The one who may not have gotten his seat at all if it wasn’t for progress, blasts progress.
Clarence “Steven Candie” Thomas, raper of Anita Hill…
The one who may not have gotten his seat at all if it wasn’t for progress, blasts progress.
Clarence “Steven Candie” Thomas, raper of Anita Hill…
I don’t see any material difference between divine rights and “natural” rights. Both seem to be supernatural or metaphysical, to me, so I don’t think it matters if you believe that these rights come from a god or something else. Either way they are meaningless without some means of enforcement.
You can certainly say that you have rights and that those rights emanate from some inherent part of your human being, but without a means of enforcement, it’s immaterial.
It’s not supernatural, it’s philosophical.
And it’s the foundation for most, if not all, liberal democracies.
What’s the difference?
I’m aware. That doesn’t mean it’s above reproach or critical examination/reexamination.
Philosophy can be tested, it is an evolving system of methods used to think.
The supernatural is a set of (false) claims about reality. Bigfoot exists and magic god says we should do stuff.
Like, through repeatable experimentation and observation and study of natural phenomena?
Some branches of philosophy, yes. I think that your best defense would be to claim that there are metaphysical aspects of philosophy. We use metaphysics as a shortcut, even in pholosophy. I am a materialist, so I dont really think that anything can be “immaterial” or “metaphysical”. Anything we have identified as immaterial has just not been adequately defined.
Ok, look, I’m really not interested in getting into these weeds. My point was just that human rights, whether one believes they are divinely given or inherent to some part of our being, are, for all practical purposes, useless without some means of enforcement. Do you dispute that?
Nope, not really. From my perspective, whether they came from a deity or from this place of “they just exist”, humans made them up. Human rights can be more accurately defined as: A bunch of apes have the ability to perceive fairness and are intelligent enough to use language collectively decided that fairness should be the rule. The collective will punish those who break the rules.
Are you serious? Honestly, you’re not worth talking to if you have to ask that.
So basically you can’t come up with a response to this person and insulted them instead? You people are no better than redditors, what a fucking joke
Just like the divine right of kings was the foundation of most if not all medieval monarchies. You’re really not defending your case here.