Basic Human Rights

[Immanuel Can]

Rights are like currencies
They only work when people have faith in them.

If that's so, then nobody has grounds to complain when such alleged "rights" are not given them. If that's true, the women who are revenge raped in Pakistan or flogged in Saudi are not justified when they think something unjust has been done to them; their society does not "have faith" in that right. So just as Saudi and Pakistani currencies are not accepted in the corner shops here, just so, a women's alleged "right" not to be beaten and raped is not accepted there...

But I don't think you actually believe that's how it is. If you did, it obviously wouldn't make you a very good person, would it? I think that you, and also any other people who invoke "rights" want to say, "To do those things to women is always wrong, no matter what the local society believes." Is that not how you think, too?

But if so, then "rights" transcend the human belief in them. They refer instead to universals.

[Sculptor]

Rights are like currencies
They only work when people have faith in them.

If that's so, then nobody has grounds to complain when such alleged "rights" are not given them.

Wrong again.
You are not doing very well today.
Rights as they stand give people an appeal to other like minded people.
There is such a thing as decency.
This is exacly how rights have been established.
Not by some mythical god given right, but because people have fought for them.
I do not expect you to understand.

If that's true, the women who are revenge raped in Pakistan or flogged in Saudi are not justified when they think something unjust has been done to them; their society does not "have faith" in that right. So just as Saudi and Pakistani currencies are not accepted in the corner shops here, just so, a women's alleged "right" not to be beaten and raped is not accepted there...

But I don't think you actually believe that's how it is. If you did, it obviously wouldn't make you a very good person, would it? I think that you, and also any other people who invoke "rights" want to say, "To do those things to women is always wrong, no matter what the local society believes." Is that not how you think, too?

But if so, then "rights" transcend the human belief in them. They refer instead to universals.

Universals- yes, yet another idea that has to be established by efforts and persuasion.
Gits like you I assume wait around on your spotty behinds waiting for Godo.

[RCSaunders]

That's right.

Whatever he might mean, its a hopeless gambit on a thread discussing rights.

You don't have to like it, but a thread discussing an absurd fiction as though it were a reality on a philosophy site is exactly the appropriate place to make that observation.

This absurd fiction has led to you getting the vote. It has led to tens of thousands of people in Mynnanmar marching against the state, Eventually they will win I hope.

You mean the privilege of selecting my own dictator? I do not participate in mobocracy, the belief that a majority has a right to force their will on others as long as they have the bigger gang. Keep your democracy and your vote.

So which individual's in Burma are you hoping will win? The northern Muslims so they can go back to mutilating their little girls, or the Buddhist who want them to leave and not take over the country. What did you think it was all about? It's not some noble cause. Who cares who wins when two gangs of superstitious nuts are trying to destroy each other?

[Immanuel Can]

Rights as they stand give people an appeal to other like minded people.

Well, not everybody is "minded" that way.

Do the people they abuse or torment have any 'rights"? Or are they just supposed to sit there and take it?

[henry quirk]

So you are wanting a yes or a no answer to your question, correct?.

Yeah, I did, but It seems we have little common ground.

Agreed.

It's interesting what we do agree on, despite that. Which demonstrates, *maybe, that no single or particular path is necessary for such things.

Lace, are we gettin' along? I hope so.

*I agree. There's that sayin', there are many paths up to the mountain's peak...I got no problem walkin' mine as you walk yours.

[RCSaunders]

Okay, trying again. I can agree and understand with what you’ve said here, while I think there’s more to consider as well...

Point #1: Lots of humans may not be able to recognize what other options there are because they get programmed or locked into certain beliefs and limited-thinking, and they fear or don't see anything beyond that. Babies were the easiest example of having no choice, but intoxicated adults may not recognize choice, as well.

I'm afraid you've lost me (or I've lost your point). Other's problems in using their minds correctly are not anything you or I can do anything about. I'm only responsible for making sure my thinking is correct, not trying to discover why most people are idiots and choose to be in that condition.

We can try to hold some severely intoxicated Christians responsible for themselves (I certainly try to), but what I’ve seen on this forum suggests an absolute blindness to only that which supports their identity which is fiercely tied to their ego. Any other beneficial or broader options/viewpoints are unfathomable to them. They pretty much reject the whole of creation. Their identity is completely who/what they are. This is an example of why I think identity can be very blinding.

It is not up to anyone to hold others responsible for anything. In fact, I think it is wrong to interfere in anyone else's life in any way (so long as they are not a direct physical threat to me or mine). I'm only responsible for my thoughts and actions and will succeed or fail on the basis of my choices, not what anyone else thinks or does. Perhaps some people are, "blinded," by what you think identity is, but that doesn't mean you or I have to be.

Point #2: I do not think about identity the way you do.

I do not think you really know what I think about, "identity," but, even if you did, you certainly don't have to agree with it. By, "identity," I only mean whatever anything actually is, its ontological nature, whether one knows what it is or not, and I mean it in the same way for a human being. It is only an, "identification," of something--i.e. what it is. Every word you use for anything that exists, as that existent (a book, an automobile, a tree, you, your pet, Mars) is its identity. There is nothing esoteric or mystical about it. Everything has to be something, and whatever it is, that is its identity. When you write, "I do not think about identity ..." whatever you mean by, "I," is your identity.

If life is a stage for humans... and some don’t know they’re on a stage, and some know they are... who is likely to have more fun, I wonder?

I've always liked that analogy. I have often thought it is a good way to understand what life is. Reality is a stage and every individual has a part in this most exciting dramatic adventure. Unlike a play, however, there is no script. Every actor must choose the part they want to play and then must work to perform their part as well as possible.

I also love this metaphorical stage of reality in every respect. I love all of reality, just as it, because it provides infinite possibility. That means I love all the parts the actors are playing as well, even those who have chosen to be villains, or worse. I love all the social and cultural consequences of all the individual actors each playing their parts, even what others consider social or cultural evils; but unlike most of them, however, I never want to interfere in how any other actor chooses to play their part, though most of them want to interfere in mine.

Since I love this life and world, just as they are, and could not possibly enjoy them more, I guess you'd say, "I'm having fun."

[RCSaunders]

I think what RC is saying is that like "laws, customs, rites and norms," rights are just things made up by particular societies. Consequently, they are just as changeable, ignorable and eliminable as the former. I don't think he's claiming they don't exist as fictions...just that they are fictions.

That's right.

I agree. Humans are making up all sorts of things... and then forgetting (maybe), and thinking it existed before (or independently of) themselves.

It's not that making-up stuff is bad -- it's just that we have more options when we realize we're making it up, and that it's not cast in stone.

That's a kind of fundamental. Well put, and we definitely agree here.

[RCSaunders]

"Right," then, means "consonant with the character and designs of a good God."

By what criteria is your God judged to be good beyond the claim of your God?

[Sculptor]

That's right.

You don't have to like it, but a thread discussing an absurd fiction as though it were a reality on a philosophy site is exactly the appropriate place to make that observation.

This absurd fiction has led to you getting the vote. It has led to tens of thousands of people in Mynnanmar marching against the state, Eventually they will win I hope.

You mean the privilege of selecting my own dictator? I do not participate in mobocracy, the belief that a majority has a right to force their will on others as long as they have the bigger gang. Keep your democracy and your vote.

So which individual's in Burma are you hoping will win? The northern Muslims so they can go back to mutilating their little girls, or the Buddhist who want them to leave and not take over the country. What did you think it was all about? It's not some noble cause. Who cares who wins when two gangs of superstitious nuts are trying to destroy each other?

Or you can just fuck off!

[Immanuel Can]

"Right," then, means "consonant with the character and designs of a good God."

By what criteria is your God judged to be good beyond the claim of your God?

Well, to start with, "good" is identical with "godly." So it's a little like saying, "Why is the cosmos the cosmos?" The only answer can be, "Because that's what the word 'cosmos' means."

But perhaps you mean, "By what criteria do we, human beings, confirm that, according to human understanding of what 'good' is, God conforms to it?' And despite the very serious problem that mankind's compass for "good" is manifestly wonky, there are some ways that we can identify the predicate 'good' as meaningfully applicable to God...such as, by what He has revealed about Himself in nature, what He has revealed about Himself in propositions, what He has given us in laws and in blessings, by what He has done in human history, and pre-eminently, by what He has done in Jesus Christ.

Admittedly, since our compass is often faulty, we'll sometimes end up excusing evil as "good," and wrongly calling good "evil.' But our consciences, though faulty, are not so bad that deep down we cannot see the goodness of God...or our own cases of badness, either. The vestiges of our realization of our right role as God's imagers remain. We know what we should be; we also know that we just aren't often it.

[Sculptor]

Rights as they stand give people an appeal to other like minded people.

Well, not everybody is "minded" that way.

Do the people they abuse or torment have any 'rights"? Or are they just supposed to sit there and take it?

Let me tell you how it works.
Once upon a time there were no rights.
Kings decided that they had the right to rule, but other people got the idea that others might be able to have rights too.
There was much struggle.
And in the places that such struggles were successful people acquired rights.
Then the UN write the UDHR this gave anyone on earth the chance to pressure their governments, and for signoatories to pressure other countries.
If you are luckly enough to live in a signoatory state, you have legal redress to maintain the rights listed. If you do not then you have to pressure your government to sign up.
I'm not sure what you confusion is, nor what your position is.

[Immanuel Can]

Let me tell you how it works.

Please do.

Once upon a time there were no rights.
Kings decided that they had the right to rule, but other people got the idea that others might be able to have rights too.
There was much struggle.
And in the places that such struggles were successful people acquired rights.
Then the UN write the UDHR this gave anyone on earth the chance to pressure their governments, and for signoatories to pressure other countries.
If you are luckly enough to live in a signoatory state, you have legal redress to maintain the rights listed. If you do not then you have to pressure your government to sign up.

That is indeed a story that deserves to start with "once upon a time." And like all fairy tales, it should end with, "and they lived happily ever after."

But your story has massive holes in it, such as the first mention of "rights," and how it was ever conceived, and on what basis it was legitimized, and why people came to believe in them, and from where the UN got them...and why we ought to believe in them now. And that's just a start.

[Lacewing]

Other's problems in using their minds correctly are not anything you or I can do anything about. I'm only responsible for making sure my thinking is correct, not trying to discover why most people are idiots and choose to be in that condition.

Humans affect each other all the time. Interacting with people with varying mindsets can be interesting and valuable (to all involved). Discovering why people are idiots is interesting, just as it's interesting to observe brilliant people.

It is not up to anyone to hold others responsible for anything. In fact, I think it is wrong to interfere in anyone else's life in any way (so long as they are not a direct physical threat to me or mine).

I don't think it's interference to point out that someone should be responsible for what they say and do. I'm not talking about following someone around telling them what to do... I'm talking about discussions on this forum, or other appropriate timing/situations that present themselves. People making claims (or spouting rules) should reasonably be able to back them up. When they don't... it's (at least) good to be able to study that behavior.

By, "identity," I only mean whatever anything actually is, its ontological nature, whether one knows what it is or not, and I mean it in the same way for a human being. It is only an, "identification," of something--i.e. what it is. Every word you use for anything that exists, as that existent (a book, an automobile, a tree, you, your pet, Mars) is its identity. There is nothing esoteric or mystical about it. Everything has to be something, and whatever it is, that is its identity. When you write, "I do not think about identity ..." whatever you mean by, "I," is your identity.

So there are many ideas and definitions that someone can weave into their identity, correct? I'm saying I don't tend to do that.

If life is a stage for humans... and some don’t know they’re on a stage, and some know they are... who is likely to have more fun, I wonder?

I've always liked that analogy. I have often thought it is a good way to understand what life is. Reality is a stage and every individual has a part in this most exciting dramatic adventure. Unlike a play, however, there is no script. Every actor must choose the part they want to play and then must work to perform their part as well as possible.

I think humans make up a lot of scripts. And a lot of people follow other human's scripts.

I also love this metaphorical stage of reality in every respect. I love all of reality, just as it, because it provides infinite possibility. That means I love all the parts the actors are playing as well, even those who have chosen to be villains, or worse. I love all the social and cultural consequences of all the individual actors each playing their parts, even what others consider social or cultural evils; but unlike most of them, however, I never want to interfere in how any other actor chooses to play their part, though most of them want to interfere in mine.

I have appreciation for the vast potential on display. The implications are amazing. I don't think there's anything wrong in playing with others, which may involve challenging or taunting. I'm not into going around interfering in people's lives either, but in certain situations, it may seem suitable that I comment on how another actor is playing their part. Isn't it all PLAY? If people aren't challenged, they don't grow and expand.

Mostly, I feel love... and I laugh a lot.

Since I love this life and world, just as they are, and could not possibly enjoy them more, I guess you'd say, "I'm having fun."

That's wonderful!

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I did, but It seems we have little common ground.

Agreed.

It's interesting what we do agree on, despite that. Which demonstrates, *maybe, that no single or particular path is necessary for such things.

Lace, are we gettin' along? I hope so.

*I agree. There's that sayin', there are many paths up to the mountain's peak...*I got no problem walkin' mine as you walk yours.

*actually, that shoulda been I got no problem you walkin' yours as I walk mine.

[Lacewing]

Lace, are we gettin' along? I hope so.

Seems that way at the moment. I like it when we do.