CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Can your RIGHTS be voted OUT??
Hello:
My
right wing friend posts a debate about CENSORSHIP, and CENSORED me from
participating in it.. But, I wanna argue with him. So if I can't do it there, I'll do it here..
In terms of religious freedom, I explained to him that our
rights CANNOT be voted IN or OUT.. He doesn't believe me.. It seems that's CENTRAL to the debate about religious freedom.. Maybe
others of you don't believe that either, so let's debate it..
Rights are the moral framework on which our laws and government are built. Meaning that people can infringe on your rights, but they are morally incorrect to do so.
This is why most people know that the way Kim Jung Un treats his people is wrong. They have the same natural rights as you and I, and he is stepping all over them. They haven't lost those rights in principle, but neither can they defend them.
So, in light of how you are explaining these rights that supposedly exist whether or not they are legislated, I would counter that unless rights are viewed as being by nature fragile then folks might assume they dont need to vigilantly protect them. In my view, rights are not like natural laws that exist whether we honor them or not. They are based entirely on what we value the most or hold sacred.
Correct. Rights are a moral concept, and is based on morality conceived as being objectively true. If someone murders you, they have taken your life. They haven't taken your Right to life, just your life, which is why they are wrong. If someone steals your property, they haven't taken your Right to said property.
We attempt to uphold and defend our rights with our laws. The idea being that rights will be more objectively and generally defended with a standardized response to a moral breach, and a standard for what truly constitutes a breach.
Removing the law would still leave you morally correct in defending your life. Your Right to Life remains, though your life itself may be in greater peril.
Rights are a moral concept granted͵ and is based on morality conceived as being objectively true.
Some of us dont tbink of our standards of morality as objectively true, but rather the best we're currently able to employ, given our limited ability to predict consequences.
If someone murders you, they have taken your life. They haven't taken your Right to life, just your life,
These rights that I supposedly still have after being murdered, will they really be my rights, or merely the assumed obligations/responsibilities of others who might respect what my wishes were?
If someone steals your property, they haven't taken your Right to said property
Agreed. UNLIKE with murder, in cases of theft, recompensation (serving justice) is possible .
You are right that death does change the situation. But I think I have sufficiently explained my understanding of Natural Rights VS Statutory Rights, have I not?
I think you need to be more clear about the dispute.
Statutory rights are rights you have merely by virtue of the laws written, such as rights provided by the form of due process. Statutory rights can be changed or even eliminated.
Natural rights cannot, in principle, be abolished by law even if the law says they are abolished. This is because natural rights are the principles upon which laws are made. They are antecedent to the laws, so that even if they are statutorily removed, you have moral high ground. Legal does not necessarily mean moral, nor vice verse.
I don't know how this applies to the argument that sparked this debate, but I hope it helps.
Yeah, I could do a better job.. I'm not talking about statutes and/or amending the Constitution.. I'm talking about the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Nonetheless, in the body of my question, I did refer to religious freedom, and it's that freedom that I suggest CANNOT be voted out..
You said you aren't talking about amending the Constitution. But an amendment would require a vote and the Bill of Rights are all amendments. Which means the Bill of Rights could theoretically be amended out by vote. But ones relationship with his creator is his to have. It's a natural right. So even if it isn't protected by paper, you still have it.
That reminds me, you're strange for a "think therefore am" dualist claiming that one can not exist beyond perception without language.
I didn't even have to use linguistics for such an obvious contradiction, though I missed it there. You were probably too annoying for me to notice that - a well played (but poorly thought) decoy if intentional.
There is no contradiction in recognizing that language is constituted by conceptualization, which is a more complex form of thought than perception, and that the qualia of either cannot be considered in the same respect as strictly material phenomenon.
Nor does my moral philosophy conflict with (let alone contradict) my metaphisical philosophy.
Your inability to recognize, and then to answer, my rhetorical question says more about your intelligence than mine.
I opologize for bringing up such personal matters as your relationship with your parents as it concerns your handicap. I'm sure it's a sensitive issue.
opologize for bringing up such personal matters as your relationship with your parents as it concerns your handicap. I'm sure it's a sensitive issue.
Write your apologies on a page and burn it - I don't care so much about your ravings for them to mean anything to me.
Your inability to recognize, and then to answer, my rhetorical question says more about your intelligence than mine.
It says about both of our intelligences - that you couldn't see it through yourself while I could, and it was pretty basic. Now guess what that tells by yourself - holding you by finger this much to reason has been boring enough already.
language is constituted by conceptualization,
Surprising. Because that's the opposite of what you claimed as your "common sense facts". I made this claim that you rejected by saying some random generic lines.
form of thought than perception
So suddenly you begin to claim that perception is thinking?
There isn't an internal contradiction between those two claims, though, but since I'd rather not explain it to you right now why I called a "contradiction", let's just say that it's absurd for its conclusions beginning with, those without a language don't exist.
You don't quite grasp sarcasm, and you don't know the meaning of "rhetorical". That's ok.
If you are going to quote someone, you need to put something the person actually said. "Common sense facts" isn't my usual language. If you provide the link to where you read this (or post comments in relevant debates), I can probably reduce your confusion. At least on this matter.
I never would have claimed that a creature that lacks language doesn't exist. However, I'm not surprised that you would resort to attacking positions I don't actually hold since you are regularly unsuccessful with the positions I do actually hold.
I may have claimed that a creature that doesn't conceptualize must have strictly perceptual thought processes. And yes, perception is a thought process. It is conscious qualia. You don't feel pain unless your brain processes it.
You don't quite grasp sarcasm, and you don't know the meaning of "rhetorical". That's ok.
Your attempt failed, because you expected me to play along with something only one as irrational as yourself would try.
"Common sense facts" isn't my usual language.
Yes, it isn't. That's a punctuation error - they shouldn't have been interpreted as quotation marks.
I may have claimed that a creature that doesn't conceptualize must have strictly perceptual thought processes. And yes, perception is a thought process. It is conscious qualia. You don't feel pain unless your brain processes it.
And language somehow unbinds your soul? Interesting.
Your attempt failed, because you expected me to play along with something only one as irrational as yourself would try
Yeah? You mean I challenged you to explain yourself and then I pretended to apologize in order to levy an insult?
And language somehow unbinds your soul?
This is a stupid response. Why don’t you try to state a position? Or at least try to challenge what I have actually said. Is that to risky for your fragile faux intellectual ego?
You mean I challenged you to explain yourself and then I pretended to apologize in order to levy an insult?
That's obvious, but not what I mean. I mean that the attempt to do so was terrible, and anyone smarter than you could easily deflect it.
Why don’t you try to state a position?
That yours is inconsistent. Why don't I? Because I expected that to be apparent already.
Or at least try to challenge what I have actually said.
I don't have to challenge it. Perhaps you don't understand what something being inconsistent means. It's a pity, for I explained it to you just about yesterday.
I mean that the attempt to do so was terrible, and anyone smarter than you could easily deflect it.
Easily deflect a challenge to explain yourself? You mean by failing to explain yourself.
That yours is inconsistent. Why don't I? Because I expected that to be apparent already.
Ok, I'm going to adopt your method for a moment, just to illustrate your tactic:
Your position is Fascist. If you want me to tell you how your position is Fascist, that's because you're an idiot. The reason your position is Fascist is so obvious that a child could grasp it. But you’re too stupid to understand when you are being Fascist. This explanation is sufficient because of Zeno’s Arrow Paradox.
Easily deflect a challenge to explain yourself? You mean by failing to explain yourself.
Explain myself? What I said there is a valid response to your question, and if you can't understand the specifics, then you can believe about it whatever you want to. I've said that already, and rephrasing same things isn't an enjoyable exercise. Perhaps you could read more carefully.
Your position is Fascist. If you want me to tell you how your position is Fascist, that's because you're an idiot. The reason your position is Fascist is so obvious that a child could grasp it. But you’re too stupid to understand when you are being Fascist. This explanation is sufficient because of Zeno’s Arrow Paradox.
Explain myself? What I said there is a valid response to your question, and if you can't understand the specifics
You don't deal in specifics Jatin. You said that my claim that language is necessary for humans to think conceptually contradicts my assertion that one cannot think without also existing. When I said where is the contradiction (a challenge for an explanation) you said “Hmm... Seems like you might have to work harder to see it... That's pitiful.”
You misrepresent my position, assert that my position is X, refuse to defend the assertion that my position is X, and declare my lack of intelligence for requiring you defend your accusation.
my claim that language is necessary for humans to think conceptually contradicts my assertion that one cannot think without also existing.
Yes, and that's right.
When I said where is the contradiction (a challenge for an explanation) you said “Hmm... Seems like you might have to work harder to see it... That's pitiful.”
And I presented a question that can easily lead to it. A traditional contradiction only if we add the implicit "Those without language can exist" and "Language does not unbind the soul in any way", things that I could easily deduce you to believe.
That question, you conveniently ignored.
Is thinking an abstract activity?
I can translate specific qualias to their material states, but their classes mean nothing to me by themselves. So you used ungranted assumptions to avoid the question.
So you used ungranted assumptions to avoid the question.
The question "Is thinking an abstract activity?" was not asked until now.
"Those without language can exist" and "Language does not unbind the soul in any way", things that I could easily deduce you to believe.
Yes, those without language can exist. Furthermore, they can know it (though not necessarily explicitly). The other statement "Language does not unbind the soul in any way" seems completely unrelated to anything I have been discussing thus far. Probably just one more misinterpretation on your part.
The question "Is thinking an abstract activity?" was not asked until now.
There's a reason I ask you to read things more carefully. It wasn't even in a different wording.
The other statement "Language does not unbind the soul in any way" seems completely unrelated to anything I have been discussing thus far. Probably just one more misinterpretation on your part.
I was the one who asked it, and you replied by saying that it's stupid to even consider.
Many irrational people can not play with reason with me, so I can give you the benefit of doubt in that you couldn't even remotely grasp it before I explained how you're trapped in your contradictions. Not a high ground, but the best you can hope for.
Many irrational people can not play with reason with me, so I can give you the benefit of doubt in that you couldn't even remotely grasp it before I explained how you're trapped in your contradictions. Not a high ground, but the best you can hope for.
Always more faux intelligence from you. I do not have contradictions composed of your fallacious interpretations. Your fallacious interpretations create contradictions in your understanding. I expect that's why you failed to address any of the substance of the posts you respond to.
I know you can't drop the act, but no one is buying it.
I wonder... If you're so keen on denying the benefit of doubt, then what about explaining your position by yourself instead of tracking off? Something you couldn't even consider doing.
Ah, don't reply to this if your claims can't be related to what I have said. If you need validation, then you probably won't get that from me.
However, you can have the last word here if you want - just make it irrelevant and irrational enough, and I won't reply. (Though that shouldn't be hard for you.)
Before you so graciously give me the last word, would you be up to responding to my post on our other argument? The one where I once again articulate your errors while you articulate nothing of substance? You can decline a response, that would be par for the course. I'll repost it here just in case you are ignoring it there:
Then what about your existence itself? I didn't find any direct claims about it
In the relevant debate from long ago, I claimed that I am certain that I exist because I have experiences. That the existence of ones experience, once had (or while having), cannot be doubted. That which is impossible to doubt must be certain. If I never made a statement about my existence, it is this, that I am certain that I exist.
What I've found as the answer amounts to, "If you don't think in qualia, then you don't exist."
This is a simple fallacy of denying the antecedent. It is true that if you experience, then you exist. But it you cannot derive from that statement that if you do not experience, then you do not exist. I don’t have reason to believe that rocks experience, but they do exist.
Since thoughts and experiences are concepts, and you claim the qualia of concepts to be formed of language, anyone who doesn't know language doesn't exist
Experience is not necessarily a concept, though to have a concept is to experience it. We do use language to conceptualize, but this does not imply that experiencing life in a non-linguistic or non-conceptual way (such as a worm perhaps) eliminates you from the realm of existence. You are applying the same logical fallacy.
but you gave away by saying that even though concepts are a higher stage than perception, language does not unbind the soul in any way.
Go ahead and quote where I talk about a soul at all. That was something you came up with.
Perceptions are the raw information of our senses. They provide basic singular information. Concepts are more complex organizations of information.
Your supposition of my contradiction is based on a logical fallacy in your own interpretation, rather than on the substance of my position.
You can disregard this if you like. It is continueing elsewhere.
Actually, through the voting process Constitutional Amendments can be added or rendered defunct, which means yes through the voting process your rights can be voted out.
I tend to have a little more faith in my fellow citizens than to think they would stand by and passively watch their rights be rendered meaningless via mere vote. I believe (hopefully I'm not being too naive) that to take our rights away it would require violence and brute force.
