Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 21:35 last edited by
It seems to be an obvious empirical truth that rights are societally contingent.
'Natural rights' makes sense only as a normative concept.
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 21:37 last edited by jon-nyc
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. Everybody here would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
-
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. Everybody here would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
wrote on 16 May 2022, 21:42 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. We would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
Did native americans have a right to live, even if they were slaughtered by colonists? Of course in casual speech you can find support or contradiction for anything you please, but a claim that rights are necessarily enforceable is absurd on its face. Murdered people had a right not to be murdered, QED.
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
I was speaking Greek to you apparently. You misunderstood every single sentence.
Maybe we arent using the same definition of "natural rights".
wrote on 16 May 2022, 21:42 last edited by@Larry said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
I was speaking Greek to you apparently. You misunderstood every single sentence.
Maybe we arent using the same definition of "natural rights".
Endowed by their Creator...
Jon doesn't believe in that. Biologically speaking, people have no more worth than a pig, an elephant or a hummingbird. Man is not made in a Divine image, for nothing is Divine. Man is just a mass of cells, making up tissues, organs, systems and melding into a single human. Life is ephemeral and in a historical sense, cheap.
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. We would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
Did native americans have a right to live, even if they were slaughtered by colonists? Of course in casual speech you can find support or contradiction for anything you please, but a claim that rights are necessarily enforceable is absurd on its face. Murdered people had a right not to be murdered, QED.
wrote on 16 May 2022, 22:49 last edited byAren’t you being a little tribal here?
Or does Horace 2.0 actually believe in a creator god that granted us “inalienable” rights which for some reason have been alienated from us for almost the entirety of our existence as a species?
-
It seems to be an obvious empirical truth that rights are societally contingent.
'Natural rights' makes sense only as a normative concept.
wrote on 16 May 2022, 22:52 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
It seems to be an obvious empirical truth that rights are societally contingent.
'Natural rights' makes sense only as a normative concept.
Natural rights as a normative concept are neither natural nor rights. You're gutting the words of all meaning, and we have perfectly good language for what you are talking about without confusing it with the language and intellectual structure of "natural rights".
They are more like designated privileges -- as if you are granted the privilege to not be enslaved or killed with impunity, or to have access to the system of impartial justice, or the right to found a family, or the right to participate in the political life of your community, etc. either personally or as a class member or society member.
If you really think that its only a normative (rules of acceptable behavior) concept, then why complain of Hitler's treatment of the Jews? Why complain of slavery? Wouldn't any dystopian society have the same claim to authenticity?
-
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. Everybody here would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
wrote on 16 May 2022, 22:55 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. Everybody here would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
Upon reflection, people would perhaps actually say that people cannot exercise their right to free speech because the government is oppressive and brutal.
People in China also don't have the right to keep their kidneys and other transplantable organs. Are you going to allow for that use of "people don't have rights" without blinking an eye?
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 22:57 last edited by jon-nyc
No, I’ll just put the word ‘should’ in front of ‘have rights’ to acknowledge the actual situation humans have always faced.
-
Aren’t you being a little tribal here?
Or does Horace 2.0 actually believe in a creator god that granted us “inalienable” rights which for some reason have been alienated from us for almost the entirety of our existence as a species?
wrote on 16 May 2022, 23:05 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Aren’t you being a little tribal here?
Or does Horace 2.0 actually believe in a creator god that granted us “inalienable” rights which for some reason have been alienated from us for almost the entirety of our existence as a species?
I've already admitted that the "rights" under discussion can be believed in or not believed in by any individual. Your attempt to dismantle the existence of such rights is incoherent, in that it relies on the claim that rights must always be enforceable. That is obviously not the sort of "right" Jefferson was referring to. In fact he was invoking these rights as the moral underpinning of the social structures which make it possible to enforce them.
-
No, I’ll just put the word ‘should’ in front of ‘have rights’ to acknowledge the actual situation humans have always faced.
wrote on 16 May 2022, 23:08 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
No, I’ll just put the word ‘should’ in front of ‘have rights’ to acknowledge the actual situation humans have always faced.
By which you will always mean, "should have the ability to appeal to an authority to enforce those rights". Thus confusing the conversation, for those who might want to discuss the sorts of rights that can exist without an ability to enforce them.
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Surely we all recognize that in casual speech. We would generally say 'people don't have the right to free speech in China', rather than 'of course people in china have the right to free speech, but it isn't recognized by their government' or whatever.
Did native americans have a right to live, even if they were slaughtered by colonists? Of course in casual speech you can find support or contradiction for anything you please, but a claim that rights are necessarily enforceable is absurd on its face. Murdered people had a right not to be murdered, QED.
wrote on 17 May 2022, 00:39 last edited by Copper@Horace said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Did native americans have a right to live, even if they were slaughtered by colonists? .
It varied
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/charters.html
In 1705, Robert Beverley described the extent of Virginia with specific limits on north, east, and south, but with the western edge extending all the way to the Pacific Ocean:6
Virginia's claim to land stretching all the way across the continent to "the Californian Sea" ended in 1763. At the end of the French and Indian War (known as the Seven Years War in Europe), negotiators in Paris determined a new boundary for the western edge of Virginia.
So, for a while, just about any native American between the Atlantic and Pacific was trespassing. And as a trespasser I assume they had limited rights.
-
wrote on 7 Jun 2022, 12:03 last edited by
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
It seems to be an obvious empirical truth that rights are societally contingent.
'Natural rights' makes sense only as a normative concept.
Natural rights as a normative concept are neither natural nor rights. You're gutting the words of all meaning, and we have perfectly good language for what you are talking about without confusing it with the language and intellectual structure of "natural rights".
They are more like designated privileges -- as if you are granted the privilege to not be enslaved or killed with impunity, or to have access to the system of impartial justice, or the right to found a family, or the right to participate in the political life of your community, etc. either personally or as a class member or society member.
If you really think that its only a normative (rules of acceptable behavior) concept, then why complain of Hitler's treatment of the Jews? Why complain of slavery? Wouldn't any dystopian society have the same claim to authenticity?
wrote on 7 Jun 2022, 12:20 last edited by@Ivorythumper said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Natural rights as a normative concept are neither natural nor rights. You're gutting the words of all meaning, and we have perfectly good language for what you are talking about without confusing it with the language and intellectual structure of "natural rights".
They are more like designated privileges -- as if you are granted the privilege to not be enslaved or killed with impunity, or to have access to the system of impartial justice, or the right to found a family, or the right to participate in the political life of your community, etc. either personally or as a class member or society member.Yep yep yep.
I've always had a problem with the concepts of right and deserve. You have a right to X, you deserve Y. Yeah? Says who? They're like the wispiest of ephemera.
I'm with you and also Jon. Not to offend, but I don't see how laying it at the feet of a creator does (or has ever done) anything to ameliorate anything in the realm of rights. Pragmatically, at least. Maybe that gives us extra oomph in the moral sphere . . .
Well, I'm with Jon, sort of. Humans do have skillz that nonhumans do not have. The sad thing is that humans do not respect their responsibility to exercise their -- what, soul stuff? I can't think of how to finish that. I am newly risen from an AWFUL TERRIBLE ordeal of suffering and can't be expected to think good.
At least, that's today's excuse.
-
wrote on 7 Jun 2022, 12:24 last edited by
@George-K said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Taking a stand.
She's a partisan. Period.
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
No, I’ll just put the word ‘should’ in front of ‘have rights’ to acknowledge the actual situation humans have always faced.
By which you will always mean, "should have the ability to appeal to an authority to enforce those rights". Thus confusing the conversation, for those who might want to discuss the sorts of rights that can exist without an ability to enforce them.
wrote on 7 Jun 2022, 12:26 last edited by Catseye3 6 Jul 2022, 12:28@Horace and Jon said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
No, I’ll just put the word ‘should’ in front of ‘have rights’ to acknowledge the actual situation humans have always faced.
By which you will always mean, "should have the ability to appeal to an authority to enforce those rights". Thus confusing the conversation, for those who might want to discuss the sorts of rights that can exist without an ability to enforce them.
Man, I love these slugfests Jon and Horace get into.
When they put their heavy thinking hats on, I feel like Bozo the Clown looking on. Not that that shuts me up any, but still.
-
@George-K said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Taking a stand.
She's a partisan. Period.
wrote on 7 Jun 2022, 15:34 last edited by@Jolly said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@George-K said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Taking a stand.
She's a partisan. Period.
Of course, and everybody knows it, especially those who approved of her. As soon as you know she eagerly accepts her role as "the first black female justice" rather than "the next justice", you know she will be voting along the partisan lines that implies. Imagine a nominee of a republican president being proud to identify as anything but an accomplished legal scholar. Unfortunately, righteous pop culture feels itself superior to the constitution, so Mrs Brown Jackson's actual job description will be something to be worked around, rather than honored. And that is exactly what her tribe expects.
-
@Horace and Jon said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
No, I’ll just put the word ‘should’ in front of ‘have rights’ to acknowledge the actual situation humans have always faced.
By which you will always mean, "should have the ability to appeal to an authority to enforce those rights". Thus confusing the conversation, for those who might want to discuss the sorts of rights that can exist without an ability to enforce them.
Man, I love these slugfests Jon and Horace get into.
When they put their heavy thinking hats on, I feel like Bozo the Clown looking on. Not that that shuts me up any, but still.
wrote on 7 Jun 2022, 15:36 last edited by@Catseye3 said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@Horace and Jon said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
No, I’ll just put the word ‘should’ in front of ‘have rights’ to acknowledge the actual situation humans have always faced.
By which you will always mean, "should have the ability to appeal to an authority to enforce those rights". Thus confusing the conversation, for those who might want to discuss the sorts of rights that can exist without an ability to enforce them.
Man, I love these slugfests Jon and Horace get into.
When they put their heavy thinking hats on, I feel like Bozo the Clown looking on. Not that that shuts me up any, but still.
Thank you Cats. I take my responsibilities as a public intellectual very seriously. I would like the TNCR think tank to come to good, pro-social conclusions in all of its political and cultural discussions.
-
@Jolly said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@George-K said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Taking a stand.
She's a partisan. Period.
Of course, and everybody knows it, especially those who approved of her. As soon as you know she eagerly accepts her role as "the first black female justice" rather than "the next justice", you know she will be voting along the partisan lines that implies. Imagine a nominee of a republican president being proud to identify as anything but an accomplished legal scholar. Unfortunately, righteous pop culture feels itself superior to the constitution, so Mrs Brown Jackson's actual job description will be something to be worked around, rather than honored. And that is exactly what her tribe expects.
wrote on 7 Jun 2022, 15:58 last edited by@Horace said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@Jolly said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@George-K said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Taking a stand.
She's a partisan. Period.
Of course, and everybody knows it, especially those who approved of her. As soon as you know she eagerly accepts her role as "the first black female justice" rather than "the next justice", you know she will be voting along the partisan lines that implies. Imagine a nominee of a republican president being proud to identify as anything but an accomplished legal scholar. Unfortunately, righteous pop culture feels itself superior to the constitution, so Mrs Brown Jackson's actual job description will be something to be worked around, rather than honored. And that is exactly what her tribe expects.
Which it is so important to control the appointments to the court, the first among the Three Branches.
-
@Horace said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@Jolly said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@George-K said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Taking a stand.
She's a partisan. Period.
Of course, and everybody knows it, especially those who approved of her. As soon as you know she eagerly accepts her role as "the first black female justice" rather than "the next justice", you know she will be voting along the partisan lines that implies. Imagine a nominee of a republican president being proud to identify as anything but an accomplished legal scholar. Unfortunately, righteous pop culture feels itself superior to the constitution, so Mrs Brown Jackson's actual job description will be something to be worked around, rather than honored. And that is exactly what her tribe expects.
Which it is so important to control the appointments to the court, the first among the Three Branches.
wrote on 7 Jun 2022, 17:19 last edited by@Jolly said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@Horace said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@Jolly said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@George-K said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Taking a stand.
She's a partisan. Period.
Of course, and everybody knows it, especially those who approved of her. As soon as you know she eagerly accepts her role as "the first black female justice" rather than "the next justice", you know she will be voting along the partisan lines that implies. Imagine a nominee of a republican president being proud to identify as anything but an accomplished legal scholar. Unfortunately, righteous pop culture feels itself superior to the constitution, so Mrs Brown Jackson's actual job description will be something to be worked around, rather than honored. And that is exactly what her tribe expects.
Which it is so important to control the appointments to the court, the first among the Three Branches.
Imagine, if our leading pop culturalite intellectuals rewrote the constitution today, how much diversicrat ideology it would contain. So much more racism would be codified in a present day attempt to write a constitution, than was ever codified in the original.
-
wrote on 7 Jun 2022, 17:28 last edited by
If today were yesterday, they couldnt have agreed enough to fight the revolution...
