Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 8, 2019 Author Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Pretty sure he'd starve in the US... Peak Tom. You, sir, just won the internets!
Foxx Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: So help me to understand your position: Because truth is a "social construct," different cultures can espouse a different objective truth? If that's the case, is it incumbent on other cultures to accept one culture's objective truth? Should everyone everywhere accept everyone else's truth? How, in such a world can ANY objective judgement be made? At that point does social order become completely irrelevant? Example: Unbongo tribe from some remote island believes that beheading and eating the brains of one's enemies is morally acceptable, and even desirable. A member of said tribe moves to the US, kills his neighbor and eats his brains. Should we, as a society tolerate his "truth" and accept the behavior? my position is more to get one to think outside the social norms than anything else. we all exist on what we hold to be true for us, it is our moral compass, so to speak. i would be willing to bet that you have previously held a belief that you no longer believe to be so. that is a byproduct of your evolution in life and is based upon your beliefs. as such, you have held contradictions to your current positions. the issue of socially accepted norms is required for the advancement of a society, as a whole.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 8, 2019 Author Posted January 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: the issue of socially accepted norms is required for the advancement of a society, as a whole. Corollary: If there are no socially accepted norms, does society as a whole degrade?
Foxx Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Corollary: If there are no socially accepted norms, does society as a whole degrade? within a group, of course. i am not/was not disagreeing with your initial position. rather, just trying to expand it a bit. 1
LSHMEAB Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 All major religions, if taken literally, are incompatible with Western civilization. The problem with Muslims is that they actually adhere to the principles of their antiquated literature. Christians have found a way to compartmentalize and that is to be lauded. 1 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Those rights have always been there, as created by our Creator. They just weren't recognized by the Neanderthals of the time. Looking back on history and the subrogation of women by men was the men's loss as much as the women's loss. I say that not as a person trying to call men equal victims but lamenting the fact that men cheated themselves out of true partnership. What if you do not believe in a creator? 1 1
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: What if you do not believe in a creator? Then a belief in the absolute and intrinsic nature of rights becomes even more important. 2
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, women always had those rights. Just as blacks did. (voting aside, as that's not a right, but rather a civil privilege) What was happening is that the rights of women (inalienable and intrinsic) were being systematically violated, and we're not protected by law. What wen fought for was to have their natural rights acknowledged and protected by their government. This is not a semantic difference If women did not have natural rights prior to their "emancipation" then there was nothing wrong with subjugating them, and no moral argument to be made for their liberation. If those rights did not exist prior, then no injustice existed in need of correction. Further, if they did not exist, then you are, quite literally, making the argument for the democratization of your (the literal you) rights; granting majority the just prerogative of stripping you of your rights with no moral argument against. If women have always had those rights, civilization and Roman law (full-citizen or not) and English law and (well, you get the idea) missed the memo. If you are speaking to the United States specifically, again women and blacks and even most men did not have those rights. Free white men who were property owners had them, but the rest of the people were pretty SOL. I guess everyone has come a long way! And I would hate to see the "civilized world" devolve.
3rdnlng Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: What if you do not believe in a creator? Good question. If a person can't claim that their Creator gave them their rights then what basis do they have for claiming the rights? Fairness?
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Good question. If a person can't claim that their Creator gave them their rights then what basis do they have for claiming the rights? Fairness? That is a good question. And for me, it is earned... by blood in war and arguments in court.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: If women have always had those rights, civilization and Roman law (full-citizen or not) and English law and (well, you get the idea) missed the memo. If you are speaking to the United States specifically, again women and blacks and even most men did not have those rights. Free white men who were property owners had them, but the rest of the people were pretty SOL. I guess everyone has come a long way! And I would hate to see the "civilized world" devolve. Rights do not come from democracy, or majority, or government. If they do, then you have no basis to claim it would be wrong to strip you of them.
3rdnlng Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: That is a good question. And for me, it is earned... by blood in war and arguments in court. Did you argue on the basis of fairness?
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: That is a good question. And for me, it is earned... by blood in war and arguments in court. Those aren't rights then. Those are civil privileges which can be striped away without any moral opposition.
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, TakeYouToTasker said: Those aren't rights then. Those are civil privileges which can be striped away without any moral opposition. If you are speaking of "human rights" they are based on the moral code of the day. However, I am speaking to "civil rights" which are fought for, earned, and can indeed be taken away or further expanded and granted.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, Buffalo_Gal said: If you are speaking of "human rights" they are based on the moral code of the day. However, I am speaking to "civil rights" which are fought for, earned, and can indeed be taken away or further expanded and granted. Civil rights aren't rights. They are privileges. The term "civil rights" is just another example of a concept being modified ("civil" modifies "rights"), stripping away the meaning of the original modified term while attempting to borrow from it it's gravity, much in the same way "social justice" has nothing to do with the concepts of justice.
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Did you argue on the basis of fairness? Fairness, now there is a slippery slope. What is "fair"? What is "right"? What is "moral" and "just"? Those questions are the ponderance of philosophers and great legal minds - of which I am neither. (For what it is worth I am of the "if it doesn't hurt you (generic you), it should be legal" school of thought while recognizing that isn't always possible.) Edited January 8, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal
Foxx Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 silly rabbit, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
DC Tom Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: If you are speaking of "human rights" they are based on the moral code of the day. However, I am speaking to "civil rights" which are fought for, earned, and can indeed be taken away or further expanded and granted. REMINDER: in the recorded history of humanity, the philosophies of the past 200 years are the exception, not the rule.
The_Dude Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 55 minutes ago, DC Tom said: REMINDER: in the recorded history of humanity, the philosophies of the past 200 years are the exception, not the rule. ....so true. The past 200 years are quite radical. Well, I’d go 250 years at this point.
Recommended Posts