human rights

[the carpet man]

what do you think is your 'right', as a human?

example: perhaps you think it is your right to have a vote in how your government runs. or your right to have children.

why do you feel you should be given these rights? what makes you think that birth on this planet entitles you to the things you feel entitled to?

[PLAYER57832]

Wish you had asked this earlier today, I am about ready to go.


Still, I will make a stab at this.

For me, its religion. God gives us our basic rights to be and commandments to follow.

Beyond that, when you look at things called "rights", you realize that any system that takes these away from others winds up hurting all, eventually self-destructing.

Strangely, though, power hungry people wind up shifing societies in that direction eventually... and then they collapse and the cycle more or less starts over. The system collapses, people seek almost any solution and someone (or a small group of someones) come in with "solutions". People are willing to "make the bargain with the devil" to gain stability. Sometimes the bargain is immediately bad, as the leader turns into a true despot. Sometimes there is a period of relative decency.. but then eventually, the power gets concentrated more at the top again and it collapses.

The key indicator in that is loss of rights to those at the bottom. When there is extreme variance between the conditions of those at the top and the very bottom, then it is a sign of a system about to collapse.

specifically.. we have the right to live, to try to lead our lives peacefully and worship/think as we wish to the extent we don't infringe upon other people's rights to do the same. As a part of that, we have the right to speak freely, to raise our children, etc. But none of those rights are unlimited.

In religion, particularly, there is always a conflict between some people who want to live differently from others, and those who feel that merely allowing others to live differently near by (or at all) is somehow a violation of their own rights/religion, etc.

[the carpet man]

why do we have the right to live? you feel god gives us this right?

[the carpet man]

also, a system does not necessarily collapse because it has less things it calls rights. the british empire shrank because it allowed africa to vote for freedom. giving political freedom to black residents of its colonies caused it to lose its colonies.

usa thinks some things are 'rights' that china does not, yet china is the country growing stronger recently.

more 'rights' does not mean 'stronger system'

[pimpdave]

[PLAYER57832]

why do we have the right to live? you feel god gives us this right?

Essentially.


From a secular standpoint, though, either we have that basic right or we have no rights at all. Even so, that right is not without limits. Most people would say you have the right to kill someone who is attacking you or your child, for example. Most people also have little problem with killing folks like Jeffry Dommer (even many of those opposed to the Death penalty would agree, their objection is often a matter of knowing that those are not the ones executed.. not to get into that topic here, though).

Also, even within religion, there is a difference between "murder", which is pretty universally considered unjust and "killing", which is justified. (though where one puts the line absolutely differs).

[PLAYER57832]

also, a system does not necessarily collapse because it has less things it calls rights. the british empire shrank because it allowed africa to vote for freedom. giving political freedom to black residents of its colonies caused it to lose its colonies.

AH, but that only happened because the Empire was first weakened. I know some British historians might wish to claim that Britain was just acting magnanamously, but .. they were not (OK.. a low dig )

usa thinks some things are 'rights' that china does not, yet china is the country growing stronger recently.

more 'rights' does not mean 'stronger system'

There is a BIG difference between "recently" and long term. But, you are actually somewhat incorrect. To look at China, you have to look at the collapse of the Empire and then the rise of Mao. (predecessed by the national party, of course).


Also, China and the US do have very fundamentally different views of the individual. Ironically, what we are seeing in very recent times is that China is embracing more rights, embracing the establishment of actual individual rights, whereas the US is seeing the demise of individual rights in favor of corporate rights and rights of very wealthy individuals.

China utterly collapsed and has been rebuilding. I doubt they will make the mistake they did before and allow such an extreme difference of wealth and power.

Now, also, I was talking in the most simplistic and general terms. To get into the specifics means looking at a lot of variations. While having wealth and power too heavily concentrated at the top has preceded the fall of many nations historically, how it happened exactly and so forth varied in each case. India is not Britain and neither are China. (to pick just 3 recent examples, but the same thing is thought to have happened even here in the ancient Americas).

[the carpet man]

what does inequality in wealth have to do with rights?

humans are animals, same as the lion or fish. therefore, we live by the laws of nature. no one says a lion is wrong to kill a zebra and eat it. the zebra's Zebra Rights have not been intruded.

if you are strong then you get to choose. if you are weak then you get dominated. this is how life works. only the weak pretend not and come up with 'rights' and so on, to act like it is justified for them to defy the natural order

[Woodruff]

what does inequality in wealth have to do with rights?

humans are animals, same as the lion or fish. therefore, we live by the laws of nature. no one says a lion is wrong to kill a zebra and eat it. the zebra's Zebra Rights have not been intruded.

if you are strong then you get to choose. if you are weak then you get dominated. this is how life works. only the weak pretend not and come up with 'rights' and so on, to act like it is justified for them to defy the natural order

I'm not at all surprised to hear you say that you're just an animal. I've thought that of you since your first post.

[thegreekdog]

I hate to use a cliche, but I think our basic human rights are limited to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And that's it. Pretty much.

[the carpet man]

the right to life? that is an expansive thing

does that cover, for example a starving man has a right to be given food? if he has the right to stay alive.

[thegreekdog]

the right to life? that is an expansive thing

does that cover, for example a starving man has a right to be given food? if he has the right to stay alive.

I wasn't detailed; the right to life means that people aren't permitted to kill me.

[the carpet man]

woodruff, do you think i will be insulted if you call me an animal? what is insulting about that?

but congratulations for making the personal insult. you can now join the club of natty dread and aafitz, who also say rude things about me as a result of not knowing how to debate properly

[pmchugh]

I think carpet man brings up a valid point.

I would classify myself as a humanist although this distinction makes me realise that I somehow value humans more than other living creatures. I guess I am just a raging speciesist. Plus I love bacon.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Huh? I think there's 2 different issues here.
1. Clearly there are no fundamental objective rights. The universe doesn't care what this thin film of organic goo on the surface of the Earth does.
2. However pretending there are some fundamental rights all humans should have seems to be a good way to organize a society, so that's what we do. Clearly not being killed and not getting your shit stolen are such "fundamental" rights.

Also, you have to be a speciest to a certain degree. Otherwise you just have to end up drawing the line somewhere else (reptiles? bugs? where? ). I guess you could do a value determined by brain size type of thing.

Also also:

Click image to enlarge.

[the carpet man]

why do people not just say 'we make these rules to make society easier?'

it is stupid to pretend they are the blesses of the universe conferred on us because we are great and good. laws and rights are the same as the rules of sport, so be honest and describe them as such.

plus, they are only valid if you consider there to be a point in having society.

[Woodruff]

woodruff, do you think i will be insulted if you call me an animal? what is insulting about that?

Not at all...in your case, it's only insulting to the animals.

[Woodruff]

plus, they are only valid if you consider there to be a point in having society.

See, I knew you were sociopath.

[the carpet man]

woodruff, please refrain from insulting me. do you have anything reasonable to add to this thread?

[Haggis_McMutton]

why do people not just say 'we make these rules to make society easier?'
it is stupid to pretend they are the blesses of the universe conferred on us because we are great and good. laws and rights are the same as the rules of sport, so be honest and describe them as such.

I dunno, I think most people who actually think about shit like this realize what's going on. Maybe it's easier to sell them with the label "fundamental". Besides, our language is full of inaccuracies like that, this doesn't seem to be a big issue to me.

plus, they are only valid if you consider there to be a point in having society.

Well, our life would likely be a lot shittier if there were no societies. Guess it depends on what pupose you ascribe to yourself and to humanity.

These guys might be in favour of no societies I guess.

[the carpet man]

thank you for the link

i guess though, again that depends on what you think is shit. if you mean shorter life, more violence then yes it would be shitter. but if these things do not trouble you then there would be not so much difference

[Haggis_McMutton]

i guess though, again that depends on what you think is shit. if you mean shorter life, more violence then yes it would be shitter. but if these things do not trouble you then there would be not so much difference

Well, without society we'd probably still be dying at 30 partly because we've already lost most of our teeth.

That doesn't seem shitty to you?

Also, out of curiosity, what's your opinion on the VHEM stuff?

[the carpet man]

i don't know. i guess if your goal is to live for longer then it is bad if you die younger. but then i do not see why we need to live a long time. in the year 2200, what will be the difference if i had lived to 80 and not 60?

as to the VHEM page. i think it is a bit extreme to say that humans need to become extinct. that seems like the opinion of someone with active hatred towards humans. but it is a valid point to make that humans rapid growth of population and the use of too much resources is harmful to our planet (and it is possible this will cause the destruction of humans).

i have heard the term 'anthropocene era' used - that people say the defining feature of planet earth is now humans. we alter the weather, landscapes, kill species etc. with our behavior. if this was not humans but another species then we would be taking measures to control the population growth. yet most countries allow humanity to grow and grow and grow (china is a notable exception).

the reason i mention rights is because it seems to me that this problem comes from too much 'rights'. people feel it is their right to have the number of children they feel like, regardless of the effect of this on the planet. they do not see that it is a question of practicality, not rights.

[PLAYER57832]

I hate to use a cliche, but I think our basic human rights are limited to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And that's it. Pretty much.

Yes.. though happiness and ability to pursue one's own religion might be in conflict at times. (and you can take that in several different ways.. though I suspect most will elude carpetman, if this thread is any indication).

[heavycola]

Wish you had asked this earlier today, I am about ready to go.


Still, I will make a stab at this.

For me, its religion. God gives us our basic rights to be and commandments to follow.

Absolutely. As God says directly to Moses in Exodus 21:1 - 'These are the laws you shall set before them'.

Exodus 21:17 - 'Anyone who curses their mother or father is to be put to death'
Exodus 21:20 - 'Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result'
Exodus 22:18 - 'Do not allow a sorceress to live.'
Exodus 22: 19 'Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal is to be put to death.'
Exodus 22: 20 'Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.'
etc, etc
Don't screw up either, 'for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation''

This is absolute morality at its finest.