Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:
Your contention is that the government not providing health care is the same as denying the right to health care. Is the government not providing guns the same as denying the right to guns?

You misunderstood me, or perhaps I didn't express myself well. To not give a person X if they want X is to deny that person X. The government presently denies people that want the right to healthcare the right to healthcare. They also deny the people that want government funded weaponry government funded weaponry.

I was trying to make a very fine-grained distinction.

 Manchu wrote:
A legal fiction is a concept created by the law. The phenomenon of rights predates the existence of positive law, regardless of the conceptualization/articulartion of that phenomenon. Human rights arise from the universal quality of human nature. The dignity of the person is not a product of a court or other governmental institution.

That's right, they are the product of a religious institution. Which isn't even supporting the concept of Human Rights anymore. That was Jean-Paul II's greatest acheivement, and it was against the wish of the College. The Church is now reverting to the traditionnal vision of natural rights. Alain Seriaux's Natural Right very well illustrate this.

Human rights, in order to be human rights, cannot be derived positivistically.

Of course they can be. Pragmatically. Which goes back to my assertion that pragmatic scientific definitions have helped positivist legal fictions to gain the upper hand since the 18th century.

Don't be absurd. I suppose you'd also have to say that internal organs (much less the double-helix structure of DNA) did not exist 2300 years ago. Try to understand that just like the structure of DNA, human rights are not something that we invented but rather something that we discovered.

Huge difference between a concept and a material object. The concept of human rights didn't exist 2300 years ago, it was inoperant.

I am talking about a phenomenon rather than a concept.

I'd very much like to see some citation regarding John Paul II abandoning natural law rhetoric on the issue of human rights.

Positivism is not very influential regarding the study of human rights.

 Manchu wrote:
I am talking about a phenomenon rather than a concept.

Things are either material or ideal. Phenomenon are the same way (well, going back to the original meaning of the term, it'd all be ideal, but let's leave Kant out of it). No matter how you see it, a Right is not a tangible thing. It's an idea, or a concept, I'm sure someone somewhere would like to argue a difference between those two, but that's beside the point. Rights do not exist until a human conceive of them. Until they are applied at a governmental level, they are his alone.

I'd very much like to see some citation regarding John Paul II abandoning natural law rhetoric on the issue of human rights.

Jean-Paul II didn't abandon it. He introduced it to the Church, who'se College was against it because dignity was derived from men's moral nature, and not from the 'fact' that he is God's chosen creature. Benoit XVI is driving the Church away from the position Jean-Paul II had been able to impose. And I can't quote Sériaux right now, am at work.

Positivism is not very influential regarding the study of human rights.

You're again mixing up moral positivism and legal positivism. Legal positivism states that a Law is a Law only because a legal authority declares it so. Moral positivism states that something is only good because it was pronounced as such by a governing body. You can have whichever form of morality you want, and still have legal positivism. And it's the system in which you live. In which everyone in the Western world lives. To state that it's not very influential is just incorrect.

I do not cleave the world into actual and imagined based on the presence or absence of molecules. I think that is absurd.

Jean Paul II no more introduced natural law arguments to the church on the issue of human rights nor any other issue than he did the Eucharist.

Neither moral nor legal positivism is influential in the development of human rights theory. For the umpteenth time, the power of the rhetoric is that there is a law to which all people must respond regardless of the circumstances of government, i.e., what some sovereign does or does not wish to acknowledge.

 Manchu wrote:
I do not cleave the world into actual and imagined based on the presence or absence of molecules. I think that is absurd.

So to you, the sentence 'Santa Claus exists' is impossible to elucidate. Huh. Bertrand Russell would like to have a word with you.

Jean Paul II no more introduced natural law arguments to the church on the issue of human rights nor any other issue than he did the Eucharist.

Oh, have you had the time to read up Sériaux's book, in the last 25 minutes? Human Rights and Natural Law are not synonimous. Up until the 60s, the position of the Church was for an older definition of Natural Law that didn't support (modern) Human Right as they are enumerated in the Universal Declaration.

Neither moral nor legal positivism is influential in the development of human rights theory exactly because human rights. For the umpteenth time, the power of the rhetoric is that there is a law to which all people must respond regardless of the circumstances of government, i.e., what some sovereign does or does not wish to acknowledge.

Which are still dependant on an institution to be upheld. Anyhow, you'll notice that on the subject of Healthcare, the Declaration is a whole lot silent. I doubt that a case could be presented to the U.N regarding the crimes against humanity that the U.S have done against countless sickened people, or do you actually think that it isn't so?

I studied natural law at the Catholic law school where I received my juris doctorate. I don't need to look up Seriaux in 25 minutes. I think you'll find one of the principal authors of the UDHR was Jacques Maratain, a teacher and friend of Paul VI. You might also like to look at a 1963 encyclical by John XXIII called Pacem in Terris.

The rest of your post does not constitute a response to my points.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
2300 years ago, a human was nothing more than a speaking animal (or a half-god).

I hope you laughed manically as you posted this nonsensicle dribble.

Well if we can go back 2300 yrs ago with today's technology.......imagine the size of my harem ---->insert insane laughter<----

 Manchu wrote:
I studied natural law at the Catholic law school where I received my juris doctorate. I don't need to look up Seriaux in 25 minutes. I think you'll find one of the principal authors of the UDHR was Jacques Maratain, a teacher and friend of Paul VI. You might also like to look at a 1963 encyclical by John XXIII called Pacem in Terris.

The rest of your post does not constitute a response to my points.

Neither does yours. And it's 'Maritain'.

I hope you laughed manically as you posted this nonsensicle dribble.

It's the aristotelian conception of man. An animal with Logos. Since Logos was the domain of the Gods, it attributed half-godhoodness to humanity.

This is only to illustrate that what's conceived as a 'human' is very context dependant.

 CT GAMER wrote:

sebster wrote:everyone has a relativly equal risk for fire and crime.

Disagree.

Some neighborhoods in the U.S. would qualify as warzones in other parts of the world. They are in need of far more police service then some gated community in Romney land (for example)...

Problem is stopping crime in some of those neighborhoods isnt the priority, containment is...

Check your quotes, I didn't say that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
All you have done here is validate my point. If you have no money you still have access to emergency care, but not preventative or periodical care. In other words income=level of care. Good work.

No, because to compare 'we can't treat you because it's 1458 and we don't even know what the hell that thing growing on the side of your head is' with 'we won't treat you because you can't materially reward us' is simply wrong.

Despite your insistance otherwise, humanity is a charitable animal. We care for those in need. We build social systems that care for those in need.

To claim that we once didn't have the capability to do so, therefore we shouldn't now is a complete load of nonsense.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." No?

 olympia wrote:
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." No?

Not quite. It's more "Go and look after yourself and try and be as prosperous as you can in this capitalist system we invented, but if you really get in need we won't let you die of treatable disease or starve to death."

It's somewhere between "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" of communism and "feth you I've got mine" of pure capitalism.

Screw you iceland

 ChocolateGork wrote:
Screw you iceland

Every thread should end with this quote.

What have you guys got against a low end supermarket?

A lot of people rely on them for basic nutrition.



So what if the Queen doesn't shop there?

Aldi is better...

 d-usa wrote:
Aldi is better...

Lidl vs. Aldi-----TO THE DEATH.

 Manchu wrote:

Neither moral nor legal positivism is influential in the development of human rights theory.

Wait, what?

Hobbes and Rousseau disagree with that.

 dogma wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Neither moral nor legal positivism is influential in the development of human rights theory.

Wait, what?

Hobbes and Rousseau disagree with that.

One is dead and the other is an imaginary tiger, so they can't defend themselves.

 Manchu wrote:
I do not cleave the world into actual and imagined based on the presence or absence of molecules. I think that is absurd.

I know you're approaching this from an experience with God, but even that is closer to imagination than actuality. We can all touch the table with little demand, but we can't all touch God.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

One is dead and the other is an imaginary tiger, so they can't defend themselves.

I always loved how a French character imagined an English one.

 olympia wrote:
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." No?

Sadly in this case it's more like:

"... it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject." - Ayn Rand (But Honest! Paul Ryan doesn't believe that stuff, no matter what he said last year.)

 dogma wrote:

I know you're approaching this from an experience with God, but even that is closer to imagination than actuality. We can all touch the table with little demand, but we can't all touch God.

Well, let's try something I think that most of us will agree exists: Life. (not living things, but rather the characteristic that makes them 'alive'.) It's not biochemistry, as that continues after death, and life occurs in wildly differing forms who have little in common. So what is life? What stops existing when one dies? It undeniably exists, but what is it exactly?

When the Montgolfier brothers first took to the sky there was no science of aeronautics already in place. They just happened to notice that laundry drying by a fire tended to float up. Perhaps in time, Science will even solve what Life and God are.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

We can all touch the table with little demand, but we can't all touch God.

Join the Astronaut program and give it a try!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What have you guys got against a low end supermarket?

A lot of people rely on them for basic nutrition.



So what if the Queen doesn't shop there?

A POUND FOR EGGS?!?!? A full pound are you kidding? How much is milk?

 dogma wrote:
Hobbes and Rousseau disagree with that.

Because they would disagree about what a human right is.

 dogma wrote:
We can all touch the table with little demand, but we can't all touch God.

Not to be punny, but that's immaterial. The issue is whether non-tangible things exist beyond our perception of them (as if the same question could not be asked of tangible ones).

I've no idea. I shop at Waitrose.

 AustonT wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What have you guys got against a low end supermarket?

A lot of people rely on them for basic nutrition.



So what if the Queen doesn't shop there?

A POUND FOR EGGS?!?!? A full pound are you kidding? How much is milk?

It'll roughly be £1 for ~2 Litres

 Manchu wrote:
Not to be punny, but that's immaterial. The issue is whether non-tangible things exist beyond our perception of them (as if the same question could not be asked of tangible ones).

I can prove they do right now.

Time.


We do not directly perceive time, only it's effect on the universe around us, as every three dimensional object is, technically, the shadow of a 4 dimensional tesseract. *I*, the person writing this, exist simultaneously at all points of my timeline, however, *I* can only actually perceive a small sliver of it (ie the present). Yet the 4th dimension is just as much a part of 'reality' as height, width, and depth.

Jebus thats a lot for both.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

2300 years ago, a human was nothing more than a speaking animal (or a half-god).

AustonT wrote:
I hope you laughed manically as you posted this nonsensicle dribble.

It's the aristotelian conception of man. An animal with Logos. Since Logos was the domain of the Gods, it attributed half-godhoodness to humanity.

This is only to illustrate that what's conceived as a 'human' is very context dependant.

Interesting, thats not too different from how we see man today. Animal in that we (mostly) believe in evolutionary ancestry, yet with sapience which we use to make a wide gulf between us and the animals in terms of weight of value, authority, and culpability.
As for the 'half-divine' part of humanity, most major religions would agree with you. Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity do so directly. Islam and Judaism do so indirectly. it can otherwise also be found in the breadth of ther gulf we place between ourselves and the animals of which we are akin. Similar in many respects to the gulf between a man and a god.

However I would not add all that to form a conclusion that 'a human was nothing more than a speaking animal (or a half-god)' at any time. AustonT had good reason to query this.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What have you guys got against a low end supermarket?

A lot of people rely on them for basic nutrition.



So what if the Queen doesn't shop there?

Nothing wrong with Iceland. My favourite supermarket, I know people who work in the industry and Iceland treats its staff a whole lot better than other chains do. In addition the prices are low, pack sizes and they are cheaper for the basics.

AustonT wrote:
A POUND FOR EGGS?!?!? A full pound are you kidding? How much is milk?

Eggs are expensive, go elsewhere and they cost even more.

Milk is £1 for 2 litres as said, cheapest place I know. Usual price for milk is £1.20-1.40 for 2 litres, though some supermarkets do a two for £2 offer. Bread is also cheaper.

I pay $1.60-1.90/gal for milk and generally about 1.20 for eggs although lately I've been buying organic jumbo eggs which are much more expensive. You guys are paying bananas prices...bananas.
/threadjack