Rights

obtuseobserver said:

Lol, I'm not winging it - my standards are very high but I don't require the subject conform with my requiorements. The subject is what it is whether you call it gooblygrinks or peanuts or rights. You're trying to force round pegs into square holes.

Click to expand...

I don't see it as anything other than trying to logically ground the conversation. You can't talk about "X" until you know how "X" is defined, it's really that simple.

obtuseobserver said:

Ethics and rights are not synonymous. It is perfectly reasonable to have a right whose enforcement may be unethical.

As a general matter however, those states that have employed the English Common law and liberal democratic principles have avoided lots of dead people. States that tried to relegate religion to the ash heap of history and deny natural law (which then leads to the obvious realization that ethics are no more than human constructs that serve the needs of man. Once one has gotten that far it becomes a great deal more important to one of the people who decides what man needs and what is or is not ethical..... for example... another suggested here that we should sterilize those who are dependent upon the state. Besides that person's failure to understand our nation's history with that notion it quite clearly outlines exactly what I am talking about. And what you are concerned about.... lots of dead people. A fair concern.

Click to expand...

You're putting the cart before the horse. I'm still waiting for someone to propose a definition of "rights". How about to speed things up a bit, I'll suggest something that has been flying around my brain:

1. A right is any statement that defines moral, ethical behavior.

editted previous post btw

TortoiseDream said:

I don't see it as anything other than trying to logically ground the conversation. You can't talk about "X" until you know how "X" is defined, it's really that simple.

Click to expand...

And I am telling you that as a matter of both fact and of law in our system there is no consistent and static definition.

Let's take a specific example. The right to free speech.

What does that mean? It depends. So, is the discussion then pointless?

I'd assert that it is not. It simply requires more specific application rather than such a nebulous discussion.

So... is the speech political speech or is it commercial sppeech? Does it matter?

Is the speech occurring on private property or public property? When?

Are they parading? Were permits required? How are permits issued?

Rights are complicated things. They mean different things at different times.

TortoiseDream said:

You're putting the cart before the horse. I'm still waiting for someone to propose a definition of "rights". How about to speed things up a bit, I'll suggest something that has been flying around my brain:

1. A right is any statement that defines moral, ethical behavior.

Click to expand...

Murder, the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought, is bad. That fits your definition but isn't a right.

As I said several posts ago, with regard to our system of laws and government a right, generally, is a claim enforceable at law.

The right to free speech. The right to enforce a contract provision. Etc.

obtuseobserver said:

editted previous post btw

And I am telling you that as a matter of both fact and of law in our system there is no consistent and static definition.

Let's take a specific example. The right to free speech.

What does that mean? It depends. So, is the discussion then pointless?

I'd assert that it is not. It simply requires more specific application rather than such a nebulous discussion.

So... is the speech political speech or is it commercial sppeech? Does it matter?

Is the speech occurring on private property or public property? When?

Are they parading? Were permits required? How are permits issued?

Rights are complicated things. They mean different things at different times.

Click to expand...

I know that the word "rights" are colloquially used all the time and in vague ways. That's the problem. The failure of others to define rights and use it in a consistent, logical fashion does not mean that we are prevented from attempting to do so here.

obtuseobserver said:

Murder, the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought, is bad. That fits your definition but isn't a right.

Click to expand...

You have no right (hehe, the irony) to tell me what is or isn't a right since you have no idea what a right is - you haven't defined it. However, I have provided a (working) definition, and I would agree that this statement is a right. Getting to the point of saying, "You have the right to life," though is tricky, which is ideally where we want to go with this. I'm not saying I have the answers, I'm trying to stir a discussion and hopefully we can help each other come to some good results.

obtuseobserver said:

As I said several posts ago, with regard to our system of laws and government a right, generally, is a claim enforceable at law.

The right to free speech. The right to enforce a contract provision. Etc.

Click to expand...

In my definition for "rights" there would have to be a correspoding ethical statement that grounds these statements, just like "murder is bad" grounds "the right to life". Can you think of what they might be?

Or do you have a better definition? Because so far we only have one (proposed) definition from myself.

TortoiseDream said:

I know that the word "rights" are colloquially used all the time and in vague ways. That's the problem. The failure of others to define rights and use it in a consistent, logical fashion does not mean that we are prevented from attempting to do so here.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But believe me, you're not going to come up with a universally applicable definition.

It is much much harder than that.

TortoiseDream said:

You have no right (hehe, the irony)

Click to expand...

You are a math guy... stop with the humor. We don't get it. We don't feel troubled by our lack of curiosity

TortoiseDream said:

to tell me what is or isn't a right since you have no idea what a right is - you haven't defined it.

Click to expand...

Well, using your definition, the statement illustrates a moral ethical behavior yet I think we can agree that it isn't a right.

TortoiseDream said:

However, I have provided a (working) definition, and I would agree that this statement is a right. Getting to the point of saying, "You have the right to life," though is tricky, which is ideally where we want to go with this. I'm not saying I have the answers, I'm trying to stir a discussion and hopefully we can help each other come to some good results.

Click to expand...

And I'm still trying to point out howe slippery that is. It requires context. I know I sound like the same broken record you do.

TortoiseDream said:

In my definition for "rights" there would have to be a correspoding ethical statement that grounds these statements, just like "murder is bad" grounds "the right to life". Can you think of what they might be?

Click to expand...

But we don't have a right to life in all cases. So, if it isn't universal and depends on the circumstances how can that be meaningfully applied to this discussion on the terms you propose? Meant with all due sincerity. Not trying to be a pain in the ass, that comes naturally, just trying to note the difficulty here.

I think what you're looking for here is a definition you can rely on?

TortoiseDream said:

Or do you have a better definition? Because so far we only have one (proposed) definition from myself.

Click to expand...

No, this'll be the third (at least) time I've offered up, generally, a right is a claim enforceable at law.

To make it meaningful we'd need to add, under a given set of circumstances. See my free speech illustration aboove.

obtuseobserver said:

Agreed. But believe me, you're not going to come up with a universally applicable definition.

It is much much harder than that.

Click to expand...

Why not?

obtuseobserver said:

Well, using your definition, the statement illustrates a moral ethical behavior yet I think we can agree that it isn't a right.

Click to expand...

What statement?

obtuseobserver said:

And I'm still trying to point out howe slippery that is. It requires context. I know I sound like the same broken record you do.

Click to expand...

We must tread carefully, that much is certain. But that does not mean we ought not tread at all.

obtuseobserver said:

But we don't have a right to life in all cases. So, if it isn't universal and depends on the circumstances how can that be meaningfully applied to this discussion on the terms you propose? Meant with all due sincerity. Not trying to be a pain in the ass, that comes naturally, just trying to note the difficulty here.

I think what you're looking for here is a definition you can rely on?

Click to expand...

Well discussing the "right to life" so far isn't really the point of the discussion. The point is: what is a right? Ultimately making sense out of something like the "right to life" seems like a worthy goal. Maybe it will be true, maybe not.

obtuseobserver said:

No, this'll be the third (at least) time I've offered up, generally, a right is a claim enforceable at law.

To make it meaningful we'd need to add, under a given set of circumstances. See my free speech illustration aboove.

Click to expand...

Two things:

1. What is a "claim enforced by law", that doesn't make any sense to me. For example, I can the claim that all tomatoes are blue. Tell me how the law would "enforce" that claim, if it was so desired.

2. It also seems like you're tying rights inextricably to government. That is, when the state doesn't exist, people have no rights.

TortoiseDream said:

Why not?

Click to expand...

I've given you a good general definition. However, that definitionm is subject to exception. That's why.

TortoiseDream said:

What statement?

Click to expand...

you proposed a definition... 1. A right is any statement that defines moral, ethical behavior.

I used it

Murder, the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought, is bad. That fits your definition but isn't a right.

TortoiseDream said:

We must tread carefully, that much is certain. But that does not mean we ought not tread at all.

Click to expand...

I'm all for trodding but I see through a particular lens and I'm not going to step out of it. I'm not being obstructionist it is just the way I've been taught to think about these issues. I see "right" from the POV of our political and legal system. Within that "right" is variable depending on facts and circumstances in the instant case. We try to be as consistent as possible but there are times when rights conflict and solutions must be fashioned.

TortoiseDream said:

Well discussing the "right to life" so far isn't really the point of the discussion. The point is: what is a right? Ultimately making sense out of something like the "right to life" seems like a worthy goal. Maybe it will be true, maybe not.

Click to expand...

I was using it as an illustration of how difficult this topic is in the abstract. What right could seem more plain than the right not to be killed? However, we know that we don't always have that right.

TortoiseDream said:

Two things:

1. What is a "claim enforced by law", that doesn't make any sense to me. For example, I can the claim that all tomatoes are blue. Tell me how the law would "enforce" that claim, if it was so desired.

2. It also seems like you're tying rights inextricably to government. That is, when the state doesn't exist, people have no rights.

Click to expand...

1. Legally enforceable means you can go to a court, plead your case and expect a judgment. It means you can call the police and have them remove the drunk neighbor who is passed out on your front lawn. A claim that may evoke the power of the state for enforcement.

2. No, people have rights apart from government. Government exists to protect those rights we have been endowed with by our creator. That's the whole natural right deal. When we are unable to defend or enforce a right on our own we may turn to the power of the state to enforce it. To get my neighbor and his fifty drunks friends off my front lawn.

TortoiseDream said:

I'm not implying that a right is a mathematical object, I'm simply demanding the same level of rigor that goes into mathematical thinking go into our starting point in a discussion of rights namely the definition of rights. How can we discuss them if we don't know what they are?

Click to expand...

Mathematics is actually a low context system. It is what Edward Hall would call an extension. It is a creation of the human mind. Therefore it is largely definable by the human mind. Still you have undefined elements in mathematics.
If by rights, you mean the ones created by law, yes, they are part of the game of law. Another extension, another creation of the mind, however, it is not wise to mistake the map for the mapped. Still, if accuracy is not a great concern, you can easily change a map.
If you mean the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, then it?s not so simple. Nature or Nature?s God is just another way of saying God, whomsoever He, She or It may be. To move to another level of abstraction, the way of all that is.
These rights derive from natural law, which is really a subset of the laws by which the stars move. We understand that, even in physics, we really don?t know the final question right alone the final answer.
You can ignore the laws of physics, but the things you build while so doing may not work too good. The same holds for states which are constructed in ignorance of natural law.
You can?t simply say a few magic phrases and fly. You can build an airplane and fly. The same holds true for rights. You can?t simply say that you have rights, you have to create a structure where these rights are part of the structure. You can?t legislate natural law anymore then you can legislate the laws of physics. However you can legislate in accordance with natural law. First, you have to discover it, the same as with the laws of physics.
We can discuss a lot of things without knowing what they are. Actually, what do we really know about anything? Remember, they talked for years about Newton?s Laws, but in reality, they weren?t laws, they were theories. But still, look what was made with their aid.
　
　

Ignoramus said:

If by rights, you mean the ones created by law, yes, they are part of the game of law.

Click to expand...

Laws as a general matter exist to protect rights we have rather than create them. That's part of the trouble with denying natural law. If one does, then we are stuck with laws granting rights. We've seen how that plays out.

Ignoramus said:

If you mean the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, then it?s not so simple.

Click to expand...

The rights discussed there were intended to be generalizations and a noninclusive list

The Bill of Rights was more detailed, obviously, but the 9th and 10th reaffirmed the notion that the list was not exhaustive.

Ignoramus said:

Mathematics is actually a low context system. It is what Edward Hall would call an extension. It is a creation of the human mind. Therefore it is largely definable by the human mind. Still you have undefined elements in mathematics.

Click to expand...

Mathematics is absolutely a creation of the human mind. Agreed 100%. However, I strongly disagree that there are undefined elements in mathematics. The short justification is that if you propose to have an undefined element, then you simply aren't doing mathematics at all. Believe it or not '1/0' is defined (it's equal to the collection of all sets, if you're curious), as well as other "undefined" objects.

A little off topic, but, well, I am a mathematician....

Ignoramus said:

If by rights, you mean the ones created by law, yes, they are part of the game of law. Another extension, another creation of the mind, however, it is not wise to mistake the map for the mapped. Still, if accuracy is not a great concern, you can easily change a map.
If you mean the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, then it?s not so simple. Nature or Nature?s God is just another way of saying God, whomsoever He, She or It may be. To move to another level of abstraction, the way of all that is.
These rights derive from natural law, which is really a subset of the laws by which the stars move. We understand that, even in physics, we really don?t know the final question right alone the final answer.
You can ignore the laws of physics, but the things you build while so doing may not work too good. The same holds for states which are constructed in ignorance of natural law.
You can?t simply say a few magic phrases and fly. You can build an airplane and fly. The same holds true for rights. You can?t simply say that you have rights, you have to create a structure where these rights are part of the structure. You can?t legislate natural law anymore then you can legislate the laws of physics. However you can legislate in accordance with natural law. First, you have to discover it, the same as with the laws of physics.
We can discuss a lot of things without knowing what they are. Actually, what do we really know about anything? Remember, they talked for years about Newton?s Laws, but in reality, they weren?t laws, they were theories. But still, look what was made with their aid.

Click to expand...

Now you are touching on a very important thing. Just like in mathematics, definitions are very ambiguous. It's not so much the name for the concept that is important, but the concept itself. We have the name of the thing we want to define ("rights"), but so far I see no concrete defining characteristic or concept that we want to associate to that name.

In short, defining "rights" isn't so much the crucial point; it is more so agreeing upon just what concept we are associating to the names "rights" when we discuss them, i.e. rights that "derive from law", rights that "come from nature"? Just what are we talking about? I'd be happy to discuss either, or if you my definition of "statement of morality" may lead to fruitful discussion we can define it that way.

TortoiseDream said:

Mathematics is absolutely a creation of the human mind. Agreed 100%. However, I strongly disagree that there are undefined elements in mathematics. The short justification is that if you propose to have an undefined element, then you simply aren't doing mathematics at all. Believe it or not '1/0' is defined (it's equal to the collection of all sets, if you're curious), as well as other "undefined" objects.

Click to expand...

what's 2 divided by zero? same answer? what's the square root of -2?

I believe the 1/0 deal but isn't that more of a squishy definition of what it isn't?

mathmatics are a human method of describing things around them

so are rights... rights don't lend themselves to formulae

TortoiseDream said:

A little off topic, but, well, I am a mathematician....

Click to expand...

yes, and I forgive you

TortoiseDream said:

Now you are touching on a very important thing. Just like in mathematics, definitions are very ambiguous. It's not so much the name for the concept that is important, but the concept itself. We have the name of the thing we want to define ("rights"), but so far I see no concrete defining characteristic or concept that we want to associate to that name.

Click to expand...

And back to philosophy as semantics or is it semantics as philosophy? (and I use the term in the sense most should but don't... the meanings of words. Semantics are vital in most cases)

TortoiseDream said:

In short, defining "rights" isn't so much the crucial point; it is more so agreeing upon just what concept we are associating to the names "rights" when we discuss them, i.e. rights that "derive from law", rights that "come from nature"? Just what are we talking about? I'd be happy to discuss either, or if you my definition of "statement of morality" may lead to fruitful discussion we can define it that way.

Click to expand...

rights come from nature - nature's god

because rights may conflict (amongst many other irrelevent reasons for this discussion) we consent to being governed and we ask that government to preserve and defend those rights on our behalf... we further agree to accept the findings of fact and law that state when a dispute is brought to a court for resolution. (that the rules for that are complicated makes the outline no less squarely on point.

So, rights are those things we can expect to make rightful claim to. It maybe property (personalty or realty) or it may be rights associated with the human condition; the right not to be killed (most of the time). However, because the rights adhere to people and may come into conflict they are not absolute. Resolving those conflicts is the hard part.

obtuseobserver said:

what's 2 divided by zero? same answer? what's the square root of -2?

Click to expand...

Yes, 2/0 = 1/0 = SETS, where SETS is the collection of all sets.

For the square root of -2 that depends. Is that -2 the real number or -2 the complex number? There is a difference. There are a few number systems we use, the natural numbers, the integers, the rational numbers, the real numbers, and the complex numbers. They are all different kinds of beasts, in fact.The natural number 0, the integer 0, the rational number 0, the real number 0, and the complex number 0 are all not equal to any of the others. If you mean real -2, then the answer is SETS. If you mean complex -2, then the answer is i*sqrt(2).

obtuseobserver said:

I believe the 1/0 deal but isn't that more of a squishy definition of what it isn't?

Click to expand...

You won't have to merely believe it. I can prove it.

TortoiseDream said:

For the square root of -2 that depends. Is that -2 the real number or -2 the complex number? There is a difference. There are a few number systems we use, the natural numbers, the integers, the rational numbers, the real numbers, and the complex numbers. They are all different kinds of beasts, in fact.The natural number 0, the integer 0, the rational number 0, the real number 0, and the complex number 0 are all not equal to any of the others. If you mean real -2, then the answer is SETS. If you mean complex -2, then the answer is i*sqrt(2).

Click to expand...

And that's with math - a well defined system. A system that depends on strict adherence to rules.

So, can you accept at least in part that "rights" which are part of living breathing society are messier?

They really do require context to discuss meaningfully.

TortoiseDream said:

You won't have to merely believe it. I can prove it.

Click to expand...

lol - I accepted your proof as true perfectly valid and frankly wouldn't know how to object if you were bullshitting me.

If we can get a "depends" response when discussing math think how much mopre often when we through human action into the equation (if I may use that word).


so.... pick a right. they are not all equal. even specific rights have varying degrees of enforceability.

TortoiseDream said:

Mathematics is absolutely a creation of the human mind. Agreed 100%. However, I strongly disagree that there are undefined elements in mathematics. The short justification is that if you propose to have an undefined element, then you simply aren't doing mathematics at all. Believe it or not '1/0' is defined (it's equal to the collection of all sets, if you're curious), as well as other "undefined" objects.

Click to expand...

TortoiseDream said:

A little off topic, but, well, I am a mathematician....

Click to expand...

Apparently you don’t consider geometry mathematics. It is my understanding that "point", "line" and "plane" belong to the set of undefined elements in geometry. This cite may give an example

http://www.emis.de/monographs/jablan/chap11.htm
　
Actually mathematics may be divided into

(1) Undefined terms and definitions.
(2) Axioms or postulates.
(3) Theorems
At least that is my understanding.
You may have a bit of a point, I took geometry at an earlier age. Then they called an undefined term an undefined element. That was before set theory became commonplace.
I should have used undefined terms instead of undefined elements. However, even in set theory, there are undefined elements.
By the way, I am not a mathematician.

Now you are touching on a very important thing. Just like in mathematics, definitions are very ambiguous. It's not so much the name for the concept that is important, but the concept itself. We have the name of the thing we want to define ("rights"), but so far I see no concrete defining characteristic or concept that we want to associate to that name.
In short, defining "rights" isn't so much the crucial point; it is more so agreeing upon just what concept we are associating to the names "rights" when we discuss them, i.e. rights that "derive from law", rights that "come from nature"? Just what are we talking about? I'd be happy to discuss either, or if you my definition of "statement of morality" may lead to fruitful discussion we can define it that way.

Click to expand...

I believe I mentioned the two common divisions of rights. Those created by man made law and those derived from natural law. I don’t deal in morality, at least in the conventional sense. Legal rights are easy, and I don’t believe it is really necessary for me to address them. Rights derived from natural law are not easy. What you seem to want is a definition in the linear mode for a subject that I feel is really very difficult to define in the linear mode. Since natural law derives from the nature of reality itself, we have an ontological question. There are two modes of thought which deal with this, one the linear and two, the intuitive. That is, if we are using Robert Ornstein’s terminology. In Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, there is really no terminology directly compatible with Western terminology. However, there the issue is addressed as well.
In Taoism, we have the Tao and then our Tao. The way of all being, and the way within that way which is unique for each individual.
However, the words that I have just used are linear, and inadequate to the task for they indicate separation. Truth is continuous and infinite, and so it cannot be divided and isolated. However, once again, words have reached their limits, or I should say, my words have reached their limits.
Fundamentally that is the limitation of written language, because written language, by its very nature, is linear.

TortoiseDream said:

I don't see it as anything other than trying to logically ground the conversation. You can't talk about "X" until you know how "X" is defined, it's really that simple.

Click to expand...

I believe former Secretary Rumsfeld defined that as a "known unknown".

Besides, for those of us who don't actually believe in 'rights', which definition of 'rights' one wants to use doesn't really matter. The discussion will always come down to the same issues of existence and origin regardless. That is to say, if rights do exist, where did they come from?

TortoiseDream said:

You're putting the cart before the horse. I'm still waiting for someone to propose a definition of "rights". How about to speed things up a bit, I'll suggest something that has been flying around my brain:

1. A right is any statement that defines moral, ethical behavior.

Click to expand...

With that definition, and the wonders of subjective relativism, you can define just about anything and everything as a 'right'. And so can everyone else on the planet.

I respectfully submit that is a non-functional definition.

As far as I'm concerned, the OP defines 'rights' as perfectly as they can or ever will be.

Nemo said:

All rights exist only by law.

Click to expand...

Oh heck, TortoiseDream, you mathematicians can't even define the square root of negative 1 without drifting into ephemeralism. Admit it. I've had this discussion with Brat Two, who studied physics with a nano-something emphasis. You nerd-types (my kid included) remind me of sorcerers. No offense intended.

Regarding rights, most of us understand the basic ones almost instinctively. Those rights have been evolving for millennia, at least in Occidental society. For instance, I assume you know, without requiring definition, that it is wrong to steal from a neighbor, and that it is right to help an elderly lady by opening a door for her -- there are no mathematical formulae involved. The same developed set of mores also tells us that we have a right to retain the fruits of our own labors; and to protect our families and friends from harm; and to develop our own thoughts (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, et cetera). We haven't yet reached Hari Seldon's era of psychohistorical prediction and control of human behavior via mathematics, and I hope we never do.

White Rabbit said:

I believe former Secretary Rumsfeld defined that as a "known unknown".

Click to expand...

White Rabbit said:

Besides, for those of us who don't actually believe in 'rights', which definition of 'rights' one wants to use doesn't really matter. The discussion will always come down to the same issues of existence and origin regardless. That is to say, if rights do exist, where did they come from?
With that definition, and the wonders of subjective relativism, you can define just about anything and everything as a 'right'. And so can everyone else on the planet.
I respectfully submit that is a non-functional definition.
As far as I'm concerned, the OP defines 'rights' as perfectly as they can or ever will be.

Click to expand...

If electrons exist, where did they come from?
If we define rights in terms of political law, then rights have no legitimacy but force, for political law has no legitimacy but force.
We are dealing with what Edward Hall would call extension transference. Political law is an extension of the human mind. It is not based on reality other than the reality of the Human brain. However, in assigning reality to the extension, we are confusing the map for the mapped.
These are legal rights, and legal rights are arbitrary and capricious and depend on the whim of the political moment. They are a component of law, and law serves as the whore of faction. Faction is composed of shifting vectors. I really see no advantage to even address legal rights as other than privileges granted by the state. What the state gives, the state can take away.
Those who live in civilized states must face the reality of civilization. Civilizations rests on slavery, and law chains the slave. This would seem to be the fundamental nature of civilization, and you can alter this only by destroying civilization.
However, states are composed of individual Humans. In Humans, evolution, to use Hall’s terminology, is the evolution of extensions. Man is his culture, culture is limited by biology, but man is his culture. Cultural evolution in Civilized states is through war. Those states which lose, either perish or are exploited by the victors, and through exploitation lose their original identity.
As a consequence states are forced by necessity to conform to the requisites of war. This is not only on the battlefield but in the social order itself. Modern warfare depends on resources crafted within the social order and extensions developed to best produce and utilize these resources.
The state must therefor maximize its use of the Human component for military potency. This can only be done by shaping the social order in accordance with the demands of the nature of Man. If a state tries to force its human components into patterns in disagreement with the nature of Man, then it will suffer the consequences in impaired efficiency in meeting its military goals.
The name is not the named. Right is merely a word and words are but pointers to meaning. In this case, I am assigning the pointer to those societal requisites which are necessary for a Human to perform in accordance with his innate potential. They are based on the nature of Man and Mankind, and the Universe.
If a state ignores these requisites, it will pay the price. If it recognizes these requisites, it will advance its survival capacity in the evolutionary struggle.
This is competence, and the antithesis of competence is not evil, but incompetence.

TortoiseDream, et al,

A dissenting opinion.

(COMMENT)

I agree, that there is such a thing as a "null set;" a set consisting of nothing or "zero" elements; or a "measure-zero set."

However, I do not agree that (2/0) = (1/0) or that either of these two equations equals zero (0) (null). They are undefined equations and cannot be graphed (having no coordinate) in any dimension, and have no meaning.

Without meaning, it is hard to imagine a set, unless the set had no meaning and cannot be represented in any philosophical domain (outside science or mathematics). Such a set or construct cannot be used to make accurate predictions in reality.


This is much different than an imaginary number (ie i^2 = − 1), where, by definition, the square of an " i " is a negative real number; and could be a meaningful constituent of a set (criteria dependent). Imaginary numbers have a real world application (as opposed to a theoretical application) and can be used to make accurate predictions in reality (ie Kirchhoff's circuit laws).

Just my thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ignoramus, White Rabbit, et al,

"Rights", in this context, has no universal meaning. They are subject to change with time, government enforcement, and the human ecology.

"Rights" are a human construct, subject to all types of influences.

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR said:

Ignoramus, White Rabbit, et al,

Click to expand...

RoccoR said:

"Rights", in this context, has no universal meaning. They are subject to change with time, government enforcement, and the human ecology.
"Rights" are a human construct, subject to all types of influences.
Most Respectfully,
R

Click to expand...

Not quite clear on the context. Never mastered telepathy.
The opening post stated that the only rights were legal rights but there seems to be some debate on that issue in the string.
However, context doesn?t seem to be particularly relevant when dealing with an authoritarian opinion which seemingly requires no substantiation.
There is little point in reiterating arguments which have already been ignored.
By the way, is God aware of the usurpation?

Ignoramus,

Hummm,

--- A N D ---​

(COMMENT)

I appreciate your advice and will avoid presenting "opinions" to you in the future.

v/r
R