You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Ideologically Undermining Society. [Part 1] Social Contracts.
Feel free to disagree with the facts of reality all you want, but please do not mistake a fact for a sentiment. It is nothing of the kind. It is the same with your characterization of an unconscious, unspoken, and unwritten agreement as a contract, it is not, and can not be. A contract is an explicit agreement, entered into with knowledge and consent, or it doesn't and cannot exist.
It is clear from your interactions that you may want to learn what words mean before continuing to use them. Positive and negative rights is a clear and established dichotomy of concepts. Please inform yourself.
The problem is that it's not a "fact", it is very much so a sentiment. Just as my perspective is full of a multitude of different sentiments.
Philosophical positions are nothing more than subjective interpretations of reality. The term social contract is simply used to explain ths type of multi-conscious agreements we partake in (multi-conscious referring to conscious, subconscious, and unconscious).
As for negative and positive rights, I did not know they meant action and inaction when referred to rights. I don't use negative and positive in those regards, but I can understand the implications.
What is referred to as 'social contract' is simply the demonstrable individual natural rights that we respect in others, so as to have ours respected, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. This remains a demonstrable fact, and calling it a sentiment does not make it so.
Creating a word salad out of several forms of the word 'conscious' does not make an unspoken and unwritten agreement a contract. It never has and never will, because it can not. It is an impossibility, as a contract requires knowledge and consent.
Positive and negative is the terminology. Communication requires use of common terminology.
"The beginning of wisdom is the defining of terms." Socrates