Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Yo mamma so nice...

Philosophy Forum
» New Member Introductions
» Yo mamma so nice...

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

she baked cookies for you all!

Hello all,

My current tangent and interest is combining atheism with natural rights and classical liberalism. Primarily, it is combing natural rights with atheism. I think Kant stated that natural rights can be arrived via reason. I have not read Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, but that is where he outlines the right to own property.

Of course, I will butt heads against utilitarians since they see the state as a third party to maximize social well being via exercise in calculus and cost benefit analysis. The state at best is an enabler of individual liberty and at worst an act of violence and coercion. I only agree on voluntary transactions.

I am a student of economics. This forum may be too philosophical for me since I gravitate towards theory backed by empiricism. I love a good debate and will add what I can.

@Veracity,

Welcome Veracity to the Philosophy forum. The previous posts were deleted because they were meaningless babble about your title and the moderator found it appropriate to remove.

This forum has all types of people here so I'm sure you'll find some good discussions to participate in. Thanks for joining and hope you enjoy this community.

@Justin,

I would be interested to hear your views on natural rights. Being educated in social sciences I just don't see how there can be any sort of right that is not somehow a contract between the individual/group and his/her/their culture/society/state.

@GoshisDead,

Natural rights evolve out of the relationship between man and nature. Not the relationship between man and man. The most important natural right is property put forward by Locke and extenuated by Bastiat.

Man has the right to the property that he creates by applying his facilities to nature. If I make a bow and arrow out of nature with my labor and skill, doesn't this hunting apparatus belong to me? Doesn't the animal I hunt down belong to me?

Natural rights begin when man applies his facilities to nature.

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

Welcome Veracity to the Philosophy forum. The previous posts were deleted because they were meaningless babble about your title and the moderator found it appropriate to remove.

I agree with your judgment, but not censorship.

@Veracity,

Veracity wrote:

I agree with your judgment, but not censorship.

It wasn't my judgment, nor was it my censorship. One of our moderators made the judgment and likewise the censorship. Without some sort of moderation and censorship, this forum would turn into a battle ground.

Moderators will make judgment calls that aren't necessarily to everyones liking and it would be difficult to please everyone. Either way, we're all learning and growing. Your input is most appreciated.

@Veracity,

That assumes that man is not part of nature. If i were to assume that man is a part of nature, anything i take from the man who made a bow and killed an animal would by rights be mine, given the property relationship between man and nature.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

That assumes that man is not part of nature.

WTF are you talking about? How can man be outside of nature?

Quote:

If i were to assume that man is a part of nature,

Correct assumption.

Quote:

anything i take from the man who made a bow and killed an animal would by rights be mine, given the property relationship between man and nature.

Of course. You could forcedly take away something that was mine. I have a "RIGHT" to defend my property. We would have to agree that you were being aggressive and not civil.

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

It wasn't my judgment, nor was it my censorship. One of our moderators made the judgment and likewise the censorship.

I find our discourse civil. I don't find the acts of censorship civil.

Quote:

Without some sort of moderation and censorship, this forum would turn into a battle ground.

False presumption. Can you logically prove that it takes an authoritative power to instill civility?

Quote:

Moderators will make judgment calls that aren't necessarily to everyones liking and it would be difficult to please everyone. Either way, we're all learning and growing. Your input is most appreciated.

Very political.

@Veracity,

Quote:

Man has the right to the property that he creates by applying his facilities to nature. If I make a bow and arrow out of nature with my labor and skill, doesn't this hunting apparatus belong to me? Doesn't the animal I hunt down belong to me?

What do you mean by "belong to"?

Quote:

I find our discourse civil. I don't find the acts of censorship civil.

But you have not been censored in any way, shape or form. There is plenty of room for anything you'd like on the internet. The fact that a few irrelevant posts were removed as routine forum maintenance should be of no offense to you.

Quote:

False presumption. Can you logically prove that it takes an authoritative power to instill civility?

He doesn't need to logically prove such a thing - vast amounts of empirical evidence support his claim, not to mention the fact that there is nothing illogical about claiming that 'without some kind of moderation, this forum would turn into a battleground'; unless of course we take 'battleground' to be literal.

Glad to have you on the forums. I, too, enjoy political philosophy. Looking forward to seeing you on the philosophy forums.

@Veracity,

Veracity wrote:

I find our discourse civil. I don't find the acts of censorship civil.

When an introduction begins with a fat momma joke, and declines into two members hurling insults at each other, then yes censorship for the sake of maintaining a civil forum for the rest of the members is something that I will most certainly consider using.
You will find that I will not however, consider to censor your ideas or your philosophies.

Anyways, let's not find ourselves at an impasse here.
While I'm in no way a fan of the idea of our times becoming anything even remotely Orwellian, I can only assume that the idea of it is something that you could no doubt create quite a passionate debate about.
Since there isn't a topic regarding censorship or the philosophies of it yet...

@Veracity,

Veracity wrote:

I find our discourse civil. I don't find the acts of censorship civil.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm OK with that.

Veracity wrote:

False presumption. Can you logically prove that it takes an authoritative power to instill civility?

Understand that I'm not here, nor in a position to instill anything and likewise have nothing to prove. I've also read the posts in question and they may been borderline on the deletion side of things. However, a moderator made a judgment call and I'm standing behind the moderators decision whether I agree completely with him or not. None of us are perfect, nor will all of our decisions be right in the eyes of everyone.

Veracity wrote:

Very political.

I agree. In any structured environment such as this one there will be some politics involved. It's called leadership and without the leadership this would turn into a battle ground.

We try to do our best to provide an environment here that fosters growth, friendship, peace, respect and community. If you'd like to participate, we do not practice any kind of censorship. Wink

Peace!

-- edited after carefully thinking.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

But you have not been censored in any way, shape or form.

I have. My words have been changed.

Quote:

There is plenty of room for anything you'd like on the internet.

Non-sequiter

Quote:

The fact that a few irrelevant posts were removed as routine forum maintenance should be of no offense to you.

Non-sequiter.

Quote:

He doesn't need to logically prove such a thing - vast amounts of empirical evidence support his claim, not to mention the fact that there is nothing illogical about claiming that 'without some kind of moderation, this forum would turn into a battleground'; unless of course we take 'battleground' to be literal.

Got sources of that empirical evidence?

Quote:

Glad to have you on the forums. I, too, enjoy political philosophy. Looking forward to seeing you on the philosophy forums.

Happy to be here. But I won't leave the introduction until I feel comfortable.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

When an introduction begins with a fat momma joke, and declines into two members hurling insults at each other, then yes censorship for the sake of maintaining a civil forum for the rest of the members is something that I will most certainly consider using.

You admit to censorship.

Quote:

You will find that I will not however, consider to censor your ideas or your philosophies.

How can you decipher words with ideas?

@Veracity,

Thread is now closed!

If you don't like moderation then find a forum that is not moderated and make yourself at home. Thank you!

Philosophy Forum
» New Member Introductions
» Yo mamma so nice...

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Yo mamma so nice...

Quick Links

My Account

able2know