lpetrich

I'm inclined to believe that that is a convenient legal fiction, but Steve Kangas had come up with this argument:
Objectivists have another argument, but I'm not an Objectivist.

dk

dk: I agree Kangas doesn’t explain much of anything. He implies inalienable human rights can be derived from science, but fails to offer any rational, practical or empirical bases.
In Kangas’s summary statement, what does he mean by, “Liberals believe”. Every other sentence (see 1-4 above) begins with, “Rights cannnot”. I can only conclude that Kangas means “Rights cannot” be anything other than what “Liberals believe”. The substance of Kangas’ argument doesn’t specify what Liberals believe, and degenerates into skepticism. I suspect Kangas has read to many Conan Doyle detective novels and has come to believe, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” In practice skepticism does lead to change, but sadly throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Ion

You don't agree with anybody here in writing "I agree...".

You make up this "I agree...", by lying:

Kangas writes that human rights are social constructs.

You must have noticed it.

It is spelled in Kangas' text.
How is that?

Kangas' quote has "rational, practical or empirical bases." when addressing the flaws in the Bible, like for example addressing flaws in Exodus 21:4, in Exodus 21:6 and in Deuteronomy 13:4.

dk

1. Ion: You don't agree with anybody here in writing "I agree...".
   dk: Even you and I agreed on few things. I’ve even agreed with lp on Hegel and Marx, though he didn’t like my terms. Besides saying the UN DoHR is better than Exodus chapter 21, you have added nothing. I’ve tried to explain Exodus is an historical book, therefore needs to be interpreted within the context of Salvation History. The explanation fell on deaf ears. Forgive me for asking you, you about the basis of inalienable human rights. Without some rational basis, I find it difficult to believe, you believe that inalienable human rights exist.
2. Ion: You make up this "I agree...", by lying:
   dk: lpetrich called Kangas’ explanation a legal fiction, so we pretty much agree. Ion you may not like it but inalienable human rights can’t exist in a rational world without some basis. So far the only basis given air in this thread, apart from the Bible, has been menetics. You may not believe me, but I brought up Hegel and Marx as a hint.
3. Ion: Kangas writes that human rights are social constructs.
   dk: Oh, that’s a grand explanation. To think, Christians get labeled moral slaves because they put faith in dogma. You do realize social constructs are mental abstracts with no basis in reality. From an atheistic or agnostic perspective the only rational basis for inalienable human rights must be evolution.
   You must have noticed it.
4. dk: but fails to offer any rational, practical or empirical bases.
   Ion: How is that?
   dk: Kangas fails to offer any rational, pracktal or empirical basis. He concludes, “Different environments have different survival needs, and this results in diversity, for both species and rights.” From his explanation it seems Kangas doesn’t believe inalienable rights exist, and his so called explanation doesn’t explain anything apart from pretense.
5. Ion: Kangas' quote has "rational, practical or empirical bases." when addressing the flaws in the Bible, like for example addressing flaws in Exodus 21:4, in Exodus 21:6 and in Deuteronomy 13:4.
   dk: I know what Kangas claimed to disprove, but the best proof for the dogma of the OT Bible is the Jews that have persevered, prospered, migrated and populated the earth by holding fast to God’s Covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham and David. The Jews were repeatedly enslaved and persecuted across the millennium yet continue to prosper around the world, in Europe, Asia, New World, Africa and the Far & Middle East under God’s protection. Slavery, poverty, tyranny, empires, disease, catastrophe, famine, and injustice seem to come and go with the ruin of one Civilization after another, yet God’s Chosen People endure. The Ancient Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, Greeks, Persians, Huns, Goths, Asians, Romans,,, etc... have been swallowed up by historical migrations and isolations leaving only ruins where great civilizations and empires once ruled. Do you think the Jews had superior technology, intelligence, or genes, well the historical evidence says otherwise. Hey, science confirmed the lineage with DNA, from The Cohanim to Ancient Israel. The evidence is more than the prophetic, it is empirical, compelling and vivid. I can legitimately offer the OT Bible as a basis for inalienable human rights because in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 the kings of Israel were prefigured “under the law”, government was given limited powers, and the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles rail against kings for breaking the law. So far you’ve offered nothing but pretext.

Hey you don’t have to believe in the God of Israel, but you do have to concede the merits of the Jewish people and their history.

dk

dk: Ok, I think we are in agreement.
dk: Even today, it took months to get an accurate body count for the WTC. The original estimates ranged from 10,000 to 20,000, but it wasn’t until months later that the count was verified around 2,600. That’s a 75-90% error rate. It makes a big difference.
dk: My point isn’t that civilization hasn’t made progress, or that science doesn’t play its part, but that science has done nothing to advance the ethical and moral circumstances that govern civilization. Scientific progress hasn’t cured horse thieves, anymore than progress created car thieves. The Huns and Visigoths were no more/less brutal/savage than Idi Amin or Chairman Mao’ Great Leap Forward. History regards wars as just or unjust by what follows from the war. If we are to give science the credit for curing polio, then we are obliged to blame science for AIDs, MDR microbes and TB. I don’t think so, and I don’t think you do either.
dk: In the Bible people didn’t have the technology or the organization to systematically build death factories. I think you’re playing loose with the term “genocide”. One might say the Roman Empire committed genocide on Carthage, or the US committed genocide on Hiroshima, but to so is hyperbole. The term genocide according to my dictionary wasn’t coined until 1944. The Armenians have been complaining to academia since the term was coined. There is a clear difference between the “Harem Warfare” Israel waged in the OT and the scientific genocide the Ottoman Turks and Nazi Germans committed. If you’re really interested here’s an article, Salvation History: One Holy Nation Program 7 Transcripts .

Ion

1. Exodus is not an historical book.
   
   Los Angeles Times, Friday April 13, 2001, writes:
   'Exodus: Scholars Disprove the Story'
   
   It has data from archaeologists publishing in archeology journals, disputing that Exodus ever happened.
   
   Quote:

   Originally posted by dk ... Without some rational basis, I find it difficult to believe, you believe that inalienable human rights exist. ...

   Like Kangas, I don't believe that inalienable human rights exist.
   
   I believe that human rights are social constructs, with the only direction from observed evolution.
   
   Quote:

   Originally posted by dk ... Ion: Kangas' quote has "rational, practical or empirical bases." when addressing the flaws in the Bible, like for example addressing flaws in Exodus 21:4, in Exodus 21:6 and in Deuteronomy 13:4. dk: I know what Kangas claimed to disprove, but the best proof for the dogma of the OT Bible is the Jews that have persevered, prospered, migrated and populated the earth by holding fast to God’s Covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham and David. The Jews were repeatedly enslaved and persecuted across the millennium yet continue to prosper around the world, in Europe, Asia, New World, Africa and the Far & Middle East under God’s protection. Slavery, poverty, tyranny, empires, disease, catastrophe, famine, and injustice seem to come and go with the ruin of one Civilization after another, yet God’s Chosen People endure. The Ancient Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, Greeks, Persians, Huns, Goths, Asians, Romans,,, etc... have been swallowed up by historical migrations and isolations leaving only ruins where great civilizations and empires once ruled. Do you think the Jews had superior technology, intelligence, or genes, well the historical evidence says otherwise. Hey, science confirmed the lineage with DNA, from The Cohanim to Ancient Israel. The evidence is more than the prophetic, it is empirical, compelling and vivid. I can legitimately offer the OT Bible as a basis for inalienable human rights because in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 the kings of Israel were prefigured “under the law”, government was given limited powers, and the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles rail against kings for breaking the law. So far you’ve offered nothing but pretext.

Again, you believe the Bible is historically accurate.

Exodus didn't exist.
And so on.

As for "...the merits of the Jewish people and their history.", that's no different than the merits of other people and their history, and shouldn' be.

The UN Code of Human Rights, speaks to the merits of all people and their history.

lpetrich

dk: ... I’ve tried to explain Exodus is an historical book, therefore needs to be interpreted within the context of Salvation History. ...

Whatever "salvation history" is supposed to mean here.

dk: ... From an atheistic or agnostic perspective the only rational basis for inalienable human rights must be evolution.

Once again, O dk, "evolution" is not some grandiose policy prescription, some great mirror image of Catholic dogma.

dk: I know what Kangas claimed to disprove, but the best proof for the dogma of the OT Bible is the Jews that have persevered, prospered, migrated and populated the earth by holding fast to God’s Covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham and David. ...

Except that Jews have never been a very abundant ethnicity, and they have lived scattered about in other nations' territories for ~2000 years.

Jewish ethnicity has survived by Jews being very cliquey and having various distinctive practices. In fact, there is a long-running Jewish tradition of discouraging converts; this has kept the various Jewish communities from becoming diluted.

And is dk about to convert to Judaism or something?

(some of the difficulties of doing body counts...)
dk: Even today, it took months to get an accurate body count for the WTC. The original estimates ranged from 10,000 to 20,000, but it wasn’t until months later that the count was verified around 2,600. That’s a 75-90% error rate. It makes a big difference.

Except that it's rather difficult to do a precise body count when the bodies have been mangled by collapsing 100-story buildings.

(on dk and the Black Death...)
dk: My point isn’t that civilization hasn’t made progress, or that science doesn’t play its part, but that science has done nothing to advance the ethical and moral circumstances that govern civilization. ...

Various religions have been around for millennia, but they have not succeeded in turning everybody into saints.

(me): And I wonder what dk thinks about the genocide commanded in the Bible; the Israelites were supposed to completely murder all the people already living in the Promised Land. Yes, every man, woman, and child.
dk: In the Bible people didn’t have the technology or the organization to systematically build death factories. I think you’re playing loose with the term “genocide”. ...

So what? Let us look at the Bible, more specifically, at Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
In other words, genocide -- the Final Solution of the Canaanite Question.

dk

o

1. Ion: Exodus is not an historical book.
   Los Angeles Times, Friday April 13, 2001, writes:
   'Exodus: Scholars Disprove the Story'
   It has data from archaeologists publishing in archeology journals, disputing that Exodus ever happened.
   dk: A less sensational but more accurate headline would read, “Scholars Dispute the Exodus Story”. The archaeological, geographic and geological record for the period is sparse and disputed, so it should surprise no one that several conflicted theories have been presented by scholars. I’m told that’s how science works.
   o
2. dk: Without some rational basis, I find it difficult to believe, you believe that inalienable human rights exist.
   Ion: Like Kangas, I don't believe that inalienable human rights exist.
   I believe that human rights are social constructs, with the only direction from observed evolution.
   dk: Fair enough.
   o
3. Ion: Kangas' quote has "rational, practical or empirical bases." when addressing the flaws in the Bible, like for example addressing flaws in Exodus 21:4, in Exodus 21:6 and in Deuteronomy 13:4.
   dk: I know what Kangas claimed to disprove, but the best proof for the dogma of the OT Bible is the Jews that have persevered, prospered, migrated and populated the earth by holding fast to God’s Covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham and David. The Jews were repeatedly enslaved and persecuted across the millennium yet continue to prosper around the world, in Europe, Asia, New World, Africa and the Far & Middle East under God’s protection. Slavery, poverty, tyranny, empires, disease, catastrophe, famine, and injustice seem to come and go with the ruin of one Civilization after another, yet God’s Chosen People endure. The Ancient Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, Greeks, Persians, Huns, Goths, Asians, Romans,,, etc... have been swallowed up by historical migrations and isolations leaving only ruins where great civilizations and empires once ruled. Do you think the Jews had superior technology, intelligence, or genes, well the historical evidence says otherwise. Hey, science confirmed the lineage with DNA, from The Cohanim to Ancient Israel. The evidence is more than the prophetic, it is empirical, compelling and vivid. I can legitimately offer the OT Bible as a basis for inalienable human rights because in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 the kings of Israel were prefigured “under the law”, government was given limited powers, and the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles rail against kings for breaking the law. So far you’ve offered nothing but pretext.
   Hey you don’t have to believe in the God of Israel, but you do have to concede the merits of the Jewish people and their history.
   Ion: Again, you believe the Bible is historically accurate.
   Exodus didn't exist.
   And so on.
   As for "...the merits of the Jewish people and their history.", that's no different than the merits of other people and their history, and shouldn' be.
   The UN Code of Human Rights, speaks to the merits of all people and their history.
   dk: Here’s one possibility, if the merits of all people are undistinguishable then it’s the merits that logically transcend history and evolution as the basis of inalienable human rights. The Cohanim are confirmed by DNA evidence as the descendents of the ancient Levites tribe described in Exodus, and to the contrary the speculative musing constructed from the archeological record find the Levites never existed. What we have is a conundrum. Ironically, in this argument I find myself on the side of inalienable human rights, DNA evidence and the Bible, and for some mysterious reason you’ve chosen to side against inalienable human rights and DNA evidence on the basis of archeological speculation to disprove a Biblical history you don’t believe.

Ion

dk,

I read:

"Scholars have quietly concluded that the epic of Moses never happened..." and "...it combines myth, cultural memories and kernels of truth.".

So much for 'historical' Exodus.

Ion

Read the article I mention, disproving Exodus ever happened, and tell me more about "...some mysterious reason you've chosen to side...".

Same disproving applies to the Flood, Genesis, miracle Jesus, etc..

dk,
you believe in the rights promoted by a superstitious book, with little historicity in it, the Bible.

These rights are antagonist to the UN Code of Human Rights.