Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[Imran Siddiqui]

First you say that your opinion is meaningful, then you say that it is meaningless. So which is it?

Depends on which way you look at it. Equality of meaning is the same as equality of meaningless, because it simply does not matter which you pick.

What does 2+2 equal? What is the conjuntion of True and False? Who was the first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS? To two significant figures, how many centimeters are in an inch? Who is the better basketball player -- Michael Jordan, or a can of beer?

It depends on which version of truth you believe in.

that isn't debate, it's mental masturbation.

Thank you for defining debate in two words . It has no other purpose other than what you have called it. To resolve unreasolved issues, suuure. But of course plenty of people enjoy that.

Unless you've come on this site to change the world?! You are merely championing the 'right' view by starting on the forum and then the world, right?

Finally, it is possible to debate an issue that one believes cannot be resolved

However, it is not possible to debate an issue while at the same time categorically denying the possibility that the issue is resolveable

So which is it? Possible or impossible to debate an issue one believes cannot be resolved?

And why not? Many people come here to debate issues such as is there a God or not, which just about all the people on those threads believe cannot be resolved.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It depends on which version of truth you believe in.

Please explain what version of truth would hold that 2+2 does not equal 4, that the conjunction of True and False is not False, that Marshall was not the first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, that there are not approximately 2.54 centimeters in an inch, and that a can of beer is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

Thank you for defining debate in two words . It has no other purpose other than what you have called it. To resolve unreasolved issues, suuure. But of course plenty of people enjoy that.

Even if you do believe that debate serves no purpose except as a form of entertainment, you could at least try to make it entertaining for the rest of us. GianFez was never much fun to debate with because he was nothing more than a broken record. Try to set your aspirations a little higher, Imran.

Unless you've come on this site to change the world?! You are merely championing the 'right' view by starting on the forum and then the world, right?

Rather than presume that my opinions and beliefs do not require any improvement (by either assuming that they're perfect or by assuming that they're just as good as everybody else's, which are really the same assumption), I try to examine my opinions and beliefs in order to better them and so better myself. It's helpful to have others challenge them, since in this way I gain a perspective that is different from my own. I am fully aware that I'm not going to change the world by debating on an online forum, but that doesn't mean that I cannot improve myself in the process. And if somebody else has the same goal in mind then I'll gladly reciprocate.

It is cowardice and negligence to run away from confronting the flaws in one's belief system, particularly when said flaws have the potential of harming oneself or others.

Finally, it is possible to debate an issue that one believes cannot be resolved

However, it is not possible to debate an issue while at the same time categorically denying the possibility that the issue is resolveable

So which is it? Possible or impossible to debate an issue one believes cannot be resolved?

Did you somehow fail to notice the first quote? Do you not understand the difference between believing something and categorically denying something? Please explain your confusion, so that I may better explain myself.

And why not? Many people come here to debate issues such as is there a God or not, which just about all the people on those threads believe cannot be resolved.

Again, did you fail to understand the difference between believing something and categorically denying something? There is a difference between saying "I believe X and you believe Y, and it is unlikely that we are going to resolve our differences," and saying "I believe X and you believe Y, and I declare (without any justification for doing so) that there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that we are going to resolve our differences."

BTW, you still haven't addressed the fact that you're contradicting yourself by using language while at the same time claiming that language is meaningless. Have you decided to finally drop the pretense that you're debating? Or was my question too subjective?

[Berzerker]

Boris -

Such as?

In nature, might makes right.

Natural rights are moral claims, i.e., involving human interaction.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please explain what version of truth would hold that 2+2 does not equal 4, that the conjunction of True and False is not False, that Marshall was not the first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, that there are not approximately 2.54 centimeters in an inch, and that a can of beer is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

Btw, according to US history textbooks, John Jay is the first CJ of the US.

The truth is different for different people. If you were relying on societal truth, you would be correct, but not if you are asking individual truths. Individuals believe different things are true, and I'm not going to say my belief in what is true is better than anyone else's. Maybe the person that states that 2+2=5, even though we call him 'crazy' is really correct.

Unless we are God, we cannot say one truth wins out.

Did you somehow fail to notice the first quote? Do you not understand the difference between believing something and categorically denying something? Please explain your confusion, so that I may better explain myself.

In the end they are the same. Not believing that the difference will be resolved and catagorically denying resolving of difference will lead to the same place. They are exactly the same.

BTW, you still haven't addressed the fact that you're contradicting yourself by using language while at the same time claiming that language is meaningless.

I already have, implicitly, by saying we do many things that are meaningless, such as posting on this board... or watching TV.

[SnowFire]

Imran, I think loin has covered most of the straight debate tactics. I'll be simpler. You say that according to this philosophy, coin-flipping is about as good as how you actually choose your actions. And yet, you do choose your actions, and I don't think you'd ever seriously consider switching to a randomized method of decision making. This is a contradiction; it implies that something's gone wrong in your previous deductions, just as if you get 1=2 at the end of a proof, you can tell you either had a false assumption or made a mistake in your proof. So perhaps you should consider more carefully whether you really want to hold a philosophy that is contradictory to your current, "sensible" actions?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You say that according to this philosophy, coin-flipping is about as good as how you actually choose your actions. And yet, you do choose your actions

I said, the way we 'choose' our actions are just as good as coin flipping. How do I know I've chosen my actions? Do I have free will, is it predetermined, what?

What is to say my 'choices' are not merely a randomized method of decision making, that over time SEEM to make up a pattern? All randomize patterns seem to form patterns over a while.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The truth is different for different people.

So merely believing something to be true will cause that thing to be true? Fine, then I believe that you don't exist. I hope you enjoy Oblivion...

Maybe the person that states that 2+2=5, even though we call him 'crazy' is really correct.

For pity's sake. This one's getting filed in the book of "bloody stupid arguments," right under my new all-time favorite, "all opinions are meaningless, including this one." You take reductio ad absurdum to a whole new level.

In the end they are the same. Not believing that the difference will be resolved and catagorically denying resolving of difference will lead to the same place. They are exactly the same.

This entire "debate" bears a striking resemblance to the Monty Python "Argument" sketch.
loin: I came here to have an argument! This isn't an argument -- you're just senselessly contradicting me!
Imran: No I'm not.
loin: Yes you are! See, you just did it again!
Imran: No I didn't.

I already have, implicitly, by saying we do many things that are meaningless, such as posting on this board... or watching TV.

So do you have a monkey type out all of your responses for you? Or do you just bang at the keyboard while your eyes are closed, since anything you post is going to be nonsensical gibberish anyway? Though I must say, for somebody who puts absolutely zero thought into what he writes, you do adhere to the English syntactic structure amazingly well. Your monkey deserves a banana.

What is to say my 'choices' are not merely a randomized method of decision making, that over time SEEM to make up a pattern?

What is to say that they are random choices? Stating that something is possible by no stretch of the imagination constitutes a proof, or even a reasoned justification.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So merely believing something to be true will cause that thing to be true? Fine, then I believe that you don't exist. I hope you enjoy Oblivion...

To you, yes (society may disagree). For further elucidation read "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietszche. Another example is in the movie "A Beautiful Mind" (if you've seen it), when Nash believes his imaginative figments to be real, to be the truth, when everyone else would consider them to be not real, or false. The truth depends, always depends.

What is to say that they are random choices?

Exactly.

Btw, what is the justification for 2+2 = 4? Humanity made up those concepts of numbers, math, etc, and can easily take them away at any time.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
To you, yes (society may disagree).

How can you still be posting? You don't exist, dammit! Did your monkey escape?

Another example is in the movie "A Beautiful Mind" (if you've seen it), when Nash believes his imaginative figments to be real, to be the truth, when everyone else would consider them to be not real, or false.

Nash's hallucinations had no physical manifestation -- if Nash were to die, then they would cease to exist. The same is not true of me -- if you were to cease to exist (or, properly speaking, if your rogue monkey were to stop typing responses, since clearly you don't really exist since I have declared it to be so) then I would not suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke. The same would be the case if your rogue monkey believed that I did not exist -- my existence is objective because your rogue monkey's beliefs or disbeliefs have no effect upon them. The sun shines regardless of whether or not your monkey believes that it is shining, there are approximately 2.54 centimeters in an inch regardless of whether or not your monkey believes it to be so, etc.

What is to say that they are random choices?

Exactly.

Here is where your monkey is supposed to type a response that could be construed as a reasonable justification for your position. I fear that your rogue monkey may be in need of repair. I hope the damage isn't permanent...

Btw, what is the justification for 2+2 = 4?

It's bloody defined that way. The winner of a basketball game is defined to be the team that has scored the most points by the end of the game. The additive identity on the scalar plane is defined to be 0. By definition, there are approximately 2.54 centimeters in an inch.

If language were devoid of objective definitions then communication would be impossible. For example, I would never have noticed that your rogue typist monkey is faulty were it not for the errors that it was making -- there would be no such thing as communication errors if communication were completely meaningless and subjective.

Humanity made up those concepts of numbers, math, etc, and can easily take them away at any time

"Easily take them away"? You make it out as though there is some mystical entity called "Humanity" that gives out presents of fire and mathematics every New Year's (or whenever).

Your rogue monkey continues to communicate, ergo it does not adhere to the belief that communication is meaningless because such a belief is untenable. I'm not even talking about debate at this point, I'm talking about communication -- if language is completely meaningless and subjective, e.g. if your monkey can redefine words on a whim, then communication would be impossible. And yet, here sits your monkey, still beating on the keyboard. Why? Is it having a seizure?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The same is not true of me -- if you were to cease to exist (or, properly speaking, if your rogue monkey were to stop typing responses, since clearly you don't really exist since I have declared it to be so) then I would not suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke.

How do you know? You could be simply a brain in a tank, which if it stops existing disappears from the (for lack of a better term) 'matrix'. How can you prove you even exist?

The sun shines regardless of whether or not your monkey believes that it is shining, there are approximately 2.54 centimeters in an inch regardless of whether or not your monkey believes it to be so, etc.

All of which is what you believe. That's fine, but how can you be sure of its truth? You see it, but couldn't your eyes be playing tricks on you? Couldn't you be living in a bubble, with the entire world merely fantasy? Couldn't this be simply a looong dream?

I'm talking about communication -- if language is completely meaningless and subjective, e.g. if your monkey can redefine words on a whim, then communication would be impossible.

Words are redefined all the time, and plenty of times 'on a whim'. Words we speak today are no how mean the exact same things as these words meant even 1000 years ago. In the span of existance, that is a whim (then again, the definition of 'whim' is subject to what society at that time believes the definition of that word to be).

A common language is decided upon by the society and accepted by most people in arguments. However, you will notice many, many, many fights over what a term REALLY means. Even though it is meaningless, you can still agree on terms to abide by in certain situations.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hubris as this may be, I'd like to think that was me causing me to feel guilty about that.

SnowFire

In one sense it is you, in that your conscience is just as much of a part of you as anything else.

Loinburger

I'd help, but you don't seem to be needing any more help with Imran.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Words are redefined all the time, and plenty of times 'on a whim'.
...
Even though it is meaningless, you can still agree on terms to abide by in certain situations.

For pity's sake, man! If you believe that communication is meaningless, then why are you attempting to communicate? Saying "communication is meaningless" is self-contradictory, because if communication really were meaningless, then you could not communicate this opinion. You're essentially claiming that you are a drooling idiot who is doing nothing more than randomly smashing his fists against a keyboard, incapable of understanding anybody else's opinions and incapable of expressing his own opinions -- rendered deaf and dumb by his categorical inability to communicate.

For the umpteenth time, your position is absurd. Alternatively, you really are a drooling idiot, albeit one who has done a remarkable job of impersonating a communicative human being up to this point in time.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger
You're essentially claiming that you are a drooling idiot who is doing nothing more than randomly smashing his fists against a keyboard

Methinks me likes this imagery...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who says I wouldn't do something meaningless? Who says that most people don't do things that are meaningless? You think most people believe that watching TV is full of meaning?

I personally think that your position that everything you do has meaning is the absurd position.

I may believe that personally communicating allows me to function in this society and thus is relavent. Doesn't mean it has any meaning in anyway.

So people that go into abortion debates KNOWING they won't change anyone's mind, knowing the entire debate is meaningless earns your ire? You, who wishes the change the world for the better by your stunning debates on Poly. Please.

I can see you are so stuffed inside the box, you can't see past your own ass.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Who says I wouldn't do something meaningless? Who says that most people don't do things that are meaningless? You think most people believe that watching TV is full of meaning?

I personally think that your position that everything you do has meaning is the absurd position.

Oh come on, I'm only half-paying attention, and I know he never said that. Just because he says that it's absurd to say nothing has meaning (and he's right) doesn't mean he's saying everything has meaning. Once again you jump to the extreme conclusion about what people say.

If you can't argue his points, don't go making up points to argue on your own!