3 ms·

> your own personal preference for moral codes No, these are universal human rights. Dictators who deny their people self-determination have long claimed 'we'r

> your own personal preference for moral codes No, these are universal human rights. Dictators who deny their people self-determination have long claimed 'we're different', but wherever people have a choice, they've chosen these rights. It's true across cultures: The only places in China where people can decide their own rules have chosen these rights, Taiwan and Hong Kong (and don't forget mainland Chinese the last time they had a chance at it, in Tienanmen Square). Japan, South Korea, almost every country in N. and S. America, Europe and the U.S., and on and on. It's a bit of a catch-22 for the dictators: If people are so happy with your rules, why not take a vote?

mistermann 8y ago
> No, these are universal human rights. A group of people, mostly men, got together and wrote some things down and declared that they are "universal" "rights". > It's true across cultures Except where it's not. > The only places in China where people can decide their own rules have chosen these rights Are you implying Chinese citizens share the same rights as everyone else? > If people are so happy with your rules, why not take a vote? This sounds like you're under the impression the outcome will be unanimous support. After all, these laws are universal, right? To me this looks like another simple case of an advocate of some cause once again simply declaring themselves Correct, "the time for discussion is over". It's a fashionable and quite effective persuasion technique so you can hardly blame people. On another note, I'd love for you to provide your definition of the word "nationalism". If you're so confident it is correct (I presume) then why not just explicitly state it? ;)
- forapurpose 8y ago
  >> No, these are universal human rights. > A group of people, mostly men, got together and wrote some things down and declared that they are "universal" "rights". That's false, as I pointed out; they've been endorsed and embraced worldwide for centuries. Generally speaking, almost any group given a choice has endorsed them, men and women. Also, the supporters of oppression like to frame it as a matter of opinion, and then invoke some extreme relativism: Your opinion is X, mine is Y, therefore there's no real basis for X. We could say it about anything: You think murder is wrong, I think it's ok, therefore it's just a matter of opinion. It's not a meaningful argument and doesn't address the real and very strong basis for universal human rights. Another consideration: Should you and others be allowed to debate this issue with me? Why? ... The rest of the parent comment attributes things to me that I haven't said, so I'll pass commenting on it.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    > That's false, as I pointed out; they've been endorsed and embraced worldwide for centuries. What does "they've" refer to? > Also, the supporters of oppression like to frame it as a matter of opinion Am I one of these "supporters of oppression"? What oppression are we talking about here? This feels like one of those situations where two people wearing a blindfold are describing an elephant to each other, I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you feel the same about me? But I certainly don't think I'm trying to oppress anyone. > and then invoke some extreme relativism: Your opinion is X, mine is Y, therefore there's no real basis for X. Have I done that? Where? > We could say it about anything: You think murder is wrong, I think it's ok, therefore it's just a matter of opinion. I've seen this technique before, I wonder what the name is for it. I'd offer a comparable retort, but I don't enjoy protection due to my politics. > Another consideration: Should you and others be allowed to debate this issue with me? Why? In the real world, that is a matter of opinion, but let's try not to change the subject shall we? > The rest of the parent comment attributes things to me that I haven't said, so I'll pass commenting on it. The irony.

mistermann 8y ago

> No, these are universal human rights. A group of people, mostly men, got together and wrote some things down and declared that they are "universal" "rights". > It's true across cultures Except where it's not. > The only places in China where people can decide their own rules have chosen these rights Are you implying Chinese citizens share the same rights as everyone else? > If people are so happy with your rules, why not take a vote? This sounds like you're under the impression the outcome will be unanimous support. After all, these laws are universal, right? To me this looks like another simple case of an advocate of some cause once again simply declaring themselves Correct, "the time for discussion is over". It's a fashionable and quite effective persuasion technique so you can hardly blame people. On another note, I'd love for you to provide your definition of the word "nationalism". If you're so confident it is correct (I presume) then why not just explicitly state it? ;)

forapurpose 8y ago
>> No, these are universal human rights. > A group of people, mostly men, got together and wrote some things down and declared that they are "universal" "rights". That's false, as I pointed out; they've been endorsed and embraced worldwide for centuries. Generally speaking, almost any group given a choice has endorsed them, men and women. Also, the supporters of oppression like to frame it as a matter of opinion, and then invoke some extreme relativism: Your opinion is X, mine is Y, therefore there's no real basis for X. We could say it about anything: You think murder is wrong, I think it's ok, therefore it's just a matter of opinion. It's not a meaningful argument and doesn't address the real and very strong basis for universal human rights. Another consideration: Should you and others be allowed to debate this issue with me? Why? ... The rest of the parent comment attributes things to me that I haven't said, so I'll pass commenting on it.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > That's false, as I pointed out; they've been endorsed and embraced worldwide for centuries. What does "they've" refer to? > Also, the supporters of oppression like to frame it as a matter of opinion Am I one of these "supporters of oppression"? What oppression are we talking about here? This feels like one of those situations where two people wearing a blindfold are describing an elephant to each other, I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you feel the same about me? But I certainly don't think I'm trying to oppress anyone. > and then invoke some extreme relativism: Your opinion is X, mine is Y, therefore there's no real basis for X. Have I done that? Where? > We could say it about anything: You think murder is wrong, I think it's ok, therefore it's just a matter of opinion. I've seen this technique before, I wonder what the name is for it. I'd offer a comparable retort, but I don't enjoy protection due to my politics. > Another consideration: Should you and others be allowed to debate this issue with me? Why? In the real world, that is a matter of opinion, but let's try not to change the subject shall we? > The rest of the parent comment attributes things to me that I haven't said, so I'll pass commenting on it. The irony.