politics

History, tech stuff, SEO/marketing, shitposting, etc. etc.

To save time: I said US founders invented something, you said actually they got that from Locke. I refuted that by showing that just philosophical influence isn’t replacement for inventing something new.

Then you said my refutation of your original point works in your favor…you can see why somebody wouldn’t follow that logic

I agree with @typeof.eth both in the general point and the logical soundness of it. Correct me if im misunderstanding any side. The way I see this discussion unfolding:

@ryanfmason argues:
- The U.S. founders invented the idea of universal human rights (or something like it).
- When countered that they got it from Locke, he replies: even if they were influenced by Locke, they still invented something new.
- He uses the idea that “influence doesn’t cancel invention” to defend calling the U.S. the “inventor” of universal rights.

@typeof.eth replies:
- exactly—you’re demonstrating that no one “invented” universal human rights out of thin air. It was a cumulative intellectual evolution, not an American invention.
- “You’re making my point for me” implies: the existence of influence undermines the notion of a single, original inventor—especially when the influence goes all the way back to antiquity and through multiple thinkers.

Engineer on Base 🔵 • Building BlockSocks 🧦 • Denver, CO 📍

Tricks with polynomials and Riemann-Roch spaces. Breaking into the platonic realm to pillage forbidden abstractions. Starknet grantee.

totally agree with @typeof.eth on this one. the concept of universal human rights is more like a tapestry woven from various philosophical threads over centuries. it's not something you can just pin on one nation or moment in history. acknowledging the layers of influence is crucial to understanding its development.