Basic Human Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:00 pm LOL When, and if, you ever come to understand thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', then you will LEARN and UNDERSTAND that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ABUSE children. This, obviously, includes ALL of 'you' who raise children from your own personal choice as well.
Beware the man who makes broad moral judgments.

The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar.
The man who says, "everyone steals sometimes," is a thief.
The man who says, "everyone cheats sometimes," is a cheat.

...and the one who writes, "ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ABUSE children" is a child abuser, speaking from his own experience.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

commonsense wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:05 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:01 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:03 am why do you not just say; "A human belongs to them self; a human's life, liberty, and property are theirs"?

Look, you asked why I phrased sumthin' the way I did, and I explained why. I got no interest in a dissection.

Leave it be.
WHERE and WHEN have I, supposedly, asked you why you phrased something?
I think you did ask why and proposed alternative phrases above.
Thank you for providing an example, but what I see in my words, in that example, is me just asking why that person did not write something in a different way.

I do NOT see ANYWHERE in my words, "Why did you phrase your words that way?"

I ALREADY KNEW WHY they wrote, and phrased, those words, the way that they did. So, I had NO need to ask, "Why did you phrase your words the way that you did?" Which is WHY I NEVER did.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN in where you have quoted what I said is that I just asked only;
'why do you not just say; ...'.

What do you think it was that made you think that I did ask "henry quirk"; "Why did that you phrase your words the way that you did?"
commonsense wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:05 pm Sorry, my differently-abled fingers have somehow reversed HQ and Age abovve.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:05 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:29 pm Just like now, when you want to live and stay in God's home, you will have to live by and follow God's rule, and if you do not, then you will, and are, suffering (in) the consequences.
I am completely happy with this world and thoroughly enjoying my life in it and have no desire to change anything about it, especially other people.
Okay, that is great.

So, you are completely happy that some people BELIEVE God exists and you are completely happy with them continually telling you that if only you BELIEVED in God, jesus, or Allah, then you to will be rescued/saved, correct?

And, you are completely happy with this "world", and are enjoying living in this "world", where you can just sit back and allow, supposedly, 172 children dying every ten seconds without one concern at all for them nor their lives, correct?

Are you REALLY completely happy living in a "world" where other human beings and animals around you are needlessly suffering and dying, and of which you could have actually helped in preventing and stopping?

But you choice NOT TO HELP, and in fact your choices, which actually furthers their suffering and dying, actually answers the question about how you REALLY are completely happy in this "world" and in the pain and suffering of "others".
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:05 pm It's you and those who believe as you do that are never happy with the way things are and want to make the world your own private utopia.
LOL This is one of the more funnier claims I have seen made in this forum. Now, what would you like to claim is the 'thing/s' that I supposedly "believe as I do", which "others" supposedly believe as well?

Also, what makes 'you' think that 'I' am NEVER happy with the way things are?

And, what makes 'you' think that 'I' want to make the "world" my own private utopia?

Are you REALLY happy when people expose you to "others" when 'you' ARE WRONG?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:05 pm G.B. Shaw was right: "Those for whom the world is not good enough stand shoulder to shoulder with those who are not good enough for the world."
BUT, if as you claim, that you are "completely happy" with the way the "world" is, or with the way things are, then you would also KNOW that there is absolutely NO one who is not good enough for this "world".

Absolutely EVERY one/thing is EXACTLY who and what they are MEANT TO BE and they are in the EXACT right place that they are MEANT TO BE. Which means EVERY one/thing is 'good enough' for this "world".

When you come to FULLY REALIZE that EXACTLY how Everything IS, at ANY given moment, is exactly how Everything is ACTUALLY MEANT TO BE.

For ANY one to suggest that SOME 'thing', ANY 'thing', in the "world" is "not good enough" is to 'try to' also suggest that the "world" itself is not good enough. And, if ANY one thinks this way or has this view, then they MUST not be 'completely happy'.

Only a person who can SEE and TAKE Everything as It IS, as this is how It is MEANT TO BE, could be Truly and completely happy. Which means ABSOLUTELY EVERY one and thing is GOOD ENOUGH. Which means; if ANY one thinks the "world" is NOT good enough IS ACTUALLY GOOD ENOUGH for the "world", and, in fact, ACTUALLY PERFECT for 'this' "world", at that given moment.

If this is NOT YET CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD, by 'you', do NOT worry to much, as it will be soon enough, by ALL 'people'.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:17 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:00 pm LOL When, and if, you ever come to understand thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', then you will LEARN and UNDERSTAND that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ABUSE children. This, obviously, includes ALL of 'you' who raise children from your own personal choice as well.
Beware the man who makes broad moral judgments.

The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar.
The man who says, "everyone steals sometimes," is a thief.
The man who says, "everyone cheats sometimes," is a cheat.
That is actually NOT FULLY true. But for in the days of when this was written, it sufficed.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:17 pm ...and the one who writes, "ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ABUSE children" is a child abuser, speaking from his own experience.
OF COURSE an adult can NOT say EVERY adult abuses children and NOT include "them self". This is OBVIOUSLY a given, and goes without saying.

But where 'you' are, obviously, WRONG here is in your ASSUMPTION that the one who writes, 'ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ABUSE children', is a child abuser. Surely, this did NOT need saying and pointing out as well, correct?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

commonsense wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:11 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:59 am
commonsense wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:41 pm

I don’t disagree with you here, because a person owns only himself and his time, labor and resources.
Does a new born human baby own itself, and so is 100% responsible for its own self?

Does a human parent, to a new born human baby, own only them self? Does a new parent not owe their time, labor, nor resources to ANY other human being?
Touche’
This connects nicely with this...
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:52 pm (pete said) The parental duty of care for the child is different.

(I asked)Why? Why is the parent obligated to care for the child after pregnancy, but not during?
...pete, it seems, has no interest in answerin' the question, so, roundaboutly, I'll make some points I woulda made in that conversation, here.

Age's questions...

*Does a new born human baby own itself, and so is 100% responsible for its own self?

**Does a human parent, to a new born human baby, own only them self? Does a new parent not owe their time, labor, nor resources to ANY other human being?


My answers...

*Yes, a newborn belongs to himself (actually, I think he belongs to himself while inside mama), and yes he is self-responsible in principle. The reality, however, is the newborn only has the potential for self-direction and self-responsibility. His parents have an obligation to preserve and care for the newborn, to encourage that self-direction and self-responsibility. That obligation occurs becuz -- as I say to pete -- the parents made the child...by way of their free actions, a new, initially helpless, person comes into existence. The baby didn't just pop into being spontaneously.

**No man owes another his time, resources, labor, of self beyond what he freely *contracts himself to provide. Seems to me there can't be any more serious or profound *contract than the one between parent and child.




*meaning moral obligation, not legal construct...the two can, should, overlap but don't always
Last edited by henry quirk on Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:24 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:48 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:50 pm

I don't know. Telling perfectly law-abiding people that they are the cause of all the world's problems isn't exactly just "annoyin" to me. It's akin to throwing verbal rocks.
Well, mebbe if age weren't operatin' with a deficit we could say he's bein' malicious, but he does have a deficit, so...
What do you say, and claim, is my deficit, and, what is my deficit from or to, EXACTLY?

Also, WHY do so many people here, in this forum, LOOK AT what I, supposedly, do, and discuss 'that', more than they LOOK AT my, actual, words, and discuss 'them'?
You're autistic, and your thinkin' and writing reflects it.

You endlessly dissect posts making movement in conversation or debate far more difficult than it naturally already is. You write idiosyncratically with odd caps and punctuation.

This is why so many people here, in this forum, LOOK AT what (you), supposedly, do, and discuss 'that', more than they LOOK AT (your), actual, words, and discuss 'them'.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

Saying, "I belong to me", is nonsensical and illogical.

How could a 'thing' belong to, or be a property of, 'itself'?

One is either 'itself' or 'it' is not. And, if a 'thing' is not 'itself', then what is 'it'?

And, 'to belong', or 'be the property of', means to be of something else.


A piano (a thing) can't claim itself.

Me and you (persons), can and should.

In fact: a person, simply by bein' a person, is his own, even if he doesn't assert or defend or even recognize that ownness (belonging to himself).

Sartre said sumthin' about man bein' condemned to be free; I say man naturally, irrevocably, is his own.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:45 pm Me and you (persons), can and should.
But here's the problem, Henry. Human beings are merely temporal. We come into the world without the cosmos asking our permission, and (usually) go out of it without our own say so. What would tell us that a mere accident of the indifferent cosmos had a thing called "rights?" From where would they come, and how would we guarantee they are required?

So I get RC's skepticism. It makes sense, from his suppositions. If the world is as he sees it -- merely a product of time plus chance -- then I can't see any justification for rights either. We're just animals, then; and what gives any animal a "right" to live? They may want to, they may try to, but it's a losing battle for sure. And does the indifferent cosmos promise us any sort of special dignity or deserving? It seems awfully hard to see how.

This is why the question of rights has to be associated with the question of authority, as well. Even the "civil rights" we get are no stronger and last no longer than the government that provides them. But "human rights," (meaning rights that persist in all places and times, regardless of the government or other people) those surely can't come without some higher authority "endowing" mankind with them, just as the Declaration says. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

That's why I say that it all hinges on the question of God. Without God, any "human rights" claims are simply baseless. There's no authorization or authority behind them. If mankind was not "created," then logically, neither was he "endowed by [his] Creator" with any such things.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:01 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:45 pm Me and you (persons), can and should.
But here's the problem, Henry. Human beings are merely temporal. We come into the world without the cosmos asking our permission, and (usually) go out of it without our own say so. What would tell us that a mere accident of the indifferent cosmos had a thing called "rights?" From where would they come, and how would we guarantee they are required?

So I get RC's skepticism. It makes sense, from his suppositions. If the world is as he sees it -- merely a product of time plus chance -- then I can't see any justification for rights either. We're just animals, then; and what gives any animal a "right" to live? They may want to, they may try to, but it's a losing battle for sure. And does the indifferent cosmos promise us any sort of special dignity or deserving? It seems awfully hard to see how.

This is why the question of rights has to be associated with the question of authority, as well. Even the "civil rights" we get are no stronger and last no longer than the government that provides them. But "human rights," (meaning rights that persist in all places and times, regardless of the government or other people) those surely can't come without some higher authority "endowing" mankind with them, just as the Declaration says. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

That's why I say that it all hinges on the question of God. Without God, any "human rights" claims are simply baseless. There's no authorization or authority behind them. If mankind was not "created," then logically, neither was he "endowed by [his] Creator" with any such things.
Are you lookin' for a response from me, or, just usin' my post as a steppin' stone?

I'm okay with either...just wanna know which I'm lookin' at.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:06 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:01 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:45 pm Me and you (persons), can and should.
But here's the problem, Henry. Human beings are merely temporal. We come into the world without the cosmos asking our permission, and (usually) go out of it without our own say so. What would tell us that a mere accident of the indifferent cosmos had a thing called "rights?" From where would they come, and how would we guarantee they are required?

So I get RC's skepticism. It makes sense, from his suppositions. If the world is as he sees it -- merely a product of time plus chance -- then I can't see any justification for rights either. We're just animals, then; and what gives any animal a "right" to live? They may want to, they may try to, but it's a losing battle for sure. And does the indifferent cosmos promise us any sort of special dignity or deserving? It seems awfully hard to see how.

This is why the question of rights has to be associated with the question of authority, as well. Even the "civil rights" we get are no stronger and last no longer than the government that provides them. But "human rights," (meaning rights that persist in all places and times, regardless of the government or other people) those surely can't come without some higher authority "endowing" mankind with them, just as the Declaration says. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

That's why I say that it all hinges on the question of God. Without God, any "human rights" claims are simply baseless. There's no authorization or authority behind them. If mankind was not "created," then logically, neither was he "endowed by [his] Creator" with any such things.
Are you lookin' for a response from me, or, just usin' my post as a steppin' stone?

I'm okay with either...just wanna know which I'm lookin' at.
Well, I don't mind how we proceed, Henry. I'm just pointing out that leaving at humans owning themselves isn't going to "float the boat," so to speak. RC's got a case, if that's all we have. Because really, what do we "own"? We didn't bring ourselves here, we came with nothing, and we're going out without a stitch.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:29 pm What are some basic human rights that we can all agree to?

For example, can we all agree that anyone accused of a crime should receive a fair trial?

If not, what would be some problems with the above right whereby it should not be a basic human right?

What other rights can we pretty much all agree to?

What about a right that, no one should be denied a fair means of providing basic necessities for themselves or their dependent loved ones, in order to live. Or perhaps a right to fair compensation for one's labor?

What rights do you think can be made basic to everyone?
Can we agree what it means to agree on what is a "right"?
Yes. 'we' CAN agree on the 'meaning' of ANY thing.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm How are rights made?
Until we agree on what the word 'rights' means, or refers to, exactly, then we will not be able to KNOW, for sure, if 'rights' are made or just occur, naturally.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm Do they need enforcing?
What occurs naturally, does not necessarily need enforcing.
RIghts are not natural
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm Who is responsible for that?
If ANY thing 'needs' enforcing, then it is the ones who are meant to be the 'responsible ones' who would be responsible for 'that'.

And, in Life ONLY 'adults' are 'meant to be' the 'responsible ones'.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm Unless we can answer these questions, I feel that rights are pretty much meaningless.
We can answer these questions, very simply and very easily by the way.

If, and when, we actually come to an agreement, is another question.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm The fact is the children are dying right now from lack of clean water. Is not access to water that is not going to kill you are right?
Yet how many of you are doing anything to ensure this right.
Is this a 'right', which you feel is pretty much "meaningless"?
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm 172 children die from dirty water every ten seconds.
And the reason for this is ...?
Because there are no natural rights, and rights need to be fought for.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:13 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:06 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:01 pm

But here's the problem, Henry. Human beings are merely temporal. We come into the world without the cosmos asking our permission, and (usually) go out of it without our own say so. What would tell us that a mere accident of the indifferent cosmos had a thing called "rights?" From where would they come, and how would we guarantee they are required?

So I get RC's skepticism. It makes sense, from his suppositions. If the world is as he sees it -- merely a product of time plus chance -- then I can't see any justification for rights either. We're just animals, then; and what gives any animal a "right" to live? They may want to, they may try to, but it's a losing battle for sure. And does the indifferent cosmos promise us any sort of special dignity or deserving? It seems awfully hard to see how.

This is why the question of rights has to be associated with the question of authority, as well. Even the "civil rights" we get are no stronger and last no longer than the government that provides them. But "human rights," (meaning rights that persist in all places and times, regardless of the government or other people) those surely can't come without some higher authority "endowing" mankind with them, just as the Declaration says. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

That's why I say that it all hinges on the question of God. Without God, any "human rights" claims are simply baseless. There's no authorization or authority behind them. If mankind was not "created," then logically, neither was he "endowed by [his] Creator" with any such things.
Are you lookin' for a response from me, or, just usin' my post as a steppin' stone?

I'm okay with either...just wanna know which I'm lookin' at.
Well, I don't mind how we proceed, Henry. I'm just pointing out that leaving at humans owning themselves isn't going to "float the boat," so to speak. RC's got a case, if that's all we have. Because really, what do we "own"? We didn't bring ourselves here, we came with nothing, and we're going out without a stitch.
C'mon, guy...be fair...you know damn well my notions of ownness are part & parcel of my deism (just like anyone else who bothers to read my posts).

Is every post supposed to be a treatise?

Mebbe I'm wrong but it seems to me regulars here are able to recall what others post...they have the context of posters in mind as they read.

When folks read you they know you're christian and consevative; when they read me they know I'm a natural rights deist.

Jeez, if I thought I had to offer a resume of my complete perspective every time I posted I'd woulda quit this mess a long time back.

-----

So I get RC's skepticism.

His skepticism, I think, is about rights, a thing I believe I distanced myself from up-thread cuz folks use it wrong. I speak of natural rights, sure, but that ain't got nuthin' to do with the conventional, legalistic construct most folks nowadays think of when they hear rights.

I can, if you want, replicate what I posted up-thread or you can find it yourself.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:24 pm Mebbe I'm wrong but it seems to me regulars here are able to recall what others post...they have the context of posters in mind as they read.
Maybe they do. I do. But sometimes it seems others have forgotten.

RC is surprised that a Theist believes in human rights. It ought not to be surprising at all. But maybe that's only because people don't think through what "human rights" entail. Certainly those who are plumping for "health care" as a human right don't know what they're saying, since no such thing can be guaranteed at all. The same should be said for everybody who thinks a "living wage" is a "right" or any other such privilege.

I remember an old professor saying, "Rights are not trumps." That's a good point. They're not a kind of 'card' you can pull out and lay down on any topic, and be guaranteed an automatic win. "Medicine" doesn't become a "right" just because we think it's good, or helpful, or we wish everybody had it. It only becomes a "right" to the extent that some authority exists to make it a right, the resources exist to deliver on it, and there is some means to hold people accountable for delivering it. Absent those three criteria, nothing is a "right."

When one says X is my "right," one has to be able to say WHY it is a "right" -- what justification and authority stands behind that particular "rights" claim. And too many of the "rights" folks have not yet grasped that. They pull out the word "right" whenever they feel something they want is at stake, and expect that to carry the day.

But I think the claim "I own myself" is susceptible to this very weakness. Why do we "own ourselves"? somebody might ask, "from where comes the authority, the means and the accountability for such a 'right'?"
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:46 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:24 pm Mebbe I'm wrong but it seems to me regulars here are able to recall what others post...they have the context of posters in mind as they read.
Maybe they do. I do. But sometimes it seems others have forgotten.

RC is surprised that a Theist believes in human rights. It ought not to be surprising at all. But maybe that's only because people don't think through what "human rights" entail. Certainly those who are plumping for "health care" as a human right don't know what they're saying, since no such thing can be guaranteed at all. The same should be said for everybody who thinks a "living wage" is a "right" or any other such privilege.

I remember an old professor saying, "Rights are not trumps." That's a good point. They're not a kind of 'card' you can pull out and lay down on any topic, and be guaranteed an automatic win. "Medicine" doesn't become a "right" just because we think it's good, or helpful, or we wish everybody had it. It only becomes a "right" to the extent that some authority exists to make it a right, the resources exist to deliver on it, and there is some means to hold people accountable for delivering it. Absent those three criteria, nothing is a "right."

When one says X is my "right," one has to be able to say WHY it is a "right" -- what justification and authority stands behind that particular "rights" claim. And too many of the "rights" folks have not yet grasped that. They pull out the word "right" whenever they feel something they want is at stake, and expect that to carry the day.

But I think the claim "I own myself" is susceptible to this very weakness. Why do we "own ourselves"? somebody might ask, "from where comes the authority, the means and the accountability for such a 'right'?"
Well, that's my cue to exit the buildin'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:53 pm Well, that's my cue to exit the buildin'.
Not by my reckoning, Henry. I'm happy to have you around. I'm just saying we need to get our feet fully underneath us on this question of how a person comes to have rights. I'm not trying to make your life difficult; I'm just pointing to the next step.
Post Reply