News:

When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...

Main Menu

What's on your mind today?

Started by Steve Reason, August 25, 2007, 08:15:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Icarus

It should be clear that I am on the side of the angry women. I respect them for many reasons. One of the reasons is admiration for their creativity.  Todays TV news showed a horde of protesters.  Many of them were carrying signs. Several of the signs claimed that: if men got pregnant, then abortions would be available at 7-11 stores.

The one that cracked me up with laughter (and agreement)  was the woman who had a biblical verse on her sign. It said: Let he who hath no uterus shut the Fucketh up. 

You go girls!!!

Asmodean

Quote from: Icarus on June 26, 2022, 02:07:32 AMThe one that cracked me up with laughter (and agreement)  was the woman who had a biblical verse on her sign. It said: Let he who hath no uterus shut the Fucketh up. 
It's a bad argument.

...Let's make something of it. Only gun owners get a say in gun regulation. Only the religious get a say in school prayer. Only those who have a car determine speed limits.

Any-one willing to tell me how that's so totally different? I'm in a mood for a quick back-n-forth :smilenod:

Quick [EDIT] regarding signs; Creative once, perhaps, but I have heard (and even used) those exact slogans in abortion debate a decade or two ago. Today, those specific ones are really as tired as the religious lot standing around with signs full of Bible verses.
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.

No one

Uh, guns, cars, and religiousness, are not fundamental human rights.




Asmodean

Quote from: No one on June 26, 2022, 02:09:32 PMUh, guns, cars, and religiousness, are not fundamental human rights.
Religion (freedom of) is.

That said, does not address the argument.
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.

billy rubin

#16309
Quote from: Asmodean on June 26, 2022, 03:23:52 PM
Quote from: No one on June 26, 2022, 02:09:32 PMUh, guns, cars, and religiousness, are not fundamental human rights.
Religion (freedom of) is.

in some places.

in malaysia you are not allowed to renounce your islamic faith.

in america, rostafarians coulnt buy marijua na.

various european countries prohibit kisher slaughter.

in france you cannot swim at the beach in clothing considered "religious."

in lebanon all marriages must be performed by a religious autbority

religious freedom isnt fundamental in any of these places


more people have been to berlin than i have

Asmodean

Quote from: billy rubin on June 26, 2022, 03:41:10 PMin some places.

in malaysia you are not allowed to renounce your islamic faith.

in america, rostafarians coulnt buy marijua na.

various european countries prohibit kisher slaughter.

in france you cannot swim at the beach in clothing considered "religious."

in lebanon all marriages must be performed by a religious autbority

religious freedom isnt fundamental in any of these places

That is true, but also missing the point. I must admit I'm having a hard time not biting and derailing the conversation here myself, with regard to abortion rights, since your argument implies that it's not a fundamental right unless it is also a right in Lebanon.

Having a uterus is not a fundamental right. It's something you are born with - or not. The right is, in a way, in getting to keep what you were born with.

Even if it was such a right, however, in whatever geography or political landscape you want to invoke, how does it in any way dictate that unless you are in whatever group that right applies to, you have no say in how it is applied?

That's the point of my example. Being armed is a constitutional right in the United States. Does that mean that unless you are, you don't get to opine on any issues related to it?
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.

billy rubin

im not arguing that other point.

im pointing out that religious freedom absolutely is not a fundamental right unless it is a right everywhere.

to say otherwise means "fundamental" is a relative term.

but i can see an argument being made that "fundamental" is actually a local term, and what is fundamental in france need not be considered  fundamental in belgium . in the end this question is semantic.



more people have been to berlin than i have

Asmodean

Quote from: billy rubin on June 26, 2022, 04:48:21 PMto say otherwise means "fundamental" is a relative term.
But it is.

Every society has its foundations. Whatever comes from said foundations is fundamental in that society, but may not be in a society built on a different rock, so to speak.
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.

billy rubin

yes. a semantic argument.

what affects it is the discussion of rights in general, and where they come from. the relativist position you describe hold that rights are granted by insttutions or human culture.

the absolutist position holds that some rights are granted by an ultimate authority, and "fundamental" is a term used to descrbe a foundation underlying all human existence. this is usually a religious argument, but it doesnt have to be if someone wants to hold up nature or cosmic order as a fundamental aspect of social exstence.

an interesting side aspect of the absolutist position regarding rights is that there is no reason to limit rights to human beings, and so a cow might have a right not to be slaughtered.



more people have been to berlin than i have

Asmodean

Quote from: billy rubin on June 26, 2022, 07:06:04 PMan interesting side aspect of the absolutist position regarding rights is that there is no reason to limit rights to human beings, and so a cow might have a right not to be slaughtered.
That exists in a relativist framework as well. From my particular brand of approaches too, for that matter. The argument could go along these lines;

Those incapable of claiming their own rights can still be granted rights by those capable of adequately enforcing such a grant. Thus, a cow could have rights much in the same way a small child or a mentally disabled human could. Such a right is no less for it.

There is no reason to limit anyone or anything's rights at all - beyond your inclination to grant and capability of upholding them.
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.

billy rubin

it depends on what a right is . if rights exist only where they can be enforced by coercion, then they are very different in nature from rights that exist in the absence of coercion.

i dont believe rights exist at all, except as terms of convenience for whatever entitlements a society decides to recognize


more people have been to berlin than i have

Icarus

Quote from: billy rubin on June 26, 2022, 11:54:54 PMi don't believe rights exist at all, except as terms of convenience for whatever entitlements a society decides to recognize

I agree entirely.  Putting a sharper point on that observation, there are many situations in which the larger part of a society has no say in how the rules are to be obeyed. Fascist and dictatorial society comes to mind. Religion is even more forceful. Consider the plight of every female in Afghanistan. Rights be damned. Do as you are told or die.

We are presently getting a taste of a rule that is in direct conflict with two thirds of our nation.

I think it possible that six of nine, the majority, of the Supremes have shit in their own mess kits with this one. Seventy million angry women may turn the tide.

billy rubin

#16317
clarence thomas wants to revisit all thr privacy laws that are supported in the same way as roe was.

these include laws granting a right to contraception, same sex marriage, same sex sex, and prohibiting racial segregation..

theres another that was formerly included in the list but thst he left out-- the right to interracial marriage.

he is black and his wife is white. nobody has pointed this out yet in the media


more people have been to berlin than i have

Asmodean

Any kind of marriage, be it same sex, interracial or whatever have you, should be up to whatever faith-based community presides over an individual case, in my opinion.

Of course, that assumes that legally speaking, civil unions count for exactly the same thing, which, as I understand it, they often don't. Given that, however, my philosophy is that no marriage is better than any marriage. No need to make promises, which you have a coin's toss chance of keeping.
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.

billy rubin

i think a clear distinction should be made between a religious marriage and a civil union.

the government should have no say in how people marry each other in a religious context. likewise, a religious marriage should have no legal standing unless accompanied by a civil marriage license.


this is a no brainer to me. keep them separate and theres no interference between the two.


more people have been to berlin than i have