go to jail either.
I myself are much happier when the state , which represents me too ,wields power, rather than the criminals who only represent themselves

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm talking about preventing fascist murders from going out and killing those they don't like, or stopping employers from unjustly firing people because of things that have nothing to do with business, or protecting people from being jailed for their personal opinions or who they voted for. Do you think it's all right for any of those things to happen, because it's all related to human rights.

[Central Slavia]

*flicks switch*

*watches land mines blow intruders to smithereens*

Ah, yes, "might makes right" -- the oldest social theory.

*deploys ze tanks!*

Now I've taken over your society. It's okay though, there won't be many major changes. I'm just making murder legal if you can prove that the victim was "asking for it", discrimination against people of different religions is now encouraged by tax breaks, and of course anyone who threatens my supreme rule is sentenced to have their limbs cut off and then their head and torso be eaten by insects while they are still alive. I mean, we don't really need human rights -- some well-placed laws are sufficient and I happen to think these laws are very logical and rational.

You no take me alive missy! *laughs in an evil manner, and flicks a switch out of last forces on a luggage sized device* *Nuclear missiles depart from silos of his former land* We go both! Muhahahaha *cough*

Of course you could very well implement such laws , the question is how long would it last? many are always stronger than one!

[Orcoa]

There is absolutely nothing novel about the fact that human rights were created by humans, not created by unshakable laws of physics or reality.

However, this doesn't mean they aren't incredibly important! My only suggestion is, to any of the above who have talked about "the greater good" or other such horse manure as an excuse for trampling human rights, why don't you closely examine all of the places on Earth that have followed that path! And why don't you move to some of the ones that still do! No doubt the DPRK would adore to have some smarmy spotty westen teenagers immigrate, it would make great propaganda for one thing! But you wait till you find the cold reality of living without basic human rights, then perhaps you won't be such arrogant offencive little airbags. Because it was those attitudes against the indivudal on behalf of the "collective" that oversaw the Holocaust, not to mention death and destruction in Soviet Russia. And if you'd lived there you would value human rights, and understand that society is never ever "advanced" in any meaningful way by destroying those rights.



And what is also failed to be understood by little grimy abhorrent arrogant cowardly polluting petty minded thin brained drivel spewing hate filled pusbag mindless filthmonger snivvelling putrid wheezing lie propagating idiot whimpering dreary simpleton hitlerwannabe acrid repulsive fascists like all you who rally Against human rights is that the collective is made of individuals! Once you start trampling on some, it ruins the entire edifice! When has trampling on individuals helped us collectively? Unless you are about to tell me how wonderful the holocaust was in your eyes!

[Great Nepal]

you fascists are all the same, wanting a tyrant as a leader, killing the innocent for your own needs, trying to choke the life out of freedom that every living human being has the right to have but when the people speak out agasint your ideas you say its freedom of speech and not hate speech. Here is a hint, the fascists lost a long time ago get over it.

1. Fascism shall re-rise.
2. Orcoa's argument is totally valid, who gave the people to decide there rights in first place?

1. You terrify me.
2. In general, either the collective society decides democratically or whoever has the most guns decides. I'd rather have the first one.

1. Many people say that....
2. So, next question, who gave the society right to decide people's right?

The people within that society.

If you don't want the rights bestowed on you by that society, join a different society.

We again come back to were we started..... who gave the right to the people within that society to decide there rights?

Please note the bolded above.

thats what I asked who the hell gave The people within that society the right to decide there rights?

[Volnotov]

There is absolutely nothing novel about the fact that human rights were created by humans, not created by unshakable laws of physics or reality.

However, this doesn't mean they aren't incredibly important! My only suggestion is, to any of the above who have talked about "the greater good" or other such horse manure as an excuse for trampling human rights, why don't you closely examine all of the places on Earth that have followed that path! And why don't you move to some of the ones that still do! No doubt the DPRK would adore to have some smarmy spotty westen teenagers immigrate, it would make great propaganda for one thing! But you wait till you find the cold reality of living without basic human rights, then perhaps you won't be such arrogant offencive little airbags. Because it was those attitudes against the indivudal on behalf of the "collective" that oversaw the Holocaust, not to mention death and destruction in Soviet Russia. And if you'd lived there you would value human rights, and understand that society is never ever "advanced" in any meaningful way by destroying those rights.

I wasn't saying I don't like the idea of having "civil rights" I said that there is no proof that we have them.

And what is also failed to be understood by little grimy abhorrent arrogant cowardly polluting petty minded thin brained drivel spewing hate filled pusbag mindless filthmonger snivvelling putrid wheezing lie propagating idiot whimpering dreary simpleton hitlerwannabe acrid repulsive fascists like all you who rally Against human rights is that the collective is made of individuals! Once you start trampling on some, it ruins the entire edifice! When has trampling on individuals helped us collectively? Unless you are about to tell me how wonderful the holocaust was in your eyes!

I am trying to have a decent philosophical discussion. I know that fmro my poiny of view I can't force you to be nice to me, but I would atleast want to request you to treat me in such a way that you find dignified and "well-mannered".

Now, unto your statement.

No, I don't believe the holocaust was a great thing. I believe it is one, if not the biggest most retarted abysmal thing mankind has ever done to each other.

I said that human rights are non-existant, I didn't say we don't need laws, regulations and duties.

[Afrikaner Republics]

you fascists are all the same, wanting a tyrant as a leader, killing the innocent for your own needs, trying to choke the life out of freedom that every living human being has the right to have but when the people speak out agasint your ideas you say its freedom of speech and not hate speech. Here is a hint, the fascists lost a long time ago get over it.

1. Fascism shall re-rise.
2. Orcoa's argument is totally valid, who gave the people to decide there rights in first place?

1. You terrify me.
2. In general, either the collective society decides democratically or whoever has the most guns decides. I'd rather have the first one.

1. Many people say that....
2. So, next question, who gave the society right to decide people's right?

The people within that society.

If you don't want the rights bestowed on you by that society, join a different society.

We again come back to were we started..... who gave the right to the people within that society to decide there rights?

Please note the bolded above.

thats what I asked who the hell gave The people within that society the right to decide there rights?

Force? Weapons? For all the blubbering that might doesn't make right, it's what decides people's rights in the end.

[Great Nepal]

you fascists are all the same, wanting a tyrant as a leader, killing the innocent for your own needs, trying to choke the life out of freedom that every living human being has the right to have but when the people speak out agasint your ideas you say its freedom of speech and not hate speech. Here is a hint, the fascists lost a long time ago get over it.

1. Fascism shall re-rise.
2. Orcoa's argument is totally valid, who gave the people to decide there rights in first place?

1. You terrify me.
2. In general, either the collective society decides democratically or whoever has the most guns decides. I'd rather have the first one.

1. Many people say that....
2. So, next question, who gave the society right to decide people's right?

The people within that society.

If you don't want the rights bestowed on you by that society, join a different society.

We again come back to were we started..... who gave the right to the people within that society to decide there rights?

Please note the bolded above.

thats what I asked who the hell gave The people within that society the right to decide there rights?

Force? Weapons? For all the blubbering that might doesn't make right, it's what decides people's rights in the end.

To say reality, Rights DONT exist.

[Central Slavia]

Do you want do go to jail? Any society that wants to prosper can't just have maniacs going around killing or discriminating against people they simply don't like. That's how wars and genocides start.

You know, villains do not want to go to jail either.
I myself are much happier when the state , which represents me too ,wields power, rather than the criminals who only represent themselves

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm talking about preventing fascist murders from going out and killing those they don't like, or stopping employers from unjustly firing people because of things that have nothing to do with business, or protecting people from being jailed for their personal opinions or who they voted for. Do you think it's all right for any of those things to happen, because it's all related to human rights.

First - wrong - you need no human rights for that ,because it is already against collective good. To the more, the human rights will prevent you effectively dealing with those fascist murderers.

Second - again - i myself think that private enterprise is bad, so the question becomes moot, but i still maintain it is thick favouritism to protect people from getting fired for certain such reasons but not of others

third - look at number one - sometimes it is best to prevent certain opinions, as they are harmful

[2nd PLT]

Force? Weapons? For all the blubbering that might doesn't make right, it's what decides people's rights in the end.

I've said this before and I'll say it again...

Might doesn't make right. It makes happen, and that is more important than what's right.

[Volnotov]

Now, as for the OP.
Using your logic...What right do you have to post this? Hmm? Not trying to sound sarcastic or angry.
Also, who would be the person who is driving the masses towards the greater good?
How is this person determined?
Who decides what is the greater good?

What says I don't have?

Who decides you are not allowed to bash my skull with a wooden baseball bat?

Who decides you are allowed or not allowed to do that?

Answering questions with questions, a sure sign that answers are nonexistent.
But I am above such things, I will answer your questions, and expect you to answer mine.
Apparently either you or society.
In my experience Physics but space and time have a say too. I lack a wooden baseball bat, and you are far out of my reach.
Each person decides what they are allowed to do and not do, and what others are allowed to do and not do. They are supported by their own strength and the combined strength of everyone they can get on their side.

I have a question to add.
Why do we want society to survive anyway?

Human instinct.
And because most of us(at least me) do not want to live in a lawless society where people are raped on a daily basis and you can't go out of your home without the fear of being attacked by cave dwellers trying to bash your skull with wooden baseball bats.

Mmhmm.
Why do you think that would happen?
I don't have much faith in Humanity (You've made me lose more of it) but I know how cowardly humans are. While there would be a lot of that, of course there would be people who would be protecting other, just like now (The Police)

Now, what are the answers to my other questions?
and what is with your obsession with wooden Baseball bats?
And why not just surrender your rights to me? You obviously don't want them.

Who says I don't wan't them?

I was just question wheter they actualy existed,

And then at the end I came with the conclussion that they don't exist.

And that statement I wanted to disguss with people here.


Jeez, why do people have to get so personal? I am not used to this kind of behaviour...

[Afrikaner Republics]

Force? Weapons? For all the blubbering that might doesn't make right, it's what decides people's rights in the end.

I've said this before and I'll say it again...

Might doesn't make right. It makes happen, and that is more important than what's right.

I didn't see it before. Could you explain it? It makes happen...?

[Ravea]

There is absolutely nothing novel about the fact that human rights were created by humans, not created by unshakable laws of physics or reality.

However, this doesn't mean they aren't incredibly important! My only suggestion is, to any of the above who have talked about "the greater good" or other such horse manure as an excuse for trampling human rights, why don't you closely examine all of the places on Earth that have followed that path! And why don't you move to some of the ones that still do! No doubt the DPRK would adore to have some smarmy spotty westen teenagers immigrate, it would make great propaganda for one thing! But you wait till you find the cold reality of living without basic human rights, then perhaps you won't be such arrogant offencive little airbags. Because it was those attitudes against the indivudal on behalf of the "collective" that oversaw the Holocaust, not to mention death and destruction in Soviet Russia. And if you'd lived there you would value human rights, and understand that society is never ever "advanced" in any meaningful way by destroying those rights.

I wasn't saying I don't like the idea of having "civil rights" I said that there is no proof that we have them.

There are many, many laws pertaining to civil rights. For example, in America, Blacks can vote and hold a job without being discriminated against, due to civil rights laws.

That seems like proof to me.

[Tunizcha]

I'll take a page from George Carlin's book.
When it comes to rights, either we have unlimited rights, or no rights at all. In other words, we may do what we wish, or we may not. If anything or anyone prevents you from doing what you wish, they take away your rights.

[Old Erisia]

There is absolutely nothing novel about the fact that human rights were created by humans, not created by unshakable laws of physics or reality.

However, this doesn't mean they aren't incredibly important! My only suggestion is, to any of the above who have talked about "the greater good" or other such horse manure as an excuse for trampling human rights, why don't you closely examine all of the places on Earth that have followed that path! And why don't you move to some of the ones that still do! No doubt the DPRK would adore to have some smarmy spotty westen teenagers immigrate, it would make great propaganda for one thing! But you wait till you find the cold reality of living without basic human rights, then perhaps you won't be such arrogant offencive little airbags. Because it was those attitudes against the indivudal on behalf of the "collective" that oversaw the Holocaust, not to mention death and destruction in Soviet Russia. And if you'd lived there you would value human rights, and understand that society is never ever "advanced" in any meaningful way by destroying those rights.

I wasn't saying I don't like the idea of having "civil rights" I said that there is no proof that we have them.

And what is also failed to be understood by little grimy abhorrent arrogant cowardly polluting petty minded thin brained drivel spewing hate filled pusbag mindless filthmonger snivvelling putrid wheezing lie propagating idiot whimpering dreary simpleton hitlerwannabe acrid repulsive fascists like all you who rally Against human rights is that the collective is made of individuals! Once you start trampling on some, it ruins the entire edifice! When has trampling on individuals helped us collectively? Unless you are about to tell me how wonderful the holocaust was in your eyes!

I am trying to have a decent philosophical discussion. I know that fmro my poiny of view I can't force you to be nice to me, but I would atleast want to request you to treat me in such a way that you find dignified and "well-mannered".

Now, unto your statement.

No, I don't believe the holocaust was a great thing. I believe it is one, if not the biggest most retarted abysmal thing mankind has ever done to each other.

I said that human rights are non-existant, I didn't say we don't need laws, regulations and duties.

Why bother having the laws anyway? I don't see the need for the laws. People become rapists and murders just because there are no laws against it? Then let them. Rape and murder are "wrong" because of people believe we have a right to be protected from it.

Also, I don't think that a facist is necessarily a murderer.

[The Galirandi]

*flicks switch*

*watches land mines blow intruders to smithereens*

Ah, yes, "might makes right" -- the oldest social theory.

*deploys ze tanks!*

Now I've taken over your society. It's okay though, there won't be many major changes. I'm just making murder legal if you can prove that the victim was "asking for it", discrimination against people of different religions is now encouraged by tax breaks, and of course anyone who threatens my supreme rule is sentenced to have their limbs cut off and then their head and torso be eaten by insects while they are still alive. I mean, we don't really need human rights -- some well-placed laws are sufficient and I happen to think these laws are very logical and rational.

You no take me alive missy! *laughs in an evil manner, and flicks a switch out of last forces on a luggage sized device* *Nuclear missiles depart from silos of his former land* We go both! Muhahahaha *cough*

Of course you could very well implement such laws , the question is how long would it last? many are always stronger than one!

Argh! My lovely oppressive dictatorship! Rest assured, CS, someday we'll meet again, and, um, something really bad will happen! *flees in personal spaceplane*

I'd say it could last a decent amount of time if I crushed all dissent mercilessly, and convinced the people I was doing it for the Greater Good. Eventually, assuming a program of brainwashing small children was put in place to ensure absolute compliance, I could build up a fanatically loyal military to defend my totalitarian paradise from foreign invaders. Besides, who'd try to topple my government by force these days (assuming I didn't actually attack anyone else)? I mean, the DPRK's still around. Okay, so it's a third-world hellhole, but again, human rights don't matter so there's nothing objectively wrong with that, right?

[Volnotov]

There is absolutely nothing novel about the fact that human rights were created by humans, not created by unshakable laws of physics or reality.

However, this doesn't mean they aren't incredibly important! My only suggestion is, to any of the above who have talked about "the greater good" or other such horse manure as an excuse for trampling human rights, why don't you closely examine all of the places on Earth that have followed that path! And why don't you move to some of the ones that still do! No doubt the DPRK would adore to have some smarmy spotty westen teenagers immigrate, it would make great propaganda for one thing! But you wait till you find the cold reality of living without basic human rights, then perhaps you won't be such arrogant offencive little airbags. Because it was those attitudes against the indivudal on behalf of the "collective" that oversaw the Holocaust, not to mention death and destruction in Soviet Russia. And if you'd lived there you would value human rights, and understand that society is never ever "advanced" in any meaningful way by destroying those rights.

I wasn't saying I don't like the idea of having "civil rights" I said that there is no proof that we have them.

There are many, many laws pertaining to civil rights. For example, in America, Blacks can vote and hold a job without being discriminated against, due to civil rights laws.

That seems like proof to me.

I am assuming I am not being trolled...

I asked my self the question, do we, per defenition, have human rights?

Or are they not-existant and basicly an illusion that we keep telling our selfs?

[Ravea]

Do you want do go to jail? Any society that wants to prosper can't just have maniacs going around killing or discriminating against people they simply don't like. That's how wars and genocides start.

You know, villains do not want to go to jail either.
I myself are much happier when the state , which represents me too ,wields power, rather than the criminals who only represent themselves

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm talking about preventing fascist murders from going out and killing those they don't like, or stopping employers from unjustly firing people because of things that have nothing to do with business, or protecting people from being jailed for their personal opinions or who they voted for. Do you think it's all right for any of those things to happen, because it's all related to human rights.

First - wrong - you need no human rights for that ,because it is already against collective good. To the more, the human rights will prevent you effectively dealing with those fascist murderers.

Second - again - i myself think that private enterprise is bad, so the question becomes moot, but i still maintain it is thick favouritism to protect people from getting fired for certain such reasons but not of others

third - look at number one - sometimes it is best to prevent certain opinions, as they are harmful

Bullshit. Anyone who wants a fair, free society knows that freedom of speech is the the greatest way to perpetuate such a society. Violently censoring opinions leads directly to tyranny.

[Zeppy]

Dey see me trollin', they hatin'...tryin' to catch me postin' dirty!

Meh, this anti-rights and religious tirade is getting old.

[Volnotov]

Do you want do go to jail? Any society that wants to prosper can't just have maniacs going around killing or discriminating against people they simply don't like. That's how wars and genocides start.

You know, villains do not want to go to jail either.
I myself are much happier when the state , which represents me too ,wields power, rather than the criminals who only represent themselves

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm talking about preventing fascist murders from going out and killing those they don't like, or stopping employers from unjustly firing people because of things that have nothing to do with business, or protecting people from being jailed for their personal opinions or who they voted for. Do you think it's all right for any of those things to happen, because it's all related to human rights.

First - wrong - you need no human rights for that ,because it is already against collective good. To the more, the human rights will prevent you effectively dealing with those fascist murderers.

Second - again - i myself think that private enterprise is bad, so the question becomes moot, but i still maintain it is thick favouritism to protect people from getting fired for certain such reasons but not of others

third - look at number one - sometimes it is best to prevent certain opinions, as they are harmful

Bullshit. Anyone who wants a fair, free society knows that freedom of speech is the the greatest way to perpetuate such a society. Violently censoring opinions leads directly to tyranny.

Yes, I agree 100%, it is good that we never banned the National-Socialist German Workers Party...

[Old Erisia]

Also, despite the rules of this board, I don't think people should complain when they are attacked in discussion. Nothing gives you a right to not be insulted in debate, even if insults do not contribute to a logical argument.

[Volnotov]

Also, despite the rules of this board, I don't think people should complain when they are attacked in discussion. Nothing gives you a right to not be insulted in debate, even if insults do not contribute to a logical argument.

I prefere to keep on topic and keep personal insults to my self.

I thought this discussion was about human rights and not wheter I am or am not a fascist jerk.

[Central Slavia]

There is absolutely nothing novel about the fact that human rights were created by humans, not created by unshakable laws of physics or reality.

However, this doesn't mean they aren't incredibly important! My only suggestion is, to any of the above who have talked about "the greater good" or other such horse manure as an excuse for trampling human rights, why don't you closely examine all of the places on Earth that have followed that path! And why don't you move to some of the ones that still do! No doubt the DPRK would adore to have some smarmy spotty westen teenagers immigrate, it would make great propaganda for one thing! But you wait till you find the cold reality of living without basic human rights, then perhaps you won't be such arrogant offencive little airbags. Because it was those attitudes against the indivudal on behalf of the "collective" that oversaw the Holocaust, not to mention death and destruction in Soviet Russia. And if you'd lived there you would value human rights, and understand that society is never ever "advanced" in any meaningful way by destroying those rights.
(Half arsed pseudointellectual bullshit cropped)

I for one will say that the problem with DPRK is mainly that it is dirt-poor - there just is not enough to go for everyone. But then i would also hate to live in the USA especially in some of the poor areas that have huge crime and unemployment, and would ostensively prefer China to South Africa, for much the same reason.
The Holocaust , much like your post (i can do such comparisons too) was fuelled by half-arsed social pseudotheories , not to mention if you lived in the Imperial Russia you would view the late Soviet Union as a worker paradise - Oh, not even that - it is enough to come from some poorer area who the rich screwed over when they robbed the means of production from the state! If you did not notice the communist party of RF is the second most popular after Putin's

[Ravea]

Do you want do go to jail? Any society that wants to prosper can't just have maniacs going around killing or discriminating against people they simply don't like. That's how wars and genocides start.

You know, villains do not want to go to jail either.
I myself are much happier when the state , which represents me too ,wields power, rather than the criminals who only represent themselves

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm talking about preventing fascist murders from going out and killing those they don't like, or stopping employers from unjustly firing people because of things that have nothing to do with business, or protecting people from being jailed for their personal opinions or who they voted for. Do you think it's all right for any of those things to happen, because it's all related to human rights.

First - wrong - you need no human rights for that ,because it is already against collective good. To the more, the human rights will prevent you effectively dealing with those fascist murderers.

Second - again - i myself think that private enterprise is bad, so the question becomes moot, but i still maintain it is thick favouritism to protect people from getting fired for certain such reasons but not of others

third - look at number one - sometimes it is best to prevent certain opinions, as they are harmful

Bullshit. Anyone who wants a fair, free society knows that freedom of speech is the the greatest way to perpetuate such a society. Violently censoring opinions leads directly to tyranny.

Yes, I agree 100%, it is good that we never banned the National-Socialist German Workers Party...

The American Nazi Party is a completely legitimate political party in the United States.