Natural Rights?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

it seems that alot of people use rights to justify their actions and arguements both here and in the world of politics ....

are rights merely a social construction?

is there any such thing as inherient or "natural rights"?

and do rights have anything to do with "morals"?

[Demogorgon]

Well first of all I think they are a bit different from morals. Because morality is obviously coming in many ways from our conscience, which is not simply part of our "surface" minds, whereas the ideas of rights are just a social construct. I know people here don't like Bentham. But his description of natural rights as "nonsense upon stilts" is quite wonderful, and one I love to repeat whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Anyway whenever someone presents me with an assertion of natural rights, I always ask where these rights come from, how they are so sure of them and indeed where they are. I have been presented with the idea of rights many times, but I am still waiting for an answer

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:38 pm
it seems that alot of people use rights to justify their actions and arguements both here and in the world of politics ....

are rights merely a social construction?

is there any such thing as inherient or "natural rights"?

and do rights have anything to do with "morals"?

I believe rights are a social construction along with morality.

There is a inherent will to survive being self preservation which is often times associated as natural law.

Constructed rights of civic determinism are extensions of morality. Public civic morality of economics is almost religious in a sense all accounted purely on faith or society's trust.

( There really is no reason, foundation or evidence to rule others.)

[Luís Henrique]

The fact that something is a social construct does not mean that it is arbitrary.

"Crime" is a social construct. But you can't have a society in which lying is a crime, or in which murder is not a crime. And you can't have a society in which swindling is a crime but robbery is not. Or a society in which abortion is a worse crime than murder.

Luís Henrique

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 19, 2007 05:47 am
The fact that something is a social construct does not mean that it is arbitrary.

"Crime" is a social construct. But you can't have a society in which lying is a crime, or in which murder is not a crime. And you can't have a society in which swindling is a crime but robbery is not. Or a society in which abortion is a worse crime than murder.

Luís Henrique

The fact that something is a social construct does not mean that it is arbitrary.

No, it just means that it is subjective a mere opinion that can be ignored at any time.


"Crime" is a social construct. But you can't have a society in which lying is a crime, or in which murder is not a crime. And you can't have a society in which swindling is a crime but robbery is not. Or a society in which abortion is a worse crime than murder.

The way I see it murder is evolutionism and morality is just a system to protect the weak or the corrupted in power.

Objective or subjective morality I find to be nothing more than chains.

If you think about it murder,rape and theft is nothing but the product that society produces since it is operated on the ignominy of many people suffering.

Just like the person who shoots themselves in the foot society should just deal with it's own creations and consequences.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 05:52 am
No, it just means that it is subjective a mere opinion that can be ignored at any time.
Or, in other words, arbitrary. This is just what it isn't.


The way I see it murder is evolutionism and morality is just a system to protect the weak or the corrupted in power.

Yes? In this case, a society of murderers should be fitter than a society in which non-murderers are the majority. How do you explain, then, that societies of murderers don't exist? It seems that they have been selected out...


Objective or subjective morality I find to be nothing more than chains.

And chains are a bad thing... regarding which morality?


If you think about it murder,rape and theft is nothing but the product that society produces since it is operated on the ignominy of many people suffering.

What is ignominy? How can something be ignominious, unless in relation to a given set of moral rules?


Just like the person who shoots themselves in the foot society should just deal with it's own creations and consequences.

Societies are not individuals, they cannot take individual responsibility. When you say "society should deal with the consequences of its acts", you are in reality saying "individual members of society must deal with consequences of social phenomena". Which is what we do: society creates rapists, and as a consequence, individual women are raped. How is this a solution, I must be missing.

Luís Henrique

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 19, 2007 06:20 am--> (Luís Henrique @ June 19, 2007 06:20 am)
Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 05:52 am
No, it just means that it is subjective a mere opinion that can be ignored at any time.
Or, in other words, arbitrary. This is just what it isn't.


The way I see it murder is evolutionism and morality is just a system to protect the weak or the corrupted in power.

Yes? In this case, a society of murderers should be fitter than a society in which non-murderers are the majority. How do you explain, then, that societies of murderers don't exist? It seems that they have been selected out...


Objective or subjective morality I find to be nothing more than chains.

And chains are a bad thing... regarding which morality?


If you think about it murder,rape and theft is nothing but the product that society produces since it is operated on the ignominy of many people suffering.

What is ignominy? How can something be ignominious, unless in relation to a given set of moral rules?


Just like the person who shoots themselves in the foot society should just deal with it's own creations and consequences.

Societies are not individuals, they cannot take individual responsibility. When you say "society should deal with the consequences of its acts", you are in reality saying "individual members of society must deal with consequences of social phenomena". Which is what we do: society creates rapists, and as a consequence, individual women are raped. How is this a solution, I must be missing.

Luís Henrique [/b]

This is just what it isn't.

What is it then?


Yes? In this case, a society of murderers should be fitter than a society in which non-murderers are the majority. How do you explain, then, that societies of murderers don't exist? It seems that they have been selected out...

Never under estimate the weak masses with power who outnumber the strong of will.

That is what I would say to that, yet I have a feeling if the weak masses didn't have their constructed universal forms of morality that the balance of power would shift.


And chains are a bad thing... regarding which morality?

I am saying chains are unnecessary in the regards of living.


What is ignominy?

Humiliation.


How can something be ignominious, unless in relation to a given set of moral rules?

Humiliation.


Societies are not individuals, they cannot take individual responsibility. When you say "society should deal with the consequences of its acts", you are in reality saying "individual members of society must deal with consequences of social phenomena". Which is what we do: society creates rapists, and as a consequence, individual women are raped. How is this a solution, I must be missing.

Societies are comprised of individuals and is ruled by individual governments.

For some reason humanity finds many ways of escaping it's responsibilities surrounding it's own constructed abstractions.


you are in reality saying "individual members of society must deal with consequences of social phenomena".

Social phenomena created by society's own existance.


How is this a solution,

I don't deal in absolutes. Sorry.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 06:41 am
What is it then?
Subjected to a series of internal relations, that can be rationally analysed.


Never under estimate the weak masses with power who outnumber the strong of will. That is what I would say to that yet I have a feeling if the weak masses didn't have their constructed universal forms of morality that the balance of power would shift.

For the weak masses to achieve anything, they must refrain from killing their own numbers. So, to shift the balance of power, the weak masses would need to construct a different morality, not to do away with all morality. In fact, the weak masses cannot do anything without constructing a morality that strongly denigrates snitches and scabs.


I am saying chains are unnecessary in the regards of living.

If you consider the moral obligation not to kill your neighbour a "chain", then the above sentence is certainly wrong.


Humiliation.

And humilliation is a bad thing... according to what moral code?


Societies are comprised of individuals and is ruled by individual governments.

Sure. But society can't be raped, nor can governments. So it cannot deal with the consequences of creating rapists.


For some reason humanity finds many ways of escaping it's responsibilities surrounding it's constructed abstractions.

And why not? After all, aren't responsibilities "chains"?

What you seem to be doing is to personificate "society", and demanding that it suffers the consequences of social phenomena as if it were an individual. This is impossible.


Social phenomena created by society's own existance.

And what is your point?


I don't deal in absolutes. Sorry.

Oh, you do. Sorry.

Luís Henrique

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 19, 2007 06:53 am--> (Luís Henrique @ June 19, 2007 06:53 am)
Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 06:41 am
What is it then?
Subjected to a series of internal relations, that can be rationally analysed.


Never under estimate the weak masses with power who outnumber the strong of will.* That is what I would say to that yet I have a feeling if the weak masses didn't have their constructed universal forms of morality that the balance of power would shift.

For the weak masses to achieve anything, they must refrain from killing their own numbers. So, to shift the balance of power, the weak masses would need to construct a different morality, not to do away with all morality. In fact, the weak masses cannot do anything without constructing a morality that strongly denigrates snitches and scabs.


I am saying chains are unnecessary in the regards of living.

If you consider the moral obligation not to kill your neighbour a "chain", then the above sentence is certainly wrong.


Humiliation.

And humilliation is a bad thing... according to what moral code?


Societies are comprised of individuals and is ruled by individual governments.

Sure. But society can't be raped, nor can governments. So it cannot deal with the consequences of creating rapists.


For some reason humanity finds many ways of escaping it's responsibilities surrounding it's constructed abstractions.

And why not? After all, aren't responsibilities "chains"?

What you seem to be doing is to personificate "society", and demanding that it suffers the consequences of social phenomena as if it were an individual. This is impossible.


Social phenomena created by society's own existance.

And what is your point?


I don't deal in absolutes.* Sorry.

Oh, you do. Sorry.

Luís Henrique [/b]

Subjected to a series of internal relations, that can be rationally analysed.

The rational is nothing more than assumptions based off of uncertainty.


For the weak masses to achieve anything, they must refrain from killing their own numbers. So, to shift the balance of power, the weak masses would need to construct a different morality, not to do away with all morality. In fact, the weak masses cannot do anything without constructing a morality that strongly denigrates snitches and scabs.

That was too vague. Please help me understand your statement.


If you consider the moral obligation not to kill your neighbour a "chain", then the above sentence is certainly wrong.

I don't consider anything beyond my survival.


And humilliation is a bad thing... according to what moral code?

Outside of morality most people dislike humiliation.

It isn't about right or wrong but instead lies in dislike.


Sure. But society can't be raped, nor can governments. So it cannot deal with the consequences of creating rapists.

That doesn't matter nor does it make sense.

The reality is that society creates rapists,murderers and thieves by oppression.


And why not? After all, aren't responsibilities "chains"?

True. That only re-affirms my nihilism though.


What you seem to be doing is to personificate "society", and demanding that it suffers the consequences of social phenomena as if it were an individual. This is impossible.

Why is it impossible?


And what is your point?

All social phenomena is a result of society.


Oh, you do. Sorry.

Explain.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 07:58 am
The rational is nothing more than assumptions based off of uncertainty.
Nope. This was already explained, in my paragraph about crime.


That was too vague. Please help me understand your statement.

It was not vague at all; read it again.


Outside of morality most people dislike humiliation.

But this is their problem, not mine. To make their dislike my problem, a set of moral beliefs is necessary.



Sure. But society can't be raped, nor can governments. So it cannot deal with the consequences of creating rapists.

That doesn't matter nor does it make sense.

Well, you brought the idea that society should deal with the consequences of acts. Which, of course, doesn't make sence.


The reality is that society creates rapists, murderers and thieves by oppression.

And so? Besides introducing an absolute here, what does this brings to the discussion? "Society" is an abstraction; it does not oppress people. People oppress people. And rapists, murderers, and thieves do not rape, murder or steal from those who oppress them, but from other individuals who are also victims of oppression.


True. That only re-affirms my nihilism though.

If you are a nihilist, why does humiliation or oppression concern you?



What you seem to be doing is to personificate "society", and demanding that it suffers the consequences of social phenomena as if it were an individual. This is impossible.
Why is it impossible?

Because society is not an individual. It feels no pain, no remorse, no humiliation.


All social phenomena is a result of society.

And? Tautologies have no value at all.



Oh, you do. [deal in absolutes] Sorry.

Explain.

No human being can avoid dealing in absolutes, or at least taking some relatives as if they were absolutes, even if only provisorily.

Luís Henrique

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:38 pm
are rights merely a social construction?

Yes, absolutely.

'Rights' are something handed down by a group with political power, down, to those without power (from the established authority, and each other). For example, The right to safe work conditions, or union membership. Rights are quite condescending when examined. They are by definition a construction within class society.

However, society would be much worse for the working class without them. People that argue for the abolition of certain rights do so as it limits capital expansion, costs business too much or legally prohibits them from doing something.


is there any such thing as inherient or "natural rights"?

No, there is no centralised political power, naturally.


and do rights have anything to do with "morals"?

No. Rights are normally concessions of political power. The reason these concessions are made, is because the pressures on the state to concede are so great, that giving in to maintain their position is more desirable than civil unrest (which may result in their defeat). This is why unions were legalised.

[Ol' Dirty]

Any political idea is partially arbitrary, because -I've said this many times before- societies, polities, governments, states, what have y., are imperfect institutuions made by incredibly imperfect human beings, who can only act on reality as they percieve it. They may be looking through a foggy lens, but that doesn't mean that rules, codes of conduct and morality are totaly defunct. That would be like saying that logic is disposable because of the ever-constant margin of error. Of course that do

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:38 pm
Any political idea is partially arbitrary, because -I've said this many times before- societies, polities, governments, states, what have y., are imperfect institutuions made by incredibly imperfect human beings, who can only act on reality as they percieve it. They may be looking through a foggy lens, but that doesn't mean that rules, codes of conduct and morality are totaly defunct. That would be like saying that logic is disposable because of the ever-constant margin of error. Of course that do
Logic is disposable just like our whole planet is by an on coming astroid or supernova

The world and indeed the whole cosmos revolves around chaos with the sentiments of order being nothing more than a human figment.

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 19, 2007 01:25 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ June 19, 2007 01:25 pm)
Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 07:58 am
The rational is nothing more than assumptions based off of uncertainty.
Nope. This was already explained, in my paragraph about crime.


That was too vague. Please help me understand your statement.

It was not vague at all; read it again.


Outside of morality most people dislike humiliation.

But this is their problem, not mine. To make their dislike my problem, a set of moral beliefs is necessary.



Sure. But society can't be raped, nor can governments. So it cannot deal with the consequences of creating rapists.

That doesn't matter nor does it make sense.

Well, you brought the idea that society should deal with the consequences of acts. Which, of course, doesn't make sence.


The reality is that society creates rapists, murderers and thieves by oppression.

And so? Besides introducing an absolute here, what does this brings to the discussion? "Society" is an abstraction; it does not oppress people. People oppress people. And rapists, murderers, and thieves do not rape, murder or steal from those who oppress them, but from other individuals who are also victims of oppression.


True.* That only re-affirms my nihilism though.

If you are a nihilist, why does humiliation or oppression concern you?



What you seem to be doing is to personificate "society", and demanding that it suffers the consequences of social phenomena as if it were an individual. This is impossible.
Why is it impossible?

Because society is not an individual. It feels no pain, no remorse, no humiliation.


All social phenomena is a result of society.

And? Tautologies have no value at all.



Oh, you do. [deal in absolutes] Sorry.

Explain.

No human being can avoid dealing in absolutes, or at least taking some relatives as if they were absolutes, even if only provisorily.

Luís Henrique [/b]


Nope. This was already explained, in my paragraph about crime.

You didn't explain anything to me and by reading that paragraph nothing made sense to me.

Either help me have a conversation or I walk.


It was not vague at all; read it again.

Read it and still didn't understand.

Help me understand you or I walk.


But this is their problem, not mine. To make their dislike my problem, a set of moral beliefs is necessary.

It isn't your problem.....right?

After all people who have a healthy civic life utilize the services of slaves everyday but should such a healthy figure come across the down trodden it isn't their fault or responsibility.

Irony.



Well, you brought the idea that society should deal with the consequences of acts. Which, of course, doesn't make sence.

Why not? :wacko:



And so? Besides introducing an absolute here, what does this brings to the discussion? "Society" is an abstraction; it does not oppress people. People oppress people.

Society was designed by people! It is a design that runs on oppression!



If you are a nihilist, why does humiliation or oppression concern you?

I hate humiliation and oppression. I would rather kill someone than go through it everyday.

Have you ever been a civic slave being constantly humiliated and self servient to a bunch of elites who treat you like a ghostly automated machine for several years?

I certainly have.


Because society is not an individual. It feels no pain, no remorse, no humiliation.

It is comprised by individuals.



No human being can avoid dealing in absolutes, or at least taking some relatives as if they were absolutes, even if only provisorily.


Well I for one take everything as uncertainty.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Arkham Asylum+June 19, 2007 03:04 pm--> (Arkham Asylum @ June 19, 2007 03:04 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 04:38 pm
Any political idea is partially arbitrary, because -I've said this many times before- societies, polities, governments, states, what have y., are imperfect institutuions made by incredibly imperfect human beings, who can only act on reality as they percieve it. They may be looking through a foggy lens, but that doesn't mean that rules, codes of conduct and morality are totaly defunct. That would be like saying that logic is disposable because of the ever-constant margin of error. Of course that do
Logic is disposable just like our whole planet is by an on coming astroid or supernova

The world and indeed the whole cosmos revolves around chaos with the sentiments of order being nothing more than a human figment. [/b]
Except for the disposable logic thing, that's basicaly what I said.

[luxemburg89]

Help me understand you or I walk.


Feel free, the impetus appears to be on you to understand not Luis Henriqué to explain. You should stop being so arrogant.


It is comprised by individuals.


It is indeed comprised of individuals, but the society we wish to create is individuals all working together for the benefit of each and every individual in society. Consider the bee hive. The worker bees create the hive for the queen to give birth to new bees etc. The worker bees work without reward all their lives, now imagine a beehive where the worker bees work together to build the beehive for their own benefit. Each worker bee would benefit from the hive.

NB: I understand that must remain utterly metaphorical as the queen bee is necessary for the survival of the species as the worker bees cannot reproduce as they are purely men (or so I understand). However disgarding this, it seems to make political sense.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:27 pm


NB: I understand that must remain utterly metaphorical as the queen bee is necessary for the survival of the species as the worker bees cannot reproduce as they are purely men (or so I understand). However disgarding this, it seems to make political sense.
Curiously, the worker bees are actually all female. The male bees, or "drones," do not work, and exist solely for mating with other queens. They die soon after mating or after they are forcefully ejected from the hive before the onset of a winter season.

Irrelevant to your analogy, but I thought it interesting.

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:27 pm

Help me understand you or I walk.


Feel free, the impetus appears to be on you to understand not Luis Henriqué to explain. You should stop being so arrogant.


It is comprised by individuals.


It is indeed comprised of individuals, but the society we wish to create is individuals all working together for the benefit of each and every individual in society. Consider the bee hive. The worker bees create the hive for the queen to give birth to new bees etc. The worker bees work without reward all their lives, now imagine a beehive where the worker bees work together to build the beehive for their own benefit. Each worker bee would benefit from the hive.

NB: I understand that must remain utterly metaphorical as the queen bee is necessary for the survival of the species as the worker bees cannot reproduce as they are purely men (or so I understand). However disgarding this, it seems to make political sense.
We are homo sapiens not bees.

Who asked for your input anyway? If you want a hive mentality go join the capitalists they will eat you up.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 08:17 pm

But this is their problem, not mine. To make their dislike my problem, a set of moral beliefs is necessary.

It isn't your problem.....right?

After all people who have a healthy civic life utilize the services of slaves everyday but should such a healthy figure come across the down trodden it isn't their fault or responsibility.

Irony.
It is my problem - but only because I have a set of moral values.



Well, you brought the idea that society should deal with the consequences of acts. Which, of course, doesn't make sence.

Why not? :wacko:

Because you are personalising society.


Society was designed by people! It is a design that runs on oppression!

And a gun is a design, if you would call it that, the aim of which is to kill. But we don't punish guns when they are used to kill.


I hate humiliation and oppression. I would rather kill someone than go through it everyday.

So you feel the pain of the oppressed? Or, when you say you hate humilliation, you mean that you hate when you are humilliated yourself?


Have you ever been a civic slave being constantly humiliated and self servient to a bunch of elites who treat you like a ghostly automated machine for several years?


Have you ever met someone who wasn't?



Because society is not an individual. It feels no pain, no remorse, no humiliation.

It is comprised by individuals.

I am a communist, and I am made of cells - but I am pretty sure that none of my cells is communist.


Well I for one take everything as uncertainty.

Then you take uncertainty as an absolute.

Luís Henrique

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 20, 2007 02:42 am--> (Luís Henrique @ June 20, 2007 02:42 am)
Arkham [email protected] 19, 2007 08:17 pm

But this is their problem, not mine. To make their dislike my problem, a set of moral beliefs is necessary.

It isn't your problem.....right?

After all people who have a healthy civic life utilize the services of slaves everyday but should such a healthy figure come across the down trodden it isn't their fault or responsibility.

Irony.
It is my problem - but only because I have a set of moral values.



Well, you brought the idea that society should deal with the consequences of acts. Which, of course, doesn't make sence.

Why not? :wacko:

Because you are personalising society.


Society was designed by people!* It is a design that runs on oppression!

And a gun is a design, if you would call it that, the aim of which is to kill. But we don't punish guns when they are used to kill.


I hate humiliation and oppression.** I would rather kill someone than go through it everyday.

So you feel the pain of the oppressed? Or, when you say you hate humilliation, you mean that you hate when you are humilliated yourself?


Have you ever been a civic slave being constantly humiliated and self servient to a bunch of elites who treat you like a ghostly automated machine for several years?


Have you ever met someone who wasn't?



Because society is not an individual. It feels no pain, no remorse, no humiliation.

It is comprised by individuals.

I am a communist, and I am made of cells - but I am pretty sure that none of my cells is communist.


Well I for one take everything as uncertainty.

Then you take uncertainty as an absolute.

Luís Henrique [/b]

It is my problem - but only because I have a set of moral values.

A little change of heart? :)

Wow and tell me how many lives do you save with your moral conviction everyday?

How is that working out for you?



Because you are personalising society.

Society is both personal and impersonal yet under both circumstances there is the ardent punishment of slaves holding the feet of their masters.



And a gun is a design, if you would call it that, the aim of which is to kill. But we don't punish guns when they are used to kill.


Brian Street- "Technology is not neutral in the sense that it is not asocial. It cannot be detached from specific social contexts: 'technology is... not a neutral "thing" that arises out of disinterested scientific inquiry... It is itself a social product that has arisen as a result of political and ideological processes and institutions and its particular form has to be explained in terms of such processes."



So you feel the pain of the oppressed? Or, when you say you hate humilliation, you mean that you hate when you are humilliated yourself?

I am oppressed. I am the obsolete tool of the 22nd century.


Have you ever met someone who wasn't?

What do you not understand about the term elitism?


I am a communist, and I am made of cells - but I am pretty sure that none of my cells is communist.

Cells are organisms where society is a artificial construct.

Big difference.


Then you take uncertainty as an absolute.

There are no absolutes in uncertainty. Contradiction.

[luxemburg89]

We are homo sapiens not bees.

It was a fucking metaphor. I thought I made that blindingly obvious - especially as I said it was a metaphor in my note. We are human beings yes, but, as with the bees, it is in our nature to work together with other humans. The Capitalists may reject this but even under Capitalism there is still co-operation between human beings. Only an idiot would fail to see that. Therefore, the comparison with worker bees, who slave away for the queen, is similar to workers slaving away for the benefit of their bourgeois masters.


Who asked for your input anyway?

Well this is a forum, where leftists are here to debate left-wing revolutionary politics, methods and culture. Therefore the input of every leftist is relevant. Who asked for you to join the site? No one did. Therefore you should try to understand that we are here to debate, if you are only have a conversation with one person, to whom you have been most contemptuous, then it is a pretty poor debate. Again, I ask you to stop being so rediculously arrogant. I notice that you were hammered by Rosa and everyone in the Nihilism debate, so your arrogance is not well founded.


If you want a hive mentality go join the capitalists they will eat you up.

I think you'd fit in amongst them far better than I would. The hive was a mere metaphor for the oppressed workers under Capitalism, as explained above.

EDIT - by the way:


There are no absolutes in uncertainty. Contradiction.


What LH is saying is that your belief in everything being uncertain makes it certain, to you, that everything is uncertain. Therefore your belief in uncertainty is absolute, as you belief absolutely EVERYTHING to be uncertain.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 20, 2007 03:11 am
A little change of heart? :)
By no means - just a little clarification of what I meant.


Wow and tell me how many lives do you save with your moral conviction everyday?

About 331. From Monday to Friday; in the weekends it is a little lower: 214.


How is that working out for you?

Fine. I know that zero and infinite are not the only two existing numbers.


Society is both personal and impersonal yet under both circumstances there is the ardent punishment of slaves holding the feet of their masters.

But there is no punishment of society; society cannot be punished in the way you imply.


I am oppressed. I am the obsolete tool of the 22nd century.

You and 5,938,362 other people. What I want to know is, are you whining about your own oppression while not giving a shit for those other 5,938,362, or are you willing to work with the rest of us to overthrow oppression?



Have you ever met someone who wasn't?

What do you not understand about the term elitism?

Have you ever met someone who wasn't oppressed? Yes or not?


Cells are organisms where society is a artificial construct.

And what is the problem with being an artificial construct? It still cannot be considered as an individual, it is not an individual. It does not suffer pain, remorse, etc.


There are no absolutes in uncertainty. Contradiction.

Poseur.

Luís Henrique