Spring RTS Engine

neddiedrow wrote:As much as I like the concept of natural rights, they're still subjectively defined by your culture and your society. The only difference is that you expect them to be accepted all over explicitly rather than implicitly.

Natural rights arise out of social contract, and for those outside the contract, how can you assert that they apply? As much as I wish life were that simple, it isn't.

Natural rights by their very definition exist outside the social contract; they accrue to individuals simply by virtue of them being people, and are not subject to the whims of society. I won't delve into the theory behind natural rights here, unless there is a demand for it. Alternatively, go read some of John Locke's work.

I am as well read as you are Felix. Like everything else in the noosphere, natural rights are subjectively defined - they simply have the pretense of universality and objectivity.

The definition is, quite simply, designed to contradict reality. There can be no definite natural rights if the totality does not recognize and agree upon the same rights as natural rights - in which case, you have a complete social contract. Nothing exists in human experience outside of society aside from the biological; and even that is subject to the pressures of society. Any attempt of a human to distance either his/herself or his/her theories from the pressures of society and establish concrete law is pretentious and intrinsically doomed to failure.

Doomed to faliur, but being the endlessly optomistic and upbeat person that I am, I always think it's better to try and to fail then to never try at all.

You'd think seeing a vidio like that'd make me bummed about the world. But that's just one part of the world. There's good and there's evil, and it's our duties, as humans, to encorage the good and sqash the evil as much as we can manage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbZ1p3df ... ed&search=

bah, that stoning doesn't turn my stomach but this always does

So who's good and who's evil? I don't think it's up to anyone to make that decision other than for oneself...

Who or what I consider evil for example is a company who exploits a country, by bypassing laws to save on taxes. Those who make a fortune from the suffering of others, that's truely evil IMO.

smoth wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbZ1p3df ... ed&search=

bah, that stoning doesn't turn my stomach but this always does

4. Shoot the "hole" with a .45 caliber rifle (not recommended)

Hahah good advice indeed. Yeah I've seen similar like this this in a documentary. The worm was in the arm there and had to be pulled out with force. Damn that's distusting.

I just bumble around and try to be on the right side of things as I sees it. Can't go too far wrong if you're trying to do right, right?

If you live by live and let live then it's alright I guess.

smoth wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbZ1p3df ... ed&search=

bah, that stoning doesn't turn my stomach but this always does

Good gawd, that thing was fucken huge! And a large hole too!

What is good and what is evil... Since you dont have how to know considering everthing is relative, do what you think its good. (And that includes imposing your culture over other people if you think their culture is evil)

smoth wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbZ1p3df ... ed&search=

bah, that stoning doesn't turn my stomach but this always does

Not even close imo

Felix the Cat wrote:See, the difference between circumcision and FGM or stoning is that circumcision doesn't have negative side effects.

FGM removes the woman's ability to derive pleasure from intercourse, out of a religious or cultural conviction that sex is exclusively for the man's pleasure.

Stoning results in the one being stoned becoming rather permanently indisposed.

That's completely aside from my point - To them, it's normal. To us, it's not. And the opposite is true of our form of "genital modification" or whatever. Different cultures, different standards, not our right to judge.

Now, again, that's not to say I think stoning people is the bee's knees. But it's frankly none of my business and just arrogant to assume that because I'm in the more powerful country, I'm right and they're wrong.

"Natural" and "Inalienable" rights are just names given to the morals of a society. Different society, different morals. Almost everyone agrees with the morals of the society they were raised in, and almost everyone thinks that their morals are "right."

Everything is subjective, unless you believe in God. But God is also subjective.

Ah, the Comfort of carring about nothing and no one. Fine thing, till you get kidnapped during holidays to take part in some of the local folklore..

I have to admit that i really disagree with this Not-Careing about anything, that disguise itself as Liberalism...
Those who don`t care, have no reason to argue, to debate, to discuss - so they are not willing to take part in democratic society they live in. Even a fundalistic Fanatic requeisting loud&open scharia and stones-for-the-unbelievers is more democratic, as constant (peacefull) argument is the Base of all Western Societys. And the Progress we are making here in the West, is created by Open Societys, but dangered by the Disturbances of the Undeveloped.
IE: Just imagine we would have Fusion Cars - we would have to stop there Production, scrap thos Plans, simply because we can not deliver Potential Dangerous Technologys into a World filled with People-ready-for-Paradise.

I have to admit that similiar dangers through various Fanatics could also arise in the Western Societys - but we are willing, able and read to take this challenge, identify and solve the Problems.

I also have to excuse myself it this got very emotional, even Flamelike. It is just that this whole Topic touches some Reallife that get me fast on Fire.Sorry again if somebody feels Provoked. This is just my unworthy personal Opinion, so no Reason to get equally angry & low. Thx for reading.

Lindir The Green wrote:"Natural" and "Inalienable" rights are just names given to the morals of a society. Different society, different morals. Almost everyone agrees with the morals of the society they were raised in, and almost everyone thinks that their morals are "right."

Everything is subjective, unless you believe in God. But God is also subjective.

The end result of this kind of thinking is death. What right do you have to fight back against someone who wants you dead? Morals are subjective, so why is it acceptable for you or a policeman to kill him, but not for him to kill you? Further, would it then not be acceptable for China to genocide Caucasians? If their population thinks we deserve to die, and since they have far more people than us, who are we to say otherwise?

Moral Relativity is all fine untill you're on the losing side.

I'll continue to sum up points in a sentance or less for a doller an hour! Simply PM and I shall reduce your argument to a snappy comeback! My rates are non-negotiable!

Decimator wrote:

Lindir The Green wrote:"Natural" and "Inalienable" rights are just names given to the morals of a society. Different society, different morals. Almost everyone agrees with the morals of the society they were raised in, and almost everyone thinks that their morals are "right."

Everything is subjective, unless you believe in God. But God is also subjective.

The end result of this kind of thinking is death. What right do you have to fight back against someone who wants you dead? Morals are subjective, so why is it acceptable for you or a policeman to kill him, but not for him to kill you? Further, would it then not be acceptable for China to genocide Caucasians? If their population thinks we deserve to die, and since they have far more people than us, who are we to say otherwise?

The end result of this thinking is not death, it is simply uncertainty and the inability to justify actions through moral or intellectual assumption. Nobody is "correct" "right" or "good" - and after years of dealing with the self-centered masses, I can't say that anybody should be afforded the reprieve from self-scrutiny offered by definite values, though it is certainly easier to live as an individual when you don't need to question yourself.

I didn`t read through Books conerning lack of Developments to have in the End no Clue what reasons create some Societys to stay behind....

Neddie, again I ask: since morals are subjective, why is it acceptable for you or a policeman to kill a murderer, but not for a murderer to kill you?

its clear now, the pink is just disguise... behind it smoth is made of pure evil and darkness