your first paragraph seems to imply that I respect rights as a real phenomenon. to be clear, I do not, and so all discourse built up on rights as a premise I also reject.
I don’t quite follow what you’re saying in your second paragraph.
They’re trying to expose you as a hypocrite for wanting things for yourself that you don’t care about others having.
That said, not valuing rights seems a bit inconsistent with Marxism. IIRC it was the socialist states that insisted that the UN Declaration of Human Rights include such things as “education” and “housing” as basic human rights. Of course, every despotic regime in the world has signed up to that, so perhaps they were just being dishonest.
“appeal to hypocrisy” is a logical fallacy. it’s logically fallacious because a murderer can say “murder is wrong” and the truth doesn’t change based on who is saying it. it’s a form of ad hominem, and I am reticent to accuse someone of bad faith based on insinuation.
your first paragraph seems to imply that I respect rights as a real phenomenon. to be clear, I do not, and so all discourse built up on rights as a premise I also reject.
I don’t quite follow what you’re saying in your second paragraph.
Is this SovCit meeting Stirner? Do I have to say the word?
Following questions:
Do you see yourself as human?
Do you value your life and body integrity? Do you value life and body integrity of other beings, like friends?
Do you avoid experiencing violence?
I find the Socratic method annoying. please just say what you want to say.
They’re trying to expose you as a hypocrite for wanting things for yourself that you don’t care about others having.
That said, not valuing rights seems a bit inconsistent with Marxism. IIRC it was the socialist states that insisted that the UN Declaration of Human Rights include such things as “education” and “housing” as basic human rights. Of course, every despotic regime in the world has signed up to that, so perhaps they were just being dishonest.
I’d rather not assume they are asking in bad faith. who I am has no bearing on the truth of what I’m saying anyway.
Good faith, bad faith, that has no bearing on hypocrisy. And anybody can be a hypocrite regardless of their guiding philosophy.
You don’t believe in cows’ rights to, well, anything, because you don’t believe in rights. I don’t see you making any arguments about duties.
Hence we’re left with nothing but the potential for hypocrisy based on the golden rule, which pretty much everybody accepts.
this smacks of the “veil of ignorance”, and, personally, I don’t find it compelling.
“appeal to hypocrisy” is a logical fallacy. it’s logically fallacious because a murderer can say “murder is wrong” and the truth doesn’t change based on who is saying it. it’s a form of ad hominem, and I am reticent to accuse someone of bad faith based on insinuation.
You seem to be downvoting my comments. I don’t debate with people who think my views are worth nothing.
I don’t care for debate at all, and I’m not voting at all.
have a nice day
I can want equality and freedom without inventing rights.