Topic: There are no such things as "rights"
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #51,980
...they are all fictions created by lefties, liberals & SJWs. Subsequently, MC is under no obligation to offer so-called "rights" to any of its users (such as the right of "free speech"). That is all. Thanks.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 51 seconds later[^] [v] #675,532
This is the dumbest thread I've read in a while thanks!
buttons joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,541
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 31 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,542
@675,532 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But you agree that MC is under no obligation to offer free speech or any other so-called "right" to its userbase. Thanks.
But you agree that MC is under no obligation to offer free speech or any other so-called "right" to its userbase. Thanks.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 10 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,544
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,549
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,552
@previous (A)
I read that as "I clicked the link without even thinking, and now I feel like I've made quite the fool of myself". Thanks.
I read that as "I clicked the link without even thinking, and now I feel like I've made quite the fool of myself". Thanks.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,567
Fuck you. I have several pictures of Neon Katt.Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 50 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,568
@675,552 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Rights do not exist on this board. Both R0ar and Fake Anon have confirmed this. Thanks.
Rights do not exist on this board. Both R0ar and Fake Anon have confirmed this. Thanks.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,571
@previous (A)
If rights do not exist on this fora, then neither ro4r nor Fake Anon has the right to say that rights do not exist here. Thanks.
If rights do not exist on this fora, then neither ro4r nor Fake Anon has the right to say that rights do not exist here. Thanks.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,575
@675,568 (A)
Perhaps OP might be more pleased with Wrongs?
Wrongs are everywhere and this is to be expected. Its the nature of Humans to be in a world of wrongs. Rights ends up an accident and should not be expected.
We as humans learn to work with all the wrongs and end up right.
Perhaps OP might be more pleased with Wrongs?
Wrongs are everywhere and this is to be expected. Its the nature of Humans to be in a world of wrongs. Rights ends up an accident and should not be expected.
We as humans learn to work with all the wrongs and end up right.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 33 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,578
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,582
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 32 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,583
@675,575 (F)
To clarify, I am using the following definition:
"A just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral. For example:
You have a right to say what you please."
This kind of right does not actually exist.
To clarify, I am using the following definition:
"A just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral. For example:
You have a right to say what you please."
This kind of right does not actually exist.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,586
@675,582 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Can we amend the premise to the effect that R04r & Fake Anon have the discretion to deny rights to the userbase by virtue of their administrative position on the board?
Can we amend the premise to the effect that R04r & Fake Anon have the discretion to deny rights to the userbase by virtue of their administrative position on the board?
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,590
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,592
@675,583 (A)
You cannot cry fire in a theater for lulz.
MC. Shtick after a while is not tolerated. The body of MC membership does not complain when mods kill shtick. Spam is not allowed on just about any board I use for play.
I think the mods do a terrific job and on rare occasions I see something pulled. Now yes on occasion a mod displays momentary ethics that suck, however I right that off to drinking to much.
And do you have a clue how many places there are to play in the net? Its a number that might shock you. In your lifetime multiplied by 100,000 you will never be able to check all of them out.
You cannot cry fire in a theater for lulz.
MC. Shtick after a while is not tolerated. The body of MC membership does not complain when mods kill shtick. Spam is not allowed on just about any board I use for play.
I think the mods do a terrific job and on rare occasions I see something pulled. Now yes on occasion a mod displays momentary ethics that suck, however I right that off to drinking to much.
And do you have a clue how many places there are to play in the net? Its a number that might shock you. In your lifetime multiplied by 100,000 you will never be able to check all of them out.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #675,608
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #675,622
@675,542 (A)
No. We can take away his ability to post here. Rights to speech etc. are more bigger than that.
No. We can take away his ability to post here. Rights to speech etc. are more bigger than that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,676
@675,590 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
We may have no rights, but we can still do it if we choose. Thanks.
We may have no rights, but we can still do it if we choose. Thanks.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,677
@675,622 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
So, you believe that rights actually exist, but that you can deny those rights on this board if you so choose?
So, you believe that rights actually exist, but that you can deny those rights on this board if you so choose?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 53 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,678
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,679
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
He could have said something like, "I see you like to play monopoly. I like to drink whole bottles of Apple juice, then take a watery shit, and drag me arse across me rug. I hope Santa has a good time at the senior prom."
That's pretty far off.
He could have said something like, "I see you like to play monopoly. I like to drink whole bottles of Apple juice, then take a watery shit, and drag me arse across me rug. I hope Santa has a good time at the senior prom."
That's pretty far off.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,680
Anonymous G replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,681
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well it's not like your point is without validity. I was just saying.
Well it's not like your point is without validity. I was just saying.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,682
@previous (G)
No I know. Sometimes I think @OP is a mora, and other times I think they are just trolling me gently. It is unfortunately impossible for me to tell which possibility is true. :(
No I know. Sometimes I think @OP is a mora, and other times I think they are just trolling me gently. It is unfortunately impossible for me to tell which possibility is true. :(
Anonymous G replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,685
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,692
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,694
@previous (A)
I'm not sure. Natural rights theory is quite dead. Some say there are "duties" owed to other people. I think it's a useful and convenient way of grouping together certain things that governments should not infringe on, but I don't know if they are things humans "have".
I'm not sure. Natural rights theory is quite dead. Some say there are "duties" owed to other people. I think it's a useful and convenient way of grouping together certain things that governments should not infringe on, but I don't know if they are things humans "have".
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,705
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Would you go as far as to say that "rights" are culturally relative constructs, having no reality beyond the society that creates them?
Would you go as far as to say that "rights" are culturally relative constructs, having no reality beyond the society that creates them?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,714
@previous (A)
No. I'm ambivalent on their existence, but I think if they exist, they apply to all sapient life, and if they don't, they are a useful fiction that applies to all sapient life. There is no possibility in which they only apply some of the time to some people.
No. I'm ambivalent on their existence, but I think if they exist, they apply to all sapient life, and if they don't, they are a useful fiction that applies to all sapient life. There is no possibility in which they only apply some of the time to some people.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,719
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
In general, do you try to respect the "commonly accepted rights" of others in real life (despite your ambivalence)?
In general, do you try to respect the "commonly accepted rights" of others in real life (despite your ambivalence)?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,725
@previous (A)
Yes of course! But short of committing crimes, it is hard for me personally to deny someone any of their rights.
Yes of course! But short of committing crimes, it is hard for me personally to deny someone any of their rights.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,743
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Serious question; why bother respecting other people's rights if you aren't sure whether they're "a useful fiction" or an objective reality?
Serious question; why bother respecting other people's rights if you aren't sure whether they're "a useful fiction" or an objective reality?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 44 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,787
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,792
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,841
@OP
I was thinking about this earlier today in a different context and I realized constitutions are just a promise on paper. They are only as good as the people in government. You're always seeing people (especially libertarians) saying "if we could just restore the Constitution!" but it doesn't matter. The Constitution is no different than the dollar. If you look at Haiti for example, they have a great constitution. Freedom of speech, religion, represenative democracy, due process, the whole nine yards. The country is still a hellhole.
It should be no surprise that the dollar and Constitution are weakening at more or less the same rate these past couple centuries.
I was thinking about this earlier today in a different context and I realized constitutions are just a promise on paper. They are only as good as the people in government. You're always seeing people (especially libertarians) saying "if we could just restore the Constitution!" but it doesn't matter. The Constitution is no different than the dollar. If you look at Haiti for example, they have a great constitution. Freedom of speech, religion, represenative democracy, due process, the whole nine yards. The country is still a hellhole.
It should be no surprise that the dollar and Constitution are weakening at more or less the same rate these past couple centuries.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,850
beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,859
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 29 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #675,863
@previous (beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY)
Ugh I couldn't decide between "more than that" and "bigger than that" so I guess I went with both like a fucking retard. Thanks.
Ugh I couldn't decide between "more than that" and "bigger than that" so I guess I went with both like a fucking retard. Thanks.
