>he believes in natural rights
>he doesn't realize that rights are a social construct
>>877551
>he believes that it makes a difference
>getting entangled in all these spooks
>>877551
>social constructs aren't natural
wot
Yes, because society isn't part of nature.
Jesus Christ, go find a job.
>>877551
> He thinks that just because human society invents the concept of rights, that excludes it from being natural
>>877577
>being this delusional
>>877585
>being this literalist and confined to definitions
>>877591
>making up your own definitions and rejecting generally agreed upon definitions to win an argument
>>877597
There are so many ways to escape reality rather than philosophy. Try drugs next time.
>>877597
>thinks this is an argument when arguments are a social construct and aren't natural
>>877613
>this entire website is a social construct
>>877585
>implying that man a has somehow escaped the domain of nature, rather than reshape it to his liking
>Implying there is anything but complexity and purpose separating our social structures from other animals
>>877624
> You are a social construct
>>877635
>Social constructs are a social construct
>>877585
> Social constructivist have monopole on the definition of what a social construct is
> Their definition to even be the most widely used one
wew lad sure is a complete lack of knowledge in sociology here
>>877647
Oh shit
>Socialism
>>877669
Then please enlighten me on your definition of a social construct
>>877551
Thats why I smoke da ganja mon it com from da earth good and natural like god intend
>>877878
jar jar be praized
>>877551
>he believes in languages
>he doesn't realize the alphabet is a social construct
>>877855
A social construct, and this is the widest definition used within the social sciences, are something that's subjectively dependent and spread among several individuals. That is, something mind-depended and that requires at least two people. It has nothing to do with "oh it appeared to be natural but it really wasn't".
>>877918
Scratch that, the widest definition is "affected by humans" but basically no one ever use that definition.
>>877906
think OPs point was that a right does not exist outside a social situation in which it is agreed upon and thus becomes 'a thing', or that it is a constructed set of notions, that would othervise not be, and can be negated or even forgotten, and is not operative if such a agreement does not exist, is not mutualy accepted or theres simply no concrete agency that enforces it
in this sense a right is not 'natural' in that it does not exist outside human relations and then only in certain forms
the logic of all things being natural so it dont make a difference is a bit stretching it, not only can it then be said that no things are natural since nothing is unnatural so the concept itself is mute, but also the use of the notion in that sense is basicaly just semantic screwing with the argument
>>877647
well, goddamn
