The one who may not have gotten his seat at all if it wasn’t for progress, blasts progress.

Clarence “Steven Candie” Thomas, raper of Anita Hill…

  • LordMayor@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 个月前

    It’s not supernatural, it’s philosophical.

    And it’s the foundation for most, if not all, liberal democracies.

    • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 个月前

      It’s not supernatural, it’s philosophical.

      What’s the difference?

      And it’s the foundation for most, if not all, liberal democracies.

      I’m aware. That doesn’t mean it’s above reproach or critical examination/reexamination.

      • whoxtank28@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 个月前

        Philosophy can be tested, it is an evolving system of methods used to think.

        The supernatural is a set of (false) claims about reality. Bigfoot exists and magic god says we should do stuff.

        • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 个月前

          Philosophy can be tested

          Like, through repeatable experimentation and observation and study of natural phenomena?

          • whoxtank28@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 个月前

            Some branches of philosophy, yes. I think that your best defense would be to claim that there are metaphysical aspects of philosophy. We use metaphysics as a shortcut, even in pholosophy. I am a materialist, so I dont really think that anything can be “immaterial” or “metaphysical”. Anything we have identified as immaterial has just not been adequately defined.

            • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 个月前

              Ok, look, I’m really not interested in getting into these weeds. My point was just that human rights, whether one believes they are divinely given or inherent to some part of our being, are, for all practical purposes, useless without some means of enforcement. Do you dispute that?

              • whoxtank28@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 个月前

                Nope, not really. From my perspective, whether they came from a deity or from this place of “they just exist”, humans made them up. Human rights can be more accurately defined as: A bunch of apes have the ability to perceive fairness and are intelligent enough to use language collectively decided that fairness should be the rule. The collective will punish those who break the rules.

      • LordMayor@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 个月前

        It’s not supernatural, it’s philosophical.

        What’s the difference?

        Are you serious? Honestly, you’re not worth talking to if you have to ask that.

        • dreamkeeper@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 个月前

          So basically you can’t come up with a response to this person and insulted them instead? You people are no better than redditors, what a fucking joke

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 个月前

      Just like the divine right of kings was the foundation of most if not all medieval monarchies. You’re really not defending your case here.