News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Human Rights

Started by Michael Reilly, March 28, 2012, 12:19:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

history_geek

QuotePS History-Geek: spark is a metaphor for thingee. Do try and keep up.

I thought that this sentence might be intended in a humorous note rather then as "patronizing". Glad my gut was right again ;D

Although I suppose I am partly to blame as I suppose the tone of my message wasn't exactly friendly or very polite for that matter. I apologize for that, though I still stand behind the bottom line of the message. I simply could have made more of an effort to phrase it in a more mild manner :) This simply happens to one of those subjects that hit one of my short fuses...

Other then that there isn't much for me to add in response as others have done a rather good job (again). Although, I think I'll join the Norwegian as a non-colonist, since I'm a born and bread Finn (although I suppose the nice little row boat we captured during that little incident back in the days of the Crimean War does give me a glancing connection to them, as I live about half an hour drive away from where the boat is ;D)

Oh, and one more thing. I claim thee a heretic and a traitor, as the only true God-Emperor sits upon his Golden Throne some 40,000 years to the future! Be aware that the Ordo Hereticus shall soon be in contact with you and that it is unwise to leave your current location. May your trial be swift, and your soul be delivered from the Ruinous Powers!

For the Him on Holy Terra!

/40k fluff-freak off ;D
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C Clarke's Third Law
"Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from a god."
Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace:
Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothése - I do not require that hypothesis[img]http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/4eef2cc3548cc9844a491b22ad384546.gif[/i

Michael Reilly

Is that a War Hammer reference? Nicely said.

Whitney

Unless there is something that makes some groups of humans more valuable than other groups then there logically is no reason to not offer equal rights.  So the default position ought to be equality for all and only limiting that equality when someone chooses to give up their rights by breaking laws.

Ali

Quote from: Asmodean on March 28, 2012, 11:32:42 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 28, 2012, 11:27:26 PM
Asmo, and others who do not believe in human rights except as bestowed by governments/cultures, see my signature (I've been waiting since yesterday to pull that out.  V for Victory!)
Well, of course you are wrong and I am right. The Asmo is always right, making everyone not Asmo wrong as default  :D

Every right you have is either one you claim yourself or one imposed on you by your surroundings. Oh, there are few that are supposed to be widely international, like the right to life, and yet The US practice death penalty while Iceland does not. Thus, right to live and right to live are two different things.
Haha, I see what you did there.   :P  I need to change my signature again I see.

I don't think that rights vary with the laws, I just think that sometimes the laws are not in line with people's rights.  For example, I believe that any consenting adults have the right to marry, even though my state disagrees.

Stevil

Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:14:41 AM
I don't think that rights vary with the laws, I just think that sometimes the laws are not in line with people's rights.  For example, I believe that any consenting adults have the right to marry, even though my state disagrees.
Does Mother and Son have the right to marry?

Ali

Quote from: Stevil on March 29, 2012, 02:18:13 AM
Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:14:41 AM
I don't think that rights vary with the laws, I just think that sometimes the laws are not in line with people's rights.  For example, I believe that any consenting adults have the right to marry, even though my state disagrees.
Does Mother and Son have the right to marry?

Okay okay okay okay.  Here's the deal.  If there was a way to ensure that the "relationship" started after Son was an adult, I would grimace but say yes, sure, not the government's place to say no.  The thing I worry about in incestuous relationships is the potential for adults to sort of...groom children to be their mates, while they are still children and all of the power in the relationship belongs to the adult.  Children should be protected to the fullest from that sort of thing.  If there was a logical way to protect against that, I would think it was gross, but not the government's business to prevent.

Asmodean

Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:14:41 AM
I don't think that rights vary with the laws,
Socially imposed ones do, as it is the society's laws that define which rights you have and when, and which you do not have.

The rights you claim yourself are yours alone to defend. This also applies to groups within society.

QuoteI just think that sometimes the laws are not in line with people's rights.
I read it and see: "You can't always get what you want"

QuoteFor example, I believe that any consenting adults have the right to marry, even though my state disagrees.
If your state disagrees, then they do not have that right under certain circumstances. Thus, your "have" really ought to have a "should" attached in front of it. That is your personal view and it is up to you to defend it and eventually change the society's rules, accomodate it to the existing ones as best you can, or ignore the issue entirely - perhaps because it doesn't touch you directly enough.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Sweetdeath

Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:26:40 AM
Quote from: Stevil on March 29, 2012, 02:18:13 AM
Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:14:41 AM
I don't think that rights vary with the laws, I just think that sometimes the laws are not in line with people's rights.  For example, I believe that any consenting adults have the right to marry, even though my state disagrees.
Does Mother and Son have the right to marry?

Okay okay okay okay.  Here's the deal.  If there was a way to ensure that the "relationship" started after Son was an adult, I would grimace but say yes, sure, not the government's place to say no.  The thing I worry about in incestuous relationships is the potential for adults to sort of...groom children to be their mates, while they are still children and all of the power in the relationship belongs to the adult.  Children should be protected to the fullest from that sort of thing.  If there was a logical way to protect against that, I would think it was gross, but not the government's business to prevent.

I always love your smart and well thought out answers, Ali. :)
I pretty.much agree with what you said.
Law 35- "You got to go with what works." - Robin Lefler

Wiggum:"You have that much faith in me, Homer?"
Homer:"No! Faith is what you have in things that don't exist. Your awesomeness is real."

"I was thinking that perhaps this thing called God does not exist. Because He cannot save any one of us. No matter how we pray, He doesn't mend our wounds.

Stevil

Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:26:40 AM
Okay okay okay okay.  Here's the deal.  If there was a way to ensure that the "relationship" started after Son was an adult, I would grimace but say yes, sure, not the government's place to say no.  The thing I worry about in incestuous relationships is the potential for adults to sort of...groom children to be their mates, while they are still children and all of the power in the relationship belongs to the adult.  Children should be protected to the fullest from that sort of thing.  If there was a logical way to protect against that, I would think it was gross, but not the government's business to prevent.
Tee hee, I had to ask.

I agree with you. It is OK.
If society isn't being harmed then consenting adults ought to be allowed to do whatever they please. We are adults, right, we don't need government acting as Mum and Dad and telling us what we can and can't do.

Asmodean

Quote from: Stevil on March 29, 2012, 02:56:07 AM
Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:26:40 AM
Okay okay okay okay.  Here's the deal.  If there was a way to ensure that the "relationship" started after Son was an adult, I would grimace but say yes, sure, not the government's place to say no.  The thing I worry about in incestuous relationships is the potential for adults to sort of...groom children to be their mates, while they are still children and all of the power in the relationship belongs to the adult.  Children should be protected to the fullest from that sort of thing.  If there was a logical way to protect against that, I would think it was gross, but not the government's business to prevent.
Tee hee, I had to ask.

I agree with you. It is OK.
If society isn't being harmed then consenting adults ought to be allowed to do whatever they please. We are adults, right, we don't need government acting as Mum and Dad and telling us what we can and can't do.
Still, there is a difference between "should be" and "is".
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Sandra Craft

Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 12:19:03 AM
I am curious about the atheist view of universal human rights. Do they exist? Are there rights that all people have simply because they are human beings? Or are rights bound by time and culture, i.e. we decide what rights we have based on when and in what culture we happen to inhabit?

I'll go for option B.  Mainly because when I take a look around that's what I see, and that's with most people believing in gods.

QuoteFor me, human rights exist because people--all people--have inherent worth and dignity. Within us all is what the Quakers call 'the inner light,' or 'the light within.' We have some spark of the divine, in other words.

In the absence of said spark...how can universal human rights exist? Sparkless, human rights are just opinions.

I don't see why a divine spark should be the only thing to convey inherent worth, why people aren't worthwhile just on their own.  But that's only my opinion.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 12:19:03 AM
In the absence of said spark...how can universal human rights exist? Sparkless, human rights are just opinions.

It could be somebody's opinion that they have a spark, where does that leave them? ;)

Proof please ;D

I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey