Human rights

[Beorn]

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?

Such a poor argument you are building there...

How so?

 

[Nicodemus]

Ugh, positivism is so dreary. You realize how much that detracts from the significance of nuremburg?

Absolutely nothing. People knew it all along.

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.

 

[Beorn]

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.

 

[Tellenbach]

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.

 

[ygolo]

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.

 

[Nicodemus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Coriolis]

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.

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.

 

[Kullervo]

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.

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.

 

[Nicodemus]

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.

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

Most convenient for someone who is as bad at it as you are.

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[Coriolis]

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.

If nobody is entitled to anything just for existing, then you've just created another argument for opposing immigration.

Most people have far more than what they are strictly entitled to. Immigration is no exception. What defines an invasion is imposition from the outside. The U.S. is often characterized as a nation of immigrants, but only the first of these migrations could be considered an invasion. If we want to roll things back that far to correct the "error", the only people left here will be the Native Americans. One of our largest minorities - blacks - didn't even want to come here at all. Our ancestors, themselves immigrants, dragged them here as slaves. How do you propose we untangle all of that in the here-and-now?

 

[Kullervo]

Most people have far more than what they are strictly entitled to. Immigration is no exception. What defines an invasion is imposition from the outside. The U.S. is often characterized as a nation of immigrants, but only the first of these migrations could be considered an invasion. If we want to roll things back that far to correct the "error", the only people left here will be the Native Americans. One of our largest minorities - blacks - didn't even want to come here at all. Our ancestors, themselves immigrants, dragged them here as slaves. How do you propose we untangle all of that in the here-and-now?

I don't suggest living in the past, because many aspects of former societies are not worth emulating, whereas some advances have been positive. Instead, I suggest simply learning from history, to help create a society that is more stable and prosperous. It is wrong to assume that change is good - an idea, or a physical invention, isn't necessarily better because it is newer. Restricting immigration instead of just allowing it to continue is a lesson we can take from history - mass immigration is strongly correlated with disorder and societal collapse, and I see signs that the pattern is repeating itself yet again.

Disputes rooted in the distant past are impossible to settle, if only because they are so numerous and complex. Every group has an axe to grind. So, I propose doing nothing.

This doesn't mean one should be so passive in regards to the future, which unlike the past, we have the ability to shape.

 

[Coriolis]

I don't suggest living in the past, because many aspects of former societies are not worth emulating, whereas some advances have been positive. Instead, I suggest simply learning from history, to help create a society that is more stable and prosperous. It is wrong to assume that change is good - an idea, or a physical invention, isn't necessarily better because it is newer. Restricting immigration instead of just allowing it to continue is a lesson we can take from history - mass immigration is strongly correlated with disorder and societal collapse, and I see signs that the pattern is repeating itself yet again.

Disputes rooted in the distant past are impossible to settle, if only because they are so numerous and complex. Every group has an axe to grind. So, I propose doing nothing.

This doesn't mean one should be so passive in regards to the future, which unlike the past, we have the ability to shape.

We have the ability, indeed the necessity, to shape the past also, as it appears to its present students. By this I mean we must develop the clearest and most accurate view of its events as possible. History is written by the victors, after all, which can result in some seriously skewed interpretations and misrepresentations.

As you point out, however, this is all done with a focus on shaping the future. You are wise to recognize the futility of attempting to roll back the clock on human migration. And just as it is wrong to assume change is necessarily good, it is wrong to assume tradition is necessarily good, for to do so would further assume: (1) our ancestors were infallible, and (2) the world is stagnant. As I have written elsewhere, we need to retain the best of the past, modified for present needs, and augmented by new ideas that have a good chance of improving the world. There will always be an element of risk in this since a new idea is by definition untried, but the risk is justified by the potential for reward.

 

[Kullervo]

We have the ability, indeed the necessity, to shape the past also, as it appears to its present students. By this I mean we must develop the clearest and most accurate view of its events as possible. History is written by the victors, after all, which can result in some seriously skewed interpretations and misrepresentations.

This "desire" has become saturated with politics, and left wing academics often question history just because it doesn't reflect their ideology.

As you point out, however, this is all done with a focus on shaping the future. You are wise to recognize the futility of attempting to roll back the clock on human migration. And just as it is wrong to assume change is necessarily good, it is wrong to assume tradition is necessarily good, for to do so would further assume: (1) our ancestors were infallible, and (2) the world is stagnant. As I have written elsewhere, we need to retain the best of the past, modified for present needs, and augmented by new ideas that have a good chance of improving the world. There will always be an element of risk in this since a new idea is by definition untried, but the risk is justified by the potential for reward.

You are deliberately misinterpreting what I've said.

What I meant was that everyone paying reparations to each other doesn't address the root cause of the problem. Current demographics can and should be reverted back to how they were in the past if doing this would increase stability and order, and prevent conflict in the future.

I have never assumed that tradition is good for the sake of it, only that it is stupid to reject ideas just because they are older. While the world is not entirely stagnant, human nature does not change. Failing to take this into account leads to deeply flawed ways of thinking.

 

[Golden Experience]

Human Rights another name for Socialization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A human has rights as long as it follows the rules of Sozilisation and/or doesn't interferes with projects/ideas of the people in power.
If these unspoken rules have been broken, especially the latter one, you are doomed to be eliminated.

 

[Mole]

Human Rights another name for Socialization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A human has rights as long as it follows the rules of Sozilisation and/or doesn't interferes with projects/ideas of the people in power.
If these unspoken rules have been broken, especially the latter one, you are doomed to be eliminated.

We encoded Human Rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10th of December, 1948.

We encoded Human Rights on that date in response to the dehumanisation in the Holocaust of Jews and others in the 1930s and 1940s.

So it is important to remember where our code of Human Rights came from and why we have it.

Our code of Human Rights is a touchstone of our civilization. And those who reject our code of Human Rights are uncivilized.

 

[Golden Experience]

We encoded Human Rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10th of December, 1948.

We encoded Human Rights on that date in response to the dehumanization in the Holocaust of Jews and others in the 1930s and 1940s.

So it is important to remember where our code of Human Rights came from and why we have it.

Our code of Human Rights is a touchstone of our civilization. And those who reject our code of Human Rights are uncivilized.

You know that jew stuff is getting old, bet you are from the states. Question here, Palestinian people don't have rights yes? Or any other person that isn't from where you are probably from.
It's funny how people believe the lies they get dished up. Did you even read the definition of Socialization at all?
There are much more inhuman ways on how people are killed nowadays;
for example spreading toxins or bio weapons.
Another nice treat are radioactive warheads that explode into smaller missiles to contaminate wide areas effectively.
Human experiments, animal experiments etc, torture, drugging you up, a wide variety to pick you favorite.

All in all laws like human rights only exist on paper, it's all just plain eyewash to keep the populace under control.
Oh and if being humane means, being a hypocritical decadent, well I will happily refuse this oh so kind offer.
Of course you are free to believe what ever you want, but so am I.

 

[Mole]

You know that jew stuff is getting old, bet you are from the states. Question here, Palestinian people don't have rights yes? Or any other person that isn't from where you are probably from.
It's funny how people believe the lies they get dished up. Did you even read the definition of Socialization at all?
There are much more inhuman ways on how people are killed nowadays;
for example spreading toxins or bio weapons.
Another nice treat are radioactive warheads that explode into smaller missiles to contaminate wide areas effectively.
Human experiments, animal experiments etc, torture, drugging you up, a wide variety to pick you favorite.

All in all laws like human rights only exist on paper, it's all just plain eyewash to keep the populace under control.
Oh and if being humane means, being a hypocritical decadent, well I will happily refuse this oh so kind offer.
Of course you are free to believe what ever you want, but so am I.

Of course you can believe whatever you want, but it means nothing until it is tested against reality.

And when we test your views against reality, we find you are the enemy of human rights.

And when you talk about, the jew stuff getting old, you reveal yourself as an anti-semite.

And we find in the world today that those who reject human rights are also anti-semites. This is not an accident.

And good heavens, good heavens, you think Mole is from the United States of America.