A little while ago I watched one of Dave Ridley's videos and started reading the comments as I can't seem to help myself. Scrolling through I noticed someone say that without "law" there is no such thing as "justice". This argument bugged me, because justice is obviously defined broader and the supposed purpose of law is to provide justice. Then he states that justice cannot be defined outside of law as a moral concept because morality is subjective. This person, his handle is p00lman, happens to be a common poster on Dave's videos so I've read his comments before and he is obviously a complete relativist and has no objective principles. The argument continues among the posters until it breaks down to childish lashes.

Next someone brought up natural law and this person responded with the usual ‘natural law is just something someone wrote in his own book and is not an accepted concept'. Though I do not entirely disagree with him on that point, there is not much measurable biological evidence for natural law. (Mainly because it would be unethical to test the idea of isolating humans from birth and having them existing in a state without outside influence or being indoctrinated with preexisting knowledge to see if a natural mutual respectful relationship arises in them. But if morality is subjective ethics don't exist anyway LOGICAL PARADOX INFINITE LOOP break; return 0;)

Then someone brought up the point of slavery and said that slavery was legal and unjust and he argues that it is was just, because it was legal, but people then learned to value human rights. This is where I interjected because he clearly makes a logical contradiction. If human rights exist exterior to law they must be biological, which would be the domain of objective morality applying to everyone as a genetic characteristic. He used concepts of natural law to defend his position that morality doesn't exist. If there is one thing that irks me more than anything it is an illogical argument.

So I asked him, "Who defines what human rights are without an objective moral principle?

And he says, "There are such things as human rights, as have been definied by a plurality of societies." (That is his typo, not mine - Ouch, ad hominem penalty flag on me.) Clearly this is the logical fallacy argumentum ad numerum, but I don't take him up on that. He might be new to logical concepts so I give him a break. Instead I propose an example.

I say, "According to that logic then if a majority of society decides that blacks or women don't have human rights then they don't. So human rights only exist as a legal concept, just like justice as you say."

And he responds, "Of course. Blacks and women didn't use to have rights in the US, the law forbid it. Thankfully, in modern society, human rights issues supercede the law, which is why some countries protest the lack of human rights issues in other countries." Now here is where I get a little angry. I used to have a temper problem and a violence problem, but I've grown out of the violence part, because I have since developed a slight wit, ending the need to express myself physically.
Human rights supercede laws? Is this world so filled with irrational and inconsistent people that we can make a claim that human rights exist on a plain higher than law and don't exist in the ethical domain of universal reciprocity, twice, in the same discussion. Circulus in demonstrando, Argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum est stultum (I know there is no fallacy based on stupidity, but perchance to dream)?

I want to help this person. I have a certain internal burning necessity to help people, it may be my little bit of irrational altruism but it is mine damn it! So I continue. I try to explain how his argument is full of holes in 500 characters or less. Damn you, YouTube! I seem to not get through so I keep trying and trying. Because he seemingly denounced universal ethics I want him to admit that his belief in human rights is either based on faith or is only a legal concept. He can't seem to grasp what I am saying and keeps repeating himself and keeps making the same arguments. He then became hostile and makes the claim that somehow I am denying the existence of law, which I never did. I explain that laws are a written set of behavioral instructions by those in presumed authority for those they wish to push around. He then says my argument is illogical. And then references the Geneva Convention as his proof of human rights. Ad fucking nauseam.

Lastly I resort to first principles and show him a propositional formula describing his contradictory statements.

"If human rights supersede law then law cannot define human rights this includes international law
If H > L then L != (H + n)
If human rights are only a legal concept then there is no problem logically
L = (H + n)
But if human rights only exist as legal concept then they can be legislated away or slavery can be enacted
L = (H + n), L - H == n, now define L = (S + n)
See no more H. H might as well == 0"

And then I ask him where he believes human rights come from and I propose that he must be functionally illiterate to not understand what I'm writing. He is either mentally or psychologically incapable of understanding. At no point did he express himself as a total idiot; he is capable of assembling word into sentences effectively. I've seen parts of his videos and he sounds intelligent. But underneath this appearance of a capable human being is a person who insists to the very end that 2+2=5 and 2+2=3 simultaneously and at no point does 2+2 ever equal 4. I have given up.

I guess my point to all this is there are a lot of broken minds. This isn't the first or the last time I'll catch myself in these debates. I think I might be wasting my time. The best I can hope for is that others reading it will grasp the concepts and put them to use. What I want to ask from all of you is, am I somewhere mistaken? Did I make any false arguments is there anywhere where I wasn't clear. Am I being illogical? I know I'm being irrational by even going up against people like this, but how else do you get through? I pity the world and all its inhabitants and I believe that is a terrible way to think about existence but how else should I feel?

If you want you can review what was said though I pretty much described the whole thing. So I don't see why you'd have to. Here is the link to the comments video. My name is the same there. http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=QPnVImeUv74
I can admit one vocabulary mistake by describing something as tangible reality rather than detectible reality. If you see more mistakes or think that the whole thing is just mental masturbation please tell me. If you think I'm wasting your time by posting this crap, tell me too so I can avoid wasting time in future posts. I respect all of your opinions here that is why I bring it to you.

And to clarify if I haven't made myself clear I do believe in universal ethics and that it is genetically based as a survival mechanism. I base my beliefs in watching the formation of natural order among behaviors of various mammals particularly the great apes the bonobo.