"life isn't fair, get over it."

...

How is this not an argument. Hell, you can even test the theory:


'Life is fair we all have all the rights' thingie proven false by a counter example.

What an excellent, thought-provoking analysis, user.

A statement is not an argument. You can only tell if it's an argument based on context.

I don't think OP was advocating natural law, so this point is irrelevant.

"Life isn't fair, get over it" is a common way of hand-waving social critique and commits the is-ought fallacy.

even people who say this hate being cheated. No one like being cheated. The problem is they don't see wage labor as unfair, and they are saying this to dismiss you, not that they are randians of some sort

Because they don't see wage labour at all. They only see this or that individual situation. That's the general problem, people don't have any perception that we all live within same structures and that our lives are not unique and separated from each other, despite all the liberal brainwashing on the contrary.

When someone says "life isn't fair", he means it not as a simple observation (with which most would agree) but as a normative statement — as in, "life isn't fair and so it should be; do no try to change that, for it was ordained by fate".

"Life isn't fair" is basically the motto of braindead, aggressively conformist social-darwinists with a delusion that they are not on the bottom of the food chain. Basically the atomized white collar's secularized version of Predestination.

Your selfishness and self-centeredness is showing. How am I relevant to this abstract argument, to this generalization that can be applying generally to all individual cases, whether I am in them or not?

We might all wish and feel for things to be fair, but even if you have happy thoughts and rainbows in your heart, the same rules apply to you as well. Even with all the happy thoughts, my argument of the ocean drowning you or a tiger mauling you would still apply.
Give me some axiomatic proofs of how things are supposed to be fair.

Where was fair when Ottomans enslaved Serbs for 6 centuries? Where was fair when Americans genocided American Indians? Where was fair when Austrians and Germans wiped out 1/3 of the Serbian population? Where was fair when Serbians genocided 8000 Bosnians? Where was fair when NATO bombed Belgrade?
I just watched a documentary about that region, anyway, where is this "fair" when stuff keeps happening??

Rules of physics and chemistry and that whole deal is much more reliable than what is fair. I'd rather use physics and chemistry and mathematics, than I'd use what's fair, because, what the hell is fair???

I can't decide what's more trite and jumbled, your argument or your writing.

equality of opportunity and the right to life
woaaaahh

That's a pretty dumb bunch of stuff to say my dude

Its true tho

...

Now that's what I call autism.

Rights only make sense in a society. It doesn't describe your relation to the environment, to animals or plants.

Having a "right", basically means that society allows/doesn't prevent/enables you to do stuff, just like "obligations" are stuff society excepts you to do. There is no higher force allowing you to do stuff, or not, that is true. Rights aren't metaphysics, they are products of human relationships. expectations regarding behavior and "rules" which are excepted to be understood by everyone. If they are not, they don't exist.

But if these rights and obligations arent enforced by, well, force (which is by no means a social construct, or social anything), are these rules even rules? I mean if everyone can ignore them with no consequences, what is their significance?
So we go back again at the environment, animals and plants as you put it. These things do enforce certain rules (drowning, tiger, etc).

This whole 'muh rights' thing really tingles my autism. It just isnt a solid thing, a thing you can rely on, a good enough foundation to build anything on top of. Especially since I have this mental imagine of 'muh rights' crowd of an obese disgusting chick screaming in my face something like "IM PRETTY TOO YOU SHETLORD" (happened to me once) so I just cant agree with that.

My point exactly. Rights become rights, when they are enforced. Everyone can make up laws, but without the effective force, they are just ideas.

Claiming human rights only makes sense, when you know there is a higher authority that promises these.

Behavioral patterns aren't really rules. The environment doesn't "think" about what is does. It just does it. It has no consciouses. Society, let's call it the collective of conscious beings, is the only place where it makes sense to talk about rights, rules or laws.

I'll agree that claiming rights due to an idea is nonsense, but they are still necessary for a functioning and rational society. The instance that guarantees your rights in this case is society, and if they loose their power to do so, your rights go as well.

You have to work on your strawmen, dude. Would be interesting if a Freudian could interpret this…

...

business idea: kill everyone who makes this argument
maybe then they'll understand the difference between an is and an ought.
but it will be too late. how unfair.

"This situation is unfair"
"Ah, well then I may as well not try and rectify this one."

No. Don't kill them. Enslave them, and when they complain, tell them that life ain't fair.

oh yes, very very mature

...

wew

Charity is magic.

Please stay in your containment board, Holla Forums.

...

Only Holla Forums thinks anyone thinks this way.

Those aren't contradictory statements. 'white' is as much a social construct as 'black' and both need to be culturally eliminated because all they produce is division, idpol, and false consciousness.