Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)

  1. walto: Interestingly, I don’t mind the show ‘Nathan for you’ so much since I saw the final episode in which Fielder makes fun of his own ingenuousness and other flaws. It’s sweet–and sad.

    I didn’t know that one, I’ll check it out, thanks!

  2. dazz,

    Whatever you think of the show generally, the last episode is like a beautiful, if quite disturbing movie. You don’t need to see all the prior episodes to prepare for it. But I think watching at least three or four is necessary.

  3. DNA_Jock: When Mung disagreed with your statement … he was poking fun at your wording

    Not just that, though.

    I also believe “the entropy of the universe” to be a meaningless statement.

    And that there is no relation between entropy and time. afiak, time does not enter into the equations for entropy.

    Which is why it might still be an interesting thread.

  4. Mung: Not just that, though.

    I also believe “the entropy of the universe” to be a meaningless statement.

    And that there is no relation between entropy and time. afiak, time does not enter into the equations for entropy.

    Which is why it might still be an interesting thread.

    Now, you should definitely do an OP on this theme…
    As you may already know I have some doubts about “time” or its application in some theories… such as Quantum Mechanics…

    If entropy of the universe is a meaningless statement, what’s the alternative????

  5. J-Mac: If entropy of the universe is a meaningless statement, what’s the alternative????

    To cease speaking of “the entropy the universe” as if it made sense.

    🙂

  6. Mung: To cease speaking of “the entropy the universe” as if it made sense.

    You are such a waste of time, Mung! 😉

  7. OK another poll:

    1. Did the Sioux have ‘fundamental human rights’ in the United States during the 1860s and 1870s?

    2. Do first-trimester fetuses have ‘fundamental human rights’?

    3. Do third-trimester fetuses have ‘fundamental human rights’?

    4. Do one-week old babies have ‘fundamental human rights’?

    5. If you answered YES to any of the questions above, please name a couple of these rights and indicate where you believe they came from.

    6. If you answered YES to at least one question and NO to at least one question, please explain why you think some group(s) have but one or more other of these groups do not have rights.

    I appreciate any and all answers. Thanks!

  8. Mung:
    I hope you got in a good workout.

    Great! 🙂 It’s humidity that kills it… but who cares when endorphins are flowing…. 😉

  9. walto: A gas to have a drink with, apparently.

    I bet! I have no doubt that I would laugh my head off having drinks with Mung, Sal and Byers… maybe even OMagain… 😉

  10. Your questions were too difficult.

    To the first I say yes. But don’t ask me what “fundamental human rights” are or where they would come from.

  11. Mung:
    Your questions were too difficult.

    To the first I say yes. But don’t ask me what “fundamental human rights” are or where they would come from.

    Yes, they are indeed hard. People talk a lot of smack about “rights” to this or that, who I’m guessing haven’t a clue how to answer them.

  12. walto,

    You’re on record for saying that natural rights don’t exist, and who am I to disagree? 🙂
    So it’s all about values, right?

  13. J-Mac,
    Were they diver-harvested? Provenance! Sustainability!

    Not sure what you were doing grilling them.What you need is a hot cast-iron skillet. A drizzle of cold-pressed olive oil in the skillet. Season the scallops, just freshly ground black pepper and salt, A knob of butter to the pan, don’t let it burn, but good and hot. Sear the scallops for a few seconds a side, enough to colour, half a minute a side at most. Overcooking is disastrous.

  14. dazz:
    walto,

    You’re on record for saying that natural rights don’t exist, and who am I to disagree? 🙂
    So it’s all about values, right?

    My view on “rights” is that you have them just in case some enforceable law says you have them. So, in a sense, yeah, it’s the values of the majority (or the authority where there’s no democracy) that make “rights.” So the Sioux didn’t have them, babies do, and, in the U.S. with fetuses it depends on how old they are. Gays didn’t have certain ones until yesterday, blacks and women until the day before yesterday. They have to be won, they aren’t “endowed by the creator.”

  15. Alan Fox:
    dazz How are you coping with the heat?

    air conditioner is on almost 24/7, but it’s gotten much better today. Last week was awful. Hope it’s not too bad there in Carcassonne, Alan

    ETA: just checked and it looks like it was pretty much the same as here, max temps in the mid 30’s but the minimums are some 3-4 Cº lower there in Carcassonne

  16. dazz,
    Near Carcassonne. We’re just having a humongous thunder storm. May or may not be able to report later!!!

  17. It’s not global warming though! If you don’t believe me, you can ask Trump–or his supporters right here at this site. After all, this is the SKEPTICAL ZONE, RIGHT?!?

  18. Alan Fox:
    dazz,
    Near Carcassonne. We’re just having a humongous thunder storm. May or may not be able to report later!!!

    Yeah, we’ve had some of that here too with wild hail storms and the whole nine yards. We’re almost neighbours after all 😀

    Be safe mate

  19. walto,

    Makes sense to me. Also it forces us to take matters on our own instead of appealing to unattainable sources of “rights” and morals

  20. dazz,

    Yes, to have “rights” the Sioux would have had to win those wars, just like blacks, women and gays have had to win their legislative battles.

  21. walto: So, in a sense, yeah, it’s the values of the majority (or the authority where there’s no democracy) that make “rights.” So the Sioux didn’t have them, babies do, and, in the U.S. with fetuses it depends on how old they are.

    Why do babies have rights? Are they some sort of majority? Can they enforce their rights? Can they win a war?

    Obviously, under your system there are no rights whatsoever for anyone. It’s just a word without a meaning for you.

  22. Re-read. Babies have ‘rights’ just in case some enforceable law provides them. Period. We have a lawful duty not to microwave them; hence they have the right not to be microwaved.

    Other than that, ‘rights’ are figments of the Lockean imagination. They are not ‘endowed’: they’re either won or fail to exist.

  23. walto:
    Re-read. Babies have ‘rights’ just in case some enforceable law provides them. Period. We have a lawful duty not to microwave them; hence they have the right not to be microwaved.

    Other than that, ‘rights’ are figments of the Lockean imagination. They are not ‘endowed’: they’re either won or fail to exist.

    I fully understand. There is no actual thing corresponding to the word “right”. There is just somebody important enough saying “right” and then it kinda is by that say-so.

    Which equals: There are no rights whatsoever for anyone. It’s just a word without a meaning for you. You only concede that there is a right when somebody beats or threatens you to acknowledge it.

  24. Rights imply enforceable duties. That’s what they are. They are guarantors of autonomy–of being left alone. What I’m talking about actually exist. E.g., there is now a right in Mass. for two men to marry each other. Not long ago there wasn’t. The existence of what I am talking about can be checked by consulting statutes, decisions, etc. What you’re talking about is, basically, nonsense.

  25. walto: Yes, to have “rights” the Sioux would have had to win those wars, just like blacks, women and gays have had to win their legislative battles.

    So the Sioux never had any rights, or they had rights and then lost them?

  26. Mung,

    Dunno. Depends whether any US treaties were ever really enforceable by them. Was there a duty of US citizens to leave them be that they could rely on?

  27. walto: Other than that, ‘rights’ are figments of the Lockean imagination.

    It’s hard to see then how the Sioux ever had any rights at all. Or how anyone could ‘violate’ their rights, or take them away.

    Children don’t have a right to life and women don’t have reproductive rights.

  28. No no no. You’re not reading my posts. Babies have rights and women have reproductive rights. The sioux I don’t know enough about to answer.

    ETA at least I don’t know about whether they had any rights prior to the wars in the 1870s. Once those began–none.

  29. Babies have rights that are endowed upon them by their creators. That’s what you are saying?

  30. Mung:
    Babies have rights that are endowed upon them by their creators. That’s what you are saying?

    If I understand walto correctly, Babies have the rights that are endowed upon them by people in a position to do that. Dictators in an oligarchy, parliaments on behalf of voters in a democracy, etc

  31. Mung:
    Babies have rights that are endowed upon them by their creators. That’s what you are saying?

    Sort of, but not exactly. By their ‘sovereign.’ So you want it to be a democratically elected one!

    I mean, their parents aren’t allowed to microwave them if they want to either. So they’re not the ultimate rights creators in these parts.

  32. Think of it this way: do blacks have the right to vote? The right not to be bought and sold? What about women? How and when did they get these rights? Do Americans have the right to bear arms? To assemble peacefully? Same questions. You see, they aren’t in the sky.

  33. Mung: So the Sioux never had any rights, or they had rights and then lost them?

    The courts in the 1980’s ,I think , found the US Government in violation of a treaty and owed the Souix 1billion dollars, it seems they had and still have at least legal rights.

  34. Here’s another good one. Do people have a right to remain silent? A right to not be forced to be a witness against themselves?

    Or even, Do people have a right to create and grant rights to others?

  35. dazz,

    Yes. It’s not too original. I think Hobbes might have taken essentially the same position in his Leviathan. Not sure.

  36. Mung:
    Here’s another good one. Do people have a right to remain silent? A right to not be forced to be a witness against themselves?

    Same. If they can do that stuff safely. Don’t know about the right to grant others rights biz. Do you have the duty to let me? If so, I have the right.

  37. newton:

    The courts in the 1980’s,I think , found the US Government in violation of a treaty and owed the Souix 1billion dollars, it seems they had and still have at least legal rights.

    Seems kind of hollow, but ok.

Leave a Reply