3 ms·
In Saudi Arabia letting women drive was/is deemed a bad idea. Some cultures think it is a bad idea to not cut off the clit of girls. There are Islamic scholars
by devtul 8y ago
In Saudi Arabia letting women drive was/is deemed a bad idea. Some cultures think it is a bad idea to not cut off the clit of girls. There are Islamic scholars that will go at length on how you should discipline physically your wife, for her own good. In those places/societies opinions against all of it would be considered wrong ideas. If you stiffen speech, you don't just stop the society from regressing, you also rob it from progress.
- anigbrowl 8y agoYes, proposing that a group have more rights that they don't currently enjoy is just like saying a group should be suppressed and have their rights curtailed.
- 0x8BADF00D 8y agoPeople don’t get more rights than others. All individuals get the same unalienable rights, and that is a universal truth which is self-evident.
- anigbrowl 8y agoI disagree, but in any case you seem to be disregarding the context of my comment above, without which it is empty of meaning.
- zaarn 8y agoHow is this "universal truth self-evident"? I'd love you to show me that there is a repeatable and measurable experiment that determines that as a fundamental function of the universe, people should have equal rights. Personally, I don't believe that (the fact it's a universal truth) to be true, morals and ethics are a subjective topic and stuff like "everyone should have equal right" is something that most people including me can agree on fairly easily. Other people might not agree.
- yontherubicon 8y agoThis doesn't work without a universal moral law, an assumption now deprecated in many circles.
- jazzyjackson 8y agoThe founders held those truths to be self-evident, but in some contexts (say , outside of educated 18th century gentry) they must be argued.
- lmm 8y agoIt is. The only point where "rights" matter is when two groups of people are in conflict, and each side will always be able to express what they want as a "right" (e.g. making it illegal for other people to describe you in their own terms is your "right to exist").
- anigbrowl 8y agoThat doesn't follow. If group A enjoys a right and group B does not, and that right is extended to group B, Group A no longer enjoys the same advantage over Group B but hasn't suffered any limitation of rights. To use the supplied example, if you're a male driver in Saudi Arabia your driving privileges are unimpaired by the novel legality of female drivers.
- lmm 8y agoGroup A will always find some way to define the change as them losing a "right". E.g. in the US if you propose to extend the right to life that born people currently enjoy to the unborn, many born people will claim this is a violation of their rights.
- webmaven 8y ago> if you're a male driver in Saudi Arabia your driving privileges are unimpaired by the novel legality of female drivers. Your right to drive is unimpaired, but the privilege of driving that you enjoy most definitely is. Most movements to expand rights to new groups are opposed by those who would thereby experience a diminution of their privelege (which is always relative). This is also why you have the wealthy so often opposing policies that will create more wealth for everyone including themselves, because those same policies reduce their relative advantages.