Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

ManWithAPlan · 08-20-2009, 05:58 PM

Zeraph. It's a good thought, but I agree with post #3 - where are you going with this? It seems like you need to draw some sort of conclusion.

A right is a convention, like you say, but that doesn't make it less true. Our world, our lives, are a game played by consensus rules. You play Monopoly - Couldn't you just punch everyone and take the money? You could, but you agree to different rules. So you play, behaving in the way which was agreed upon. Real life is no different; saying that rights only exist because we allow them to does not change the fact.

This is not a false appeal to authority, if you're trying to draw us a logical fallacy, but a legitimate one.

Your argument seems only to extend so far as to suggest that the rights are arbitrary, which links into the subjects of Justice, and Piety. If this interests you I might recommend you read Plato's Socratic dialogs: Euthyphro, Protagoras, and Republic I-III (i think it's I-III)

Also, I should like to point out that you seem to be confused about the concept of inalienable. Obviously, we can do lots of "bad" things to people. Inalienable means that this is the set of rights which the founders specified the constitution/government/police shall not ever violate.

08-20-2009, 05:58 PM	#26 (permalink)
ManWithAPlan Addict Location: M[ass]achusetts	Zeraph. It's a good thought, but I agree with post #3 - where are you going with this? It seems like you need to draw some sort of conclusion. A right is a convention, like you say, but that doesn't make it less true. Our world, our lives, are a game played by consensus rules. You play Monopoly - Couldn't you just punch everyone and take the money? You could, but you agree to different rules. So you play, behaving in the way which was agreed upon. Real life is no different; saying that rights only exist because we allow them to does not change the fact. This is not a false appeal to authority, if you're trying to draw us a logical fallacy, but a legitimate one. Your argument seems only to extend so far as to suggest that the rights are arbitrary, which links into the subjects of Justice, and Piety. If this interests you I might recommend you read Plato's Socratic dialogs: Euthyphro, Protagoras, and Republic I-III (i think it's I-III) Also, I should like to point out that you seem to be confused about the concept of inalienable. Obviously, we can do lots of "bad" things to people. Inalienable means that this is the set of rights which the founders specified the constitution/government/police shall not ever violate. __________________ In the end we are but wisps Last edited by ManWithAPlan; 08-20-2009 at 06:00 PM..