User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 58

Thread: Human rights

  1. #41
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Enough people of influence decided there should be a trial.
    Ugh, positivism is so dreary. You realize how much that detracts from the significance of nuremburg?


    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Such a poor argument you are building there...

    How so?

  2. #42
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Ugh, positivism is so dreary. You realize how much that detracts from the significance of nuremburg?
    Absolutely nothing. People knew it all along.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    How so?
    Because it is the same one you always try to make in such discussions, namely that positive law, depended as it is on temporal human agreement, is somehow insignificant, flimsy, useless. Thus, following the rationale that what should not be cannot be, god and his natural and absolute laws are suddenly necessary and therefore existent. In other words: Because it is substantially false and logically unsound.

  3. #43
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Absolutely nothing. People knew it all along.
    It's just revenge parading as justice. Maybe that's the way some Germans always felt about it, but we on the other side felt differently.


    Because it is the same one you always try to make in such discussions, namely that positive law, depended as it is on temporal human agreement, is somehow insignificant, flimsy, useless. Thus, following the rationale that what should not be cannot be, god and his natural and absolute laws are suddenly necessary and therefore existent. In other words: Because it is substantially false and logically unsound.
    My argument is that positive law would be insignificant, but you draw a conclusion from that that I don't draw. My argument isn't that simply because something shouldn't be it can't be, but rather my argument is that being logically consistent with legal positivism is not something for which most people have the stomach. Most people on a day to day basis act as if goodness and justice actually exist and it would be inconsistent to simultaneously believe in legal positivism and yet carry on the charade.

    Goodness and justice are an innate, though corrupted, aspect of humanity. You may believe that all law is merely a matter of power exercised on the basis of social constructs, but I doubt you'd actually want to live in a society where people didn't believe that goodness and justice were real things. Sure people in white towers standing on the shoulders of millinia of civilization might get along ok with such ideas, but when those ideas filter down to the less educated and poor it means death, suffering, and strife.

    So to make it clear my argument is that you can't possibly believe in legal positivism and want everyone else to believe and behave in a manner that's logically consistent with legal positivism.

  4. #44
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole
    In his feted book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty contends that wealth inequality is rising inexorably, with negative effects on health, education, welfare and personal safety.
    He's wrong. Wealth inequality is only harmful when there is no upward mobility. There is still significant mobility in the US although there is less mobility today due to stupid governmental policies.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Ugh, positivism is so dreary. You realize how much that detracts from the significance of nuremburg?
    I realize that it's dreary. I didn't reach that point without hoping to find some other tenable position. I see how laws are made, and more importantly who makes laws in most places. So I think little more than cynical power dynamics are the reasons laws exist. I'd like to think that the slow increase in participation by more people at least make the power dynamics lead to more universally acceptable laws. But the powerful find ways to rig and manipulate things nevertheless.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #46
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    It's just revenge parading as justice. Maybe that's the way some Germans always felt about it, but we on the other side felt differently.
    I do not think the Nuremberg Trials were bereft of justice. In fact, they established a worthwhile concept of accountability beyond that of citizens to the state. That there is no absolute moral law written into the fabric of the universe to support it does not mean it is useless. Just think of it as a global traffic law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    My argument is that positive law would be insignificant, but you draw a conclusion from that that I don't draw. My argument isn't that simply because something shouldn't be it can't be, but rather my argument is that being logically consistent with legal positivism is not something for which most people have the stomach. Most people on a day to day basis act as if goodness and justice actually exist and it would be inconsistent to simultaneously believe in legal positivism and yet carry on the charade.
    Surprise: People are not logically consistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Goodness and justice are an innate, though corrupted, aspect of humanity. You may believe that all law is merely a matter of power exercised on the basis of social constructs, but I doubt you'd actually want to live in a society where people didn't believe that goodness and justice were real things. Sure people in white towers standing on the shoulders of millinia of civilization might get along ok with such ideas, but when those ideas filter down to the less educated and poor it means death, suffering, and strife.
    Indeed, goodness and justice are innate concepts, though they are not as uniform as they would be were they derived from god's eternal, unvarying essence. The source of all morality is emotion. So even if people knew that there is no absolute goodness, no absolute justice, they would still feel them. The idea of what is good and just may change over time, but if, for example, ruthless murder is one day considered good, then it is indeed good, and people would like to live in a society that encourages murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    So to make it clear my argument is that you can't possibly believe in legal positivism and want everyone else to believe and behave in a manner that's logically consistent with legal positivism.
    What I want is entirely irrelevant to what is.

  7. #47
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Seeing this has turned (predictably) from an abstract discussion about rights into a defense of immigration, I should point out that in past ages, people have always defended their country from invasion; never supported it and made those among them who remain loyal social pariahs.
    Immigration and invasion are two different things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    What I am interested in is peoples' take on which (if any) rights people should have and their reasons for thinking this. When I ask "do rights exist", I mean "is there anything that you are entitled to just for existing?", not "what is a right?". The former is a much less closed and more practical question, and can be expanded outward to other issues very easily (as has already happened).
    Entitlements and rights make no sense outside the context of a society. So, no one is entitled to anything just for existing; it is existing within a given society that makes the idea of rights meaningful. The boundaries of that society have grown over the centuries to the point where we can take a global perspective on the question of rights. We are evolving, for example, toward a global consensus that it is wrong to own another person. More slowly, we are coming to afford women the same opportunities and rights as men. If there is any underlying theme to this process, it seems to be equality, in the sense that whatever rights a society recognizes, they must be recognized for everyone.

    If there is one fundamental right, perhaps it is simply the right to be viewed and judged for who one really is. Doing anything less is just denial of reality.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #48
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Immigration and invasion are two different things.
    You like to talk about what it's like in practice. Well, tens of millions of people settling somewhere in a matter of decades is an invasion IRL. It doesn't matter how they got there or why the are there, the effect is what should matter to you.

    I don't take logical consistency for granted anymore though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Entitlements and rights make no sense outside the context of a society. So, no one is entitled to anything just for existing; it is existing within a given society that makes the idea of rights meaningful. The boundaries of that society have grown over the centuries to the point where we can take a global perspective on the question of rights. We are evolving, for example, toward a global consensus that it is wrong to own another person. More slowly, we are coming to afford women the same opportunities and rights as men. If there is any underlying theme to this process, it seems to be equality, in the sense that whatever rights a society recognizes, they must be recognized for everyone.

    If there is one fundamental right, perhaps it is simply the right to be viewed and judged for who one really is. Doing anything less is just denial of reality.
    If nobody is entitled to anything just for existing, then you've just created another argument for opposing immigration.

    We are not just individuals. This philosophy has and continues to cause a great deal of harm, and I will get around to starting a thread on why in more detail eventually.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    You like to talk about what it's like in practice. Well, tens of millions of people settling somewhere in a matter of decades is an invasion IRL. It doesn't matter how they got there or why the are there, the effect is what should matter to you.
    Wrong. It is not an invasion and it does matter why they are there:

    An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    I don't take logical consistency for granted anymore though.
    Most convenient for someone who is as bad at it as you are.

  10. #50
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,525

    Default Ressentiment and the Revanchist Caliphate

    An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof.
    So therefore the establishment of the Caliphate by partitioning the countries, Syria and Iraq, by force of arms, is an invasion.

    And the Caliphate resonates on two levels. First it resonates right through Islam which resents the loss of the original Caliphate. And also the new Caliphate resonates in the electronic global media.

    So the new Caliphate is immensely exciting to young muslims, fired by ressentiment, to establish a revanchist Caliphate.

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating and young Australian muslims are flocking to the black flag.

Similar Threads

  1. Should access to the internet be a human right?
    By EcK in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-28-2012, 02:03 PM
  2. Is Internet Access A Human Right?
    By iwakar in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-25-2012, 10:31 PM
  3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    By Kalach in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 10:06 PM
  4. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 06:27 AM
  5. UN rejects water as human right
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO