Message from @Hexidecimark
Discord ID: 603622861483016192
what Idea do we not agree about?
....ughhhhh....
I'm leavin it at that
name it
let it b the last thing u say
what basic philosophical idea, relevant to the issue of rights, don;t we agree about
That the only thing that should "change a right" is our own inability gauge what is correct
That's all I'm gonna say
zealot now thats a word i've not heard in a while
We cannot "agree" about that, because I disagree about weather rights are a good idea. You are assuming your own position to be mine and getting frustrated when it turns out it isn't...
seems pretty apt for some people on the far left
i know i know the right too <:Killme:447578244540268559>
Far left big gay
Chad right-libertarians reign supremeeeeeee
We disagree about the mechanics of your concept... That is literally the base point of the discussion. OFC we disagree about it...
I'm telling u the concept is wrongheaded in that it obfuscates the real value system behind it and claims universality while obviously rejecting it, and u get mad at me because I don't think it should be used...
And you seem to default to tradition as a justification for it
Tradition is an internally *coherent* justification for God, not for a rationalist philosophical concept.
Why is the value system behind a right important if the right itself is beneficial
The entire point is the utility of controlling a governing body's actions by directly setting its scope
This requires no religious component unless you assume people saying 'this seems right based on what we know' is somehow religious in nature
because weather it is beneficial or not is defined by the value system
*whether
that is what you gage the effect of the right by
"beneficial" means: good as far as my value system is concerned
Okay, so then you would naturally still gain from rights, but the rights would be different
what?
gain what?
Scope creep is bad
I'm not following at all
You do not want scope creep
So you limit the scope
scope of wat?
You will either use rights or an analogous system to accomplish this
scope of governmental bodies
if by analogous you mean something like "laws" then yes
the difference is that laws don;t make some claim to universality
Yeet
rights are a decalogue that is mutable
Mental gymnastics cancer
meaning it's not a decalogue
Then consider them laws for government