Rights

@Seer Travis Truman. I agree. I can see that we have natural rights versus "false" rights. The rights for example that are alienable ones listed in the Constitution are not given to us. They already belong to us as natural rights. The whole sham starts with us needing to get a birth certificate to prove that we have been born and that we exist. It is a legal certificate in order for the Government to get tabs on us. And for us to be able to survive in the system.

deanhills said:

@Seer Travis Truman. I agree.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. You only think you agree.

I can see that we have natural rights versus "false" rights.

Click to expand...

There are natural rights, Truth-based rights and the current lie-based and illegitimate rights offered by society.

The whole sham starts with us needing to get a birth certificate to prove that we have been born and that we exist. It is a legal certificate in order for the Government to get tabs on us. And for us to be able to survive in the system.

Click to expand...

This view does not represent Truth. The entire societal system is a sham. In no way is it anything to do with "surviving in the system".

@seer Travis Truman. What natural rights are offered by society, maybe you need to define the rights you think you have superior knowledge off. What are natural rights, what are truth-based rights and what are lie-based rights, offered by which society?

deanhills said:

@seer Travis Truman. What natural rights are offered by society,

Click to expand...

Absolutely none. Society cannot offer natural anything. It is important to realize this. Example : If right to life is a natural right, and society offers such a right, it is important not to make the error of assuming that these rights are one and the same thing just because they claim the same right.

If there is a natural right possessed, then society is naught to do with it. Society would be pretending to be the source of that right, where in Truth is is ready at all times to commit genocide against chickens, humans via war abortion etc etc.

What are natural rights, what are truth-based rights and what are lie-based rights, offered by which society?

Click to expand...

Perhaps the above may help you somewhat.

Here is an example of a lie-based right offered by society :

The right to vote in elections. Is that a Truth-based right? No! Why? Because elections have utterly no legitimacy, and there is no country on the planet that practices democracy, despite claims to the contrary. Since the premise of the right has no Truth-based legitimacy, the right also has no leg to stand on and thus also has no Truth-based legitimacy.

-----------
Lets look at how legal rights in law can be applied in a Truth-based way :

Any legitimate right must be applied without any selectivity. It must also have every aspect of that right fully justified to the Truth. For example : If there was a Truth-based society that proposed hitting another human (assault) was illegal. The basis for this right would be in both morality and a natural desire that any sane life-form possesses not to be assaulted. It would be agreed upon that the Truth clearly shows this is a desirable proposition that is sane. Every single form of assault would need to be treated equally, including boxing, child abuse, fishing, cock-fighting, discipline assault of pets, rugby, street attacks, school yard fighting etc etc etc. There would then be a law declared that the assault is not sponsered by society.

At the same time, this would only ever be a societal-level rule. The individual citizen-slave would still have every right to do as his True Reality dictates, including assaults. Society would never have any legitimate claim to morally judge nor punish its created victim. Society could only take non-punitive rational and Truth-based measures to lessen the problem.

On My website, try reading the Ted Bundy file, using the created victim list. Ted makes a very good point about selectivity in current claims to human rights of the "right to life" variety.

-------------
Morals :

Currently, morality as defined by society is completely false. Morality exists, but what is claimed to constitute that morality is lie-based.

We can think of individual morality as based in Truth-based freedom. The right to do as your True Reality dictates without threat of moral questioning or punitive punishment from society.

Morality can be legitimately seen as "learning your lessons". Truth is of course the basis of all legitimate morality. We have two divisions :

1. Individual amorality/immorality

2. Societal-level morality/immorality

What is suitable for one is not necessarily for the other.

Wild animals are excellent sources of moral behaviour, and I suggest the polar bear, tiger, lion and giraffe are good animals to start with. Primates are more complicated and contain traps for the beginner in Forbidden Truth, and so should be avoided at first. The giraffe, for example, learns what is best for it quickly and acts accordingly.

A human teenager, for example, who hangs around and then robs and beats a old man and steals his money is not acting immorally, based on the current societal situation. Although he may risk jail, this is irrelevant because the current moral and legal claim have no Truth-based legitimacy. Only Truth-based elements that are not based on societal lies can be permitted.

At the same time, a Truth-based society that encountered such an individual acting amorally would be able to have moral claim to protect the old man, and take any measures that did not involve the punishment or moral judgement of the individual robbing the old man. It would have an obligation to do so.

There is no contradiction. What is correct on a personal scale is not necessarily correct on a societal scale.

Another example is masturbation is a noble and moral act, where as society currently lies and suggests otherwise.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Absolutely none. Society cannot offer natural anything. It is important to realize this. Example : If right to life is a natural right, and society offers such a right, it is important not to make the error of assuming that these rights are one and the same thing just because they claim the same right.

If there is a natural right possessed, then society is naught to do with it. Society would be pretending to be the source of that right, where in Truth is is ready at all times to commit genocide against chickens, humans via war abortion etc etc.
Perhaps the above may help you somewhat.

Click to expand...

Well then we did agree on this. Natural rights aren't given to us by a constitution, we have the natural rights when we are born. Maybe even before we are born.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Here is an example of a lie-based right offered by society :

The right to vote in elections. Is that a Truth-based right? No! Why? Because elections have utterly no legitimacy, and there is no country on the planet that practices democracy, despite claims to the contrary. Since the premise of the right has no Truth-based legitimacy, the right also has no leg to stand on and thus also has no Truth-based legitimacy.

Click to expand...

OK. I agree with you on this one too.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Lets look at how legal rights in law can be applied in a Truth-based way :

Any legitimate right must be applied without any selectivity. It must also have every aspect of that right fully justified to the Truth. For example : If there was a Truth-based society that proposed hitting another human (assault) was illegal. The basis for this right would be in both morality and a natural desire that any sane life-form possesses not to be assaulted. It would be agreed upon that the Truth clearly shows this is a desirable proposition that is sane. Every single form of assault would need to be treated equally, including boxing, child abuse, fishing, cock-fighting, discipline assault of pets, rugby, street attacks, school yard fighting etc etc etc. There would then be a law declared that the assault is not sponsered by society.

At the same time, this would only ever be a societal-level rule. The individual citizen-slave would still have every right to do as his True Reality dictates, including assaults. Society would never have any legitimate claim to morally judge nor punish its created victim. Society could only take non-punitive rational and Truth-based measures to lessen the problem.

Click to expand...

On this one I can't agree. As the problem that we have here is what the real truth is. You and I are debating one another because we have different perceptions of what the truth would be. You look differently at the truth than I do. So now add a few hundred people, few million people, and you have a tower of Babel of truths.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Morals :

Currently, morality as defined by society is completely false. Morality exists, but what is claimed to constitute that morality is lie-based.

Click to expand...

Ditto my above perception. There can only be different perceptions of moraility. Morality can not be absolutely defined.

deanhills said:

On this one I can't agree. As the problem that we have here is what the real truth is. You and I are debating one another because we have different perceptions of what the truth would be. You look differently at the truth than I do. So now add a few hundred people, few million people, and you have a tower of Babel of truths.

Click to expand...

I agree, but this is what I would place under the realm of True Reality, which is involved with personal Truth and relativity. Forbidden Truth is concrete and factually-based objective Truth. Both these forms of Truth exist at the same time.

Ditto my above perception. There can only be different perceptions of moraility. Morality can not be absolutely defined.

Click to expand...

I think it can. As long as we are talking about method and principal. Of course, exactly what is moral and what actions an individual might choose to undertake is a matter of True Reality relativity.

Seer Travis Truman said:

I think it can. As long as we are talking about method and principal. Of course, exactly what is moral and what actions an individual might choose to undertake is a matter of True Reality relativity.

Click to expand...

Interesting concept. I like it. True reality relativity. Good description. So all truth then is relative?

deanhills said:

Interesting concept. I like it. True reality relativity. Good description. So all truth then is relative?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to read the first page of the website. Scroll down to the main window, where True Reality and Forbidden Truth are defined. You can choose to go no further.

Each individual's True Reality is unique, and their experiences are unique. These personal Truths are often tainted by lies. They are only valid to the individual that has them, but all True Realities are equally valid.

Forbidden Truth, however, can contain objective fact. So, Truth is relative and objective at the one and same time.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Perhaps you need to read the first page of the website. Scroll down to the main window, where True Reality and Forbidden Truth are defined. You can choose to go no further.

Each individual's True Reality is unique, and their experiences are unique. These personal Truths are often tainted by lies. They are only valid to the individual that has them, but all True Realities are equally valid.

Forbidden Truth, however, can contain objective fact. So, Truth is relative and objective at the one and same time.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. So there would be my unique truth, and there would be the earth's uniqute truth, there would be your unique truth, and they will all be relative to a Universal Truth?

deanhills said:

Thanks for the explanation. So there would be my unique truth, and there would be the earth's uniqute truth, there would be your unique truth, and they will all be relative to a Universal Truth?

Click to expand...

I will explain more. TR is a difficult beast to understand, especially when looking at actual situations to glean Truth from them.

There is your unique and personal Truth, which is tainted and distorted by lies etc by society. Thats True Reality.

There is also an actual pure Truth, that exists waiting to be found. Then there is Forbidden Truth.

Some Truths are subjective, and some Truths are concrete facts. The FT does not mean that you know everything. You need not know everything in order to know one thing.

A simple example : You could say that if you went to the movies, that it is a personal and unique experience for each individual. If asked what was thought of the film, there would be a different view from each individual because of their perceptions.

It is still factually so that you thought the movie was too long. That is only be True to you, of course. It is still factually so that you experienced going to the movies.

So, we see here that there is perception and objectivism at the same time. perception does not change the fact that there are concrete facts available.

For example, child abuse occurs in society. That is the Truth. One cannot counter that by saying that child abuse is also subject to perception in certain ways.

I have read Plato, and the garbage about the cave. That is applicable to vision, experience and so on. That does not mean that there are not concrete facts. Perhaps you should have considered the hypocrisy of declaring this the absolute Truth when you claim there is no such thing.

Seer Travis Truman said:

A simple example : You could say that if you went to the movies, that it is a personal and unique experience for each individual. If asked what was thought of the film, there would be a different view from each individual because of their perceptions.

It is still factually so that you thought the movie was too long. That is only be True to you, of course. It is still factually so that you experienced going to the movies.

So, we see here that there is perception and objectivism at the same time. perception does not change the fact that there are concrete facts available.

Click to expand...

Let's take the movie Dr. Zhivago. When I saw it a few years ago, I thought it was horribly long-winding and it went on and on. A year ago when I saw it however, I was completely captivated with it, and it felt like no time at all. My perception at that time differs from today. Nothing is static. So truth can't be static. There could be a factual truth that I did see the movie twice. How I perceived the movie was different in both cases. Same with family and friends. People change all the time and our relationships with them are changing too.

Seer Travis Truman said:

For example, child abuse occurs in society. That is the Truth. One cannot counter that by saying that child abuse is also subject to perception in certain ways.

Click to expand...

No, child abuse is subject to perception. When someone from the outside looks at a parent hugging his child in public, there may easily be thoughts in his head that the parent is abusing his child. A parent may be scolding his child in an intense argument, and from the outside people could regard that as abuse. But is it abuse? We can argue that many ways. For example when you use harsh words in your postings, some people may regard it as abuse. You may perceive it to be different as seeking or educating the truth. No two people see things the exact same way, and some differ radically.

Seer Travis Truman said:

I have read Plato, and the garbage about the cave. That is applicable to vision, experience and so on. That does not mean that there are not concrete facts. Perhaps you should have considered the hypocrisy of declaring this the absolute Truth when you claim there is no such thing.

Click to expand...

No, for me, Plato's allegory does apply. Take child abuse as an example. Most of what we view about child abuse is a mirror of our own internal thinking processes. None of us have the facts of the child abuse in front of us. We are given the facts second hand. So it is as in the cave. Our hands are bound behind us, we can't see the actual abuse, we can only see shadows of it against a wall and we make our own interpretations of those shadows.

deanhills said:

Let's take the movie Dr. Zhivago. When I saw it a few years ago, I thought it was horribly long-winding and it went on and on. A year ago when I saw it however, I was completely captivated with it, and it felt like no time at all. My perception at that time differs from today. Nothing is static. So truth can't be static. There could be a factual truth that I did see the movie twice. How I perceived the movie was different in both cases. Same with family and friends. People change all the time and our relationships with them are changing too.

Click to expand...

Does not matter. That is nothing to do with it.

No, child abuse is subject to perception. When someone from the outside looks at a parent hugging his child in public, there may easily be thoughts in his head that the parent is abusing his child. A parent may be scolding his child in an intense argument, and from the outside people could regard that as abuse. But is it abuse? We can argue that many ways. For example when you use harsh words in your postings, some people may regard it as abuse. You may perceive it to be different as seeking or educating the truth. No two people see things the exact same way, and some differ radically.

Click to expand...

Thats another dismissive garbage argument. And I notice it is used selectively when you want to oppose something you cannot fault.

Child abuse exists, and it is known. You are just lying because you want children to be used as worthless poison containers on a subconcious level.

No, for me, Plato's allegory does apply. Take child abuse as an example. Most of what we view about child abuse is a mirror of our own internal thinking processes. None of us have the facts of the child abuse in front of us. We are given the facts second hand. So it is as in the cave. Our hands are bound behind us, we can't see the actual abuse, we can only see shadows of it against a wall and we make our own interpretations of those shadows.

Click to expand...

You are full of it. Your philosophy is level is retarded. You just pull out the "Platos cave" as an excuse not to answer.

You did not apply this garbage to the sea-world thread, now did you? No. This whole thing is a pathetic cloak for your ignorance. I could apply this drivel to every post you make and say the same thing.

You dont even answer to what I say anymore, you just repeat that nonsense about caves as if you think it makes you look intelligent.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Thats another dismissive garbage argument. And I notice it is used selectively when you want to oppose something you cannot fault.

Click to expand...

Maybe in your opinion perhaps. It would appear that you hold to absolutes in the truth. There is only one truth. I don't agree with only one truth. If there were only one truth, then we would not need a justice system.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Child abuse exists, and it is known. You are just lying because you want children to be used as worthless poison containers on a subconcious level.

Click to expand...

Strong words? I did not say child abuse did not exist. It definitely exists. I said that it is not always easy to define along absolute lines.

Seer Travis Truman said:

You are full of it. Your philosophy is level is retarded. You just pull out the "Platos cave" as an excuse not to answer.

Click to expand...

Strong words again. You are right of course. Our philosophy levels are different.

Seer Travis Truman said:

You did not apply this garbage to the sea-world thread, now did you? No. This whole thing is a pathetic cloak for your ignorance. I could apply this drivel to every post you make and say the same thing.

You dont even answer to what I say anymore, you just repeat that nonsense about caves as if you think it makes you look intelligent.

Click to expand...

If I have not answered something you said, can you let me know specifically what was unanswered. It most certainly was not deliberate.

With regard to wanting to look intelligent, I could not think of another analogy to use as the one about the caves describes best what I was trying to say. Whether that is intelligent or not is in the eye of the beholder.

deanhills said:

Maybe in your opinion perhaps. It would appear that you hold to absolutes in the truth. There is only one truth. I don't agree with only one truth.

Click to expand...

I answered that already, you lost. True Reality is relative Truth, but Forbidden Truth is concrete. Some Truths are relative, others not.

If there were only one truth, then we would not need a justice system.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Strong words? I did not say child abuse did not exist. It definitely exists. I said that it is not always easy to define along absolute lines.

Click to expand...

Bearded man fallacy. Just because it is hard (if not impossible) to define when a stubble becomes a beard, does not mean that we cannot identify stubble or a beard itself.

Strong words again. You are right of course. Our philosophy levels are different.

Click to expand...

I know. Your ability at philosophy is dismal.

If I have not answered something you said, can you let me know specifically what was unanswered. It most certainly was not deliberate.

Click to expand...

It is a deliberate avoidance, whether you deny this to yourself I am not certain. What IS certain is that everytime you encounter a question or argument that you dont like, you just argue dismissively and rattle about some form of relativity.

With regard to wanting to look intelligent, I could not think of another analogy to use as the one about the caves describes best what I was trying to say. Whether that is intelligent or not is in the eye of the beholder.

Click to expand...

Its not just that. The whole idea about dismissive-based relativity is used by those who are out of their depth who wish to deny defeat and pretend that they have an intelligent response when they are out of ammunition.

Seer Travis Truman said:

I answered that already, you lost. True Reality is relative Truth, but Forbidden Truth is concrete. Some Truths are relative, others not.

Click to expand...

If there would be a difference of opinion of what the "Forbidden Truth" is, who gets to decide what it is? If True Reality in your philosophy is relative Truth, how can Forbidden Truth be concrete?

Seer Travis Truman said:

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Click to expand...

We all have different perceptions of the truth. Justice has to decide what is true and false. If there is only one truth, then justice would not be necessary.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Bearded man fallacy. Just because it is hard (if not impossible) to define when a stubble becomes a beard, does not mean that we cannot identify stubble or a beard itself.

Click to expand...

Not the best of analogies that you have used so far. Every culture is different in the world. If someone in an Arab country disciplines their child by slapping him/her on the arm, this may be seen as abuse in Australia. But not in that Arab country. Abuse is not a finite term for use on people as people differ from one another. Problem is also, now that society has begun to uncover abuse, it looks at a child interacting with a parent with coloured glasses. Parental rights are in jeopardy.

Seer Travis Truman said:

I know. Your ability at philosophy is dismal.

Click to expand...

In your opinion perhaps. How you see my ability is irrelevant to me.

Seer Travis Truman said:

It is a deliberate avoidance, whether you deny this to yourself I am not certain. What IS certain is that everytime you encounter a question or argument that you dont like, you just argue dismissively and rattle about some form of relativity.

Click to expand...

Avoidance of what? Judgment again?

Seer Travis Truman said:

Its not just that. The whole idea about dismissive-based relativity is used by those who are out of their depth who wish to deny defeat and pretend that they have an intelligent response when they are out of ammunition.

Click to expand...

That is your personal opinion and judgment. Again completely irrelevant. Attacking the person that you are debating with definitely has a ring of ad hominem abusive in it. In my opinion it does not make for a good debate.

I would say the concept of rights is socially subjective - not necessarily state-driven.

deanhills said:

If there would be a difference of opinion of what the "Forbidden Truth" is, who gets to decide what it is?

Click to expand...

Nobody ever decides Truth. The Truth is there already, waiting to be recognized and embraced.

If True Reality in your philosophy is relative Truth, how can Forbidden Truth be concrete?

Click to expand...

Because they are seperate.

We all have different perceptions of the truth. Justice has to decide what is true and false.

Click to expand...

Justice is nothing to do with Truth.

If there is only one truth, then justice would not be necessary.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Its retarded.

Not the best of analogies that you have used so far.

Click to expand...

Retarded answer. Wrong. Firstly, I proved a fallacy of logic in your answer. Second, that is an explanation of the fallacy that is commonly used.

Every culture is different in the world.

Click to expand...

All cultures do not represent Truth and are irrelevant.

Parental rights are in jeopardy.

Click to expand...

No. Since society is based on sacrificing every child to their biological creators as poison-containers, "parental rights" can never be in jeopardy.

The Truth is that parental rights should not exist at all. All parental rights are is a smoke-screen to allow the unjust and brutal enslavement and ownership of children by human beings for the purpose of trying to control and appeal to the citizen-slaves. By addicting adults to child abuse and child-domination, society achieves both its goals of breaking and destroying children, and giving an offering to appease the previous generation of broken and abused children who have now become adults.

Just as a horse is "broken", all human must also be broken by the insane and perverse societal decree. parental rights are just a system of promoting and sponsering the abuse and societal decree that children are worthless owned property of the slave-owner poison-container masters.

In your opinion perhaps. How you see my ability is irrelevant to me.

Click to expand...

It should be relevant to you, because your abilities are pathetic.

Avoidance of what? Judgment again?

Click to expand...

You avoid the points I make by simply dismissing every one by arguing everything is just opinion/relative. It does not work.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman
Its not just that. The whole idea about dismissive-based relativity is used by those who are out of their depth who wish to deny defeat and pretend that they have an intelligent response when they are out of ammunition.

That is your personal opinion and judgment.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The mantra of the losing side, the big dummy, the bigot, the failure has always been "its just an opinion".

Sorry, but repeating the blunder in order to defend it is not only extremely fallacious reasoning, its retarded and shows a pathetic inability to recognise Truth.

Again completely irrelevant. Attacking the person that you are debating with definitely has a ring of ad hominem abusive in it. In my opinion it does not make for a good debate.

Click to expand...

Its not abuse, nor is it ad hominem. You just argue everything the same way - its all relative/opinion. Yet, you dont hold that standard to what you say. You can claim you do, you can lie and delude all you like. You are a waste of time to debate.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Nobody ever decides Truth. The Truth is there already, waiting to be recognized and embraced.

Click to expand...

OK then who gets to decide what is truth and what is fiction? And who is right? If there are so many perceptions of the truth, how do we know what is the truth for sure? Who gets to decide that?

Seer Travis Truman said:

Because they are seperate.

Click to expand...

How can they be separate? There has to be a connection between the two. I.e. truth being truth, so forbidden truth is still truth?

Seer Travis Truman said:

Justice is nothing to do with Truth.

Click to expand...

OK then, what is justice then in your opinion?

Seer Travis Truman said:

That makes no sense. Its retarded.

Click to expand...

What does retarded mean? And why does it not make any sense?

Seer Travis Truman said:

Retarded answer. Wrong. Firstly, I proved a fallacy of logic in your answer. Second, that is an explanation of the fallacy that is commonly used.

Click to expand...

You haven't proven a single thing.

Seer Travis Truman said:

All cultures do not represent Truth and are irrelevant.

Click to expand...

So who then represents the truth? You?

Seer Travis Truman said:

No. Since society is based on sacrificing every child to their biological creators as poison-containers, "parental rights" can never be in jeopardy.

Click to expand...

In your opinion perhaps. I see reported cases on a daily basis of children that have been removed from parents because society has had a subjective view about the parents' inability of taking care of their children. Or that children must go to school, and subject themselves to abuse at school etc etc. If there were no parental rights, then Parents' Associations would not be necessary.

Seer Travis Truman said:

The Truth is that parental rights should not exist at all. All parental rights are is a smoke-screen to allow the unjust and brutal enslavement and ownership of children by human beings for the purpose of trying to control and appeal to the citizen-slaves. By addicting adults to child abuse and child-domination, society achieves both its goals of breaking and destroying children, and giving an offering to appease the previous generation of broken and abused children who have now become adults.

Click to expand...

Maybe the parents would have a different opinion to yours? Partially agreed that not all parents are perfect and responsible, but maybe you are going a little overboard in your criticism?

Seer Travis Truman said:

Just as a horse is "broken", all human must also be broken by the insane and perverse societal decree. parental rights are just a system of promoting and sponsering the abuse and societal decree that children are worthless owned property of the slave-owner poison-container masters.

Click to expand...

This does not sound like a point of view, more like ranting.

Seer Travis Truman said:

It should be relevant to you, because your abilities are pathetic.

Click to expand...

These kind of personal remarks by you are repetitive as well are used to distract from your own flaws. You apparently have to show your own superiority by attacking others, rather than arguing points. I prefer to ignore this. It should be irrelevant to a discussion on a forum.

Seer Travis Truman said:

You avoid the points I make by simply dismissing every one by arguing everything is just opinion/relative. It does not work.

The mantra of the losing side, the big dummy, the bigot, the failure has always been "its just an opinion".

Sorry, but repeating the blunder in order to defend it is not only extremely fallacious reasoning, its retarded and shows a pathetic inability to recognise Truth.

Click to expand...

And you seem to be repeating this same personal judgments over and over again. You're not adding anything to the discussion at all.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Its not abuse, nor is it ad hominem. You just argue everything the same way - its all relative/opinion. Yet, you dont hold that standard to what you say. You can claim you do, you can lie and delude all you like. You are a waste of time to debate.

Click to expand...

It most certainly is ad hominem. If I argue things the same it is because your responses are the same. You are not contributing anything new to the discussion.