From: Michael Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Jan 22 2001 - 09:14:07 MST
denis bider wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins writes:
>
> > As far as I see you deny the very concept of meaning being meaningful.
>
> This interpretation is probably not what you intended, but - you're entirely
> correct. There is no meaning. Even 'meaning' has no meaning, in a universal
> sense of things.
>
> What I want to convey by the above words is this:
>
> Your text referred a lot to terms such as "fundamental rights" or
> "principles". But I do not admit *any* fundamental rights or principles
> other than those that can be experimentally verified. If you say "a person's
> right to life", I am merely confused. I cannot answer an argument of yours
> if it is based on "a person's right to life", because I don't admit any such
> universal rights or principles. You're relying on a fake authority, and I
> don't recognize that authority - it's just as when a catholic leans on the
> Bible in an argument with an atheist. No go.
>
> I *would* be able to consider your argument if you used more objective
> terms.
Do you believe in any sort of objective reality? If you do, then it
should be not very difficult to extrapolate objectively human rights
from physical law.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:11 MST