Is This the New Atheist Website?

[barfo]

Do you have a pet? If so, you think he's intelligent or do you think he won't jump off a 10 story building because he is scared of heights?

Didn't Greg Oden's dog die just that way?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Didn't Greg Oden's dog die just that way?

barfo

His dog was blind.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/5/9/3009738/greg-oden-portland-trail-blazers-interview

"The saddest part for me: his blind dog died when it went through a hotel balcony window and fell several stories to its death."

 

[magnifier661]

Do you have a pet? If so, you think he's intelligent or do you think he won't jump off a 10 story building because he is scared of heights?

How many dogs die from running in front of a car?

 

[barfo]

His dog was blind.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/5/9/3009738/greg-oden-portland-trail-blazers-interview

"The saddest part for me: his blind dog died when it went through a hotel balcony window and fell several stories to its death."

Huh. Don't think I ever knew the blind part.

Seems like he would have gotten it a seeing-eye dog.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

Many people develop a fear of heights later in life. Probably that's true of chocolate too

I've never seen an old Hershey Bar base jump, so it must be.

 

[crowTrobot]

You wouldn't jump off a cliff without a parachute to rocks far below. Because you are born with the fear you'd die if you did so.

This just makes my point. Your examples of liking sex & fear of heights ARE feelings/instincts. Humans are certainly born with such things, as they are (often) born with the instinct that they are entitled to certain rights.

However instinctively FEELING that you have rights, and objectively possessing the intrinsic property of rights are entirely different things. When you stipulate the latter you are actually proposing a metaphysical property independent of any subjective standard of rights. That's a monumental step philosophically.

Admittedly it is one some very smart philosophers do take, but only based on treating such things as morals or rights as Platonically real in the same sense as some do with numbers or mathematical axioms.

 

[crowTrobot]

You have the right to breathe the air.

You mean right, or ability? Does a drowning person have the right to breath air? If he does, why isn't he exercising that right?

 

[Denny Crane]

This just makes my point. Your examples of liking sex & fear of heights ARE feelings/instincts. Humans are certainly born with such things, as they are (often) born with the instinct that they are entitled to certain rights.

However instinctively FEELING that you have rights, and objectively possessing the intrinsic property of rights are entirely different things. When you stipulate the latter you are actually proposing a metaphysical property independent of any subjective standard of rights. That's a monumental step philosophically.

Admittedly it is one some very smart philosophers do take, but only based on treating such things as morals or rights as Platonically real in the same sense as some do with numbers or mathematical axioms.

Those things and chocolate are people pursuing happiness. Whether ther is language to conceptualize it or not.

If you like chocolate, you'll put a piece in your mouth and enjoy it. If there's a 2nd piece you'll pursue happiness by eating that too.

All I was pointing out is you are born with the fear of heights, love of chocolate, fear of loud noises, and to do what makes you happy.

 

[crowTrobot]

After watching a concert, a movie or a rocket taking off, your mind experiences an intense rupture.

 

[barfo]

You mean right, or ability? Does a drowning person have the right to breath air? If he does, why isn't he exercising that right?

God hates drowning people, they make obnoxious gasping noises that displease him. Unless they are drowning in chocolate.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You mean right, or ability? Does a drowning person have the right to breath air? If he does, why isn't he exercising that right?

If you're in water, you have the right to breathe the water.

I think this point is silly on your part.

Nobody or government can tell you to stop breathing. They can kill you which is another thing entirely.

 

[crowTrobot]

All I was pointing out is you are born with the fear of heights, love of chocolate, fear of loud noises, and to do what makes you happy.

Except you are referring to things that are instincts, feelings, abilities, and desires as unalienable rights, which doesn't make sense.

 

[Denny Crane]

Except you are referring to things that are instincts, feelings, abilities, and desires as unalienable rights, which doesn't make sense.

Unalienable right: Life. To breathe. Congress couldn't pass a law against breathing, could it? You're born with it as you are with instincts.

I've already discussed Pursuit of Happiness.

 

[barfo]

Nobody or government can tell you to stop breathing. They can kill you which is another thing entirely.

So, they can't tell you to stop breathing but they can force you to stop breathing.

That's a pretty fine distinction.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

They're not able to force you to stop breathing while simultaneously paying taxes so there's that.

 

[crowTrobot]

Unalienable right: Life. To breathe. Congress couldn't pass a law against breathing, could it?

You mean shouldn't, not couldn't.

You're born with it as you are with instincts.

Unless you are ready to propose Platonic moral realism it's not that simple. Humans are generally speaking born with the desire for life and happiness, so that is what we as a relatively evolved society generally choose to value. However that choice is a subjective one and not something indicative of actual objective/intrinsic rights as a property of humans. Other societies throughout history have chosen differently.

 

[Denny Crane]

It sure seems like the desire for life and happiness is universal. Even in a monarchy, where an evolved society places ownership of every person and thing in the crown, the people breathe and eat chocolate.

The state might pass a law against those rights, but those cannot be taken away even in that case. The people breathe and eat chocolate regardless of the law.

 

[crandc]

I am a lifelong acrophobe. I don't even like stepladders.

My cat is intelligent but has no fear of heights. She evolved to climb trees. We evolved to come down from trees. She also has no fear of darkness since she can see in very little light. Humans, who can't see in the dark, fear it.

 

[crowTrobot]

It sure seems like the desire for life and happiness is universal. Even in a monarchy, where an evolved society places ownership of every person and thing in the crown, the people breathe and eat chocolate.

The state might pass a law against those rights, but those cannot be taken away even in that case. The people breathe and eat chocolate regardless of the law.

You're still referring to desires, abilities etc., not objective rights.

When the founding fathers cited unalienable rights they were making a subjective moral judgment about what rights they thought humans should have based on their own values, not actually citing intrinsic physical properties humans are born with such as desires or abilities.

 

[Denny Crane]

You're still referring to desires, abilities etc., not objective rights.

When the founding fathers cited unalienable rights they were making a subjective moral judgment about what rights they thought humans should have based on their own values, not actually citing intrinsic physical properties humans are born with such as desires or abilities.

I am absolutely referring to objective rights.

Read the part about monarchy, which talks about the monarch's rights. The monarch can't prevent people from breathing (life) or eating chocolate (liberty and happiness).

The only people who can't enjoy these objective rights are those who are brain dead or otherwise incapacitated so they can't.

 

[Denny Crane]

I am a lifelong acrophobe. I don't even like stepladders.

My cat is intelligent but has no fear of heights. She evolved to climb trees. We evolved to come down from trees. She also has no fear of darkness since she can see in very little light. Humans, who can't see in the dark, fear it.

I'm sure your cat considers whether it's safe for her to climb trees or whatever. Because if she doesn't make that jump, she's toast. And she knows it.

Because of fear of heights.

I'm not talking about acrophobia.

 

[crowTrobot]

I am absolutely referring to objective rights.

You're referring to subjective rights endowed by governments.

Read the part about monarchy, which talks about the monarch's rights. The monarch can't prevent people from breathing (life) or eating chocolate (liberty and happiness).

Again, by can't you mean shouldn't.

Governments can and historically have certainly prevented subjects from pursuing happiness if/when they felt justified in doing so. Government parsing of rights is subjectively value-based.

The only people who can't enjoy these objective rights are those who are brain dead or otherwise incapacitated so they can't.

Once again you mean abilities, not rights.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm referring to objective rights and demonstrating how they apply to all regardless of governments attempts to endow or not.

I mean the monarchy CAN'T. Our government with all the $trillions (and spending that year after year) can't prevent people from doing heroin.

You think I mean abilities when I mean rights.

 

[blazerboy30]

Interestingly, the Atheism religion is one of the least tolerant religions in our country.

 

[crowTrobot]

Our government with all the $trillions (and spending that year after year) can't prevent people from doing heroin.

You think I mean abilities when I mean rights.

You're obviously using the word "right" semantically to mean ability, NOT entitlement as was meant in the DoI. This is such a simple thing I feel like you're just yanking my chain here.

 

[crowTrobot]

Interestingly, the Atheism religion is one of the least tolerant religions in our country.

Atheists are generally just intolerant of bad arguments for theism, not of theists. I'd be surprised if any atheist in this forum gives a fuck that it says IGWT on our money.

 

[Denny Crane]

You're obviously using the word "right" semantically to mean ability, NOT entitlement as was meant in the DoI. This is such a simple thing I feel like you're just yanking my chain here.

I think you are quibbling over semantics. They are rights because the government can, in theory restrict them but never granted them in the first place.

You would have limited liberty if in prison in solitary confinement, for example.

What the founders did was state the obvious. Their invention was government that respected these innate rights.

 

[Minstrel]

We have the "right" to basic biology, desires and instincts, for as long as the government allows us to live--being alive is a right we do not innately have, since anyone (government or private enterprise murderer) can take it away.

That's an interesting use of the word "right," but basic biology, desires and instincts are tough to restrict, I agree. We have the right to our heart beating (while alive)! We have the right to feel pain when we are stabbed (while alive). So many rights.

 

[blazerboy30]

Atheists are generally just intolerant of bad arguments for theism, not of theists. I'd be surprised if any atheist in this forum gives a fuck that it says IGWT on our money.

If telling yourself that helps you sleep better, have at it.

 

[crowTrobot]

They are rights because the government can, in theory restrict them but never granted them in the first place.

The government doesn't treat all human abilities as rights. It parses them using value judgments, restricting some and allowing others.

What the founders did was state the obvious. Their invention was government that respected these innate rights.

Their invention was a government that is directed by the will of the people. The will of the people is still a (collective) subjective value judgment.