4 ms·

Because basic human rights are in fact an objective value, not subjective. You don't need to be inside of North Korea to be able to judge that the South Korean

Because basic human rights are in fact an objective value, not subjective. You don't need to be inside of North Korea to be able to judge that the South Korean approach is superior in all regards. If 100% of the people in a country believe state slavery is ideal, that no human rights is ideal, all that means is that 100% of the people in that country are wrong. Vaccines are also not a subjective value, speaking generally, and the morality of Hong Kong vs China in terms of human rights and systems, is every bit as clear of a matter as whether vaccines are good or bad. One is better than the other and it is very easy to prove in numerous obvious ways. If 100% of Americans believe vaccines are bad, that doesn't mean they're right. A proper human morality stems from what best provides for a high quality of life for humans. The basis of a proper morality is what human life needs to flourish and we can test and track and prove it out. We've already figured this out in fact and it isn't the repressive Chinese authoritarian model (it's a lot more like Canada, Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Austria, etc).

coldtea 7y ago
>Because basic human rights are in fact an objective value, not subjective. Well, wars that killed tons of people were supposedly fought for "basic human rights" and "democracy" too, so there's that. >If 100% of the people in a country believe state slavery is ideal, that no human rights is ideal, all that means is that 100% of the people in that country are wrong. And whose to say? Some other country based on its own culture, and treating it as some some of universal laws of physics? >Vaccines are also not a subjective value That's neither here, nor there, because vaccines are the subject of scientific study, and results can be measured. Preferred way of government, laws, ethical questions, etc, are cultural, and should be up to the people.
- pimmen 7y ago
  > And whose to say? Some other country based on its own culture, and treating it as some some of universal laws of physics? The UN Convention of Human Rights. Which China recognizes, that's why it got Taiwan's seat at the Security Council. I posit being in a position to judge and enforce human rights, and then violating the rights you recognize for your own gain, is immoral. > Preferred way of government, laws, ethical questions, etc, are cultural, and should be up to the people. That doesn't work, which is why we have the UN Convention. There were more non-Jews than Jews in Germany, a party only resonating with the majority population could then harness that to murder the minority. To make sure minorities are safe the International community is trying to make human rights universal in spite of what a local majority thinks.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >That doesn't work, which is why we have the UN Convention. We have the UN Convention because some top-dog nation states pushed for it, as a means to influence lesser states in a faux-democratic way [1]. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/linking-us-foreign-aid-un-votes-what-are-implications https://www.cgdev.org/publication/linking-us-foreign-aid-un-... When the UN doesn't vote or suggest something they like, they can simply veto it or ignore it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Conve... (not ratified by US) https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/23/politics/un-security-council-sexual-violence/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/23/politics/un-security-coun... https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/43-times-us-has-used-veto-power-against-un-resolutions-israel https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/43-times-us-has-used-veto... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty#US_withdrawal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty#... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Discrimination_Against_Women#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_... (not ratified by US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Non-ratification_by_the_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Non-ratificatio... (not ratified by US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat... (not ratified by US) So much for "making minorities safe" -- they also have to be the minorities (or majorities) certain top dogs care about. [1] And this is not a new Trump-era thing: the US has pushed UN votes its way through this and similar means since Kissinger times
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Long before that, it goes back a long way. First I'm aware of it was the approach taken by Harry Anslinger - he of the racist reefer madness and swathes of faked evidence to support his moral crusade. A crusade for outlawing hemp, not just cannabis, at the League of Nations and inserting it in international opium treaties. Then again after being appointed as US representative by Kennedy in 61, for the sustained pressure at the UN that eventually led to the global war on drugs. Took a while to achieve global compliance there - as other countries had different approaches that had worked very well.
- adventured 7y ago
  > Well, wars that killed tons of people were supposedly fought for "basic human rights" and "democracy" too, so there's that. That's not a meaningful statement. It doesn't matter what something was supposedly fought for (Iraq was supposedly fought for WMDs). It matters what it was fought for (Iraq wasn't fought for WMDs). > And whose to say? Some other country based on its own culture, and treating it as some some of universal laws of physics? The people in Hong Kong or Japan are not so biologically different such that what causes their humanity to thrive, is entirely different from what causes the humanity of North Korea to thrive. Culture is a bogus excuse, there is nothing special about it that justifies oppressing people. You answered your own question with the last part. We can easily prove out what is best for humanity, under what conditions humans best thrive. Yes, it in fact can be measured and easily demonstrated. We've already figured this out. It's no different than understanding that humans don't thrive when they're suffocating or starving or lacking water. > That's neither here, nor there, because vaccines are the subject of scientific study, and results can be measured. And that's where your entire premise falls apart. A human morality can be judged by its outcomes, very clearly. This is night & day in many cases, such as Cold War West & East Berlin, or current North & South Korea. The actual outcomes of an applied morality can plainly be measured in numerous obvious ways. We do it all the time: we know for a scientific fact (yes, scientific fact) that the approach Denmark uses is vastly superior to the approach North Korea uses. We have measured the outcomes, we know what works. We have dozens of metrics of human life that we can measure it based on, such as life expectancy or access to basic healthcare. Morality is not entirely subjective: someone strangling an innocent person to death in murder isn't a matter of opinion as to whether it's good or not. That's a simple, obvious, baseline example proof that morality is not always subjective. Someone having an opinion on something doesn't mean it's right or wrong by itself. Whether a morality is good or not, requires one simple starting question: does this approach improve human existence; does it lead to demonstrably increased happiness and well being. The surveys of the happiest countries that persistently come out with eg Scandinavia on top, are not a fluke. From basic foundations you can determine objective morality issues to build a society on, including whether eg murdering innocent people is proper to a society flourishing or not. We can measure how humanity survives, thrives, or fails under various conditions and create approaches that utilize rules of morality that are best to spur positive outcomes. If this weren't true, the best outcome countries would all be scrambled, it'd be nearly entirely random. Sudan would be right up there with the Netherlands. You'd have repressive slave states routinely with hyper GDP per capita figures, low work hours, top notch welfare states, and leading all the happiness surveys world wide. Of course that's not the common outcome at all, it's exactly the opposite.
tcxqy 7y ago
The fact that "human rights" are an objective value doesn't mean that every country has to necessarily abide by them. >A proper human morality stems from what best provides for a high quality of life for humans. Ah, morality. What a can of worms are you opening to justify your beliefs! What's funnier is that these arguments always come from leftists... the very same people who are always so quick to shoot down imperialism. But cultural imperialism, where you use your military power to shove your "morality" up everybody else's butts, now that's okay. Because it's "human rights" and stuff. Yeah.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  > The fact that "human rights" are an objective value doesn't mean that every country has to necessarily abide by them. It does, however, mean that the countries which do not abide by them deserve to be - and if history is any indicator, will be - overthrown and replaced by countries that do.
  - tcxqy 7y ago
    Will they? I mean there are dozens of countries where "human rights" are continuously being violated and nobody cares. The West is too afraid of China for one simple reason: it's not led by retards, which means it's actually flourishing. That does not compute for them, because they seem to think liberal values are integral to a nation advancing. Well, wrong. Sorry.
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      You're substantially overestimating China's political and economic stability. Large authoritarian regimes like China's simply do not have a track record of lasting long. Tibet and Taiwan and Hong Kong are just the beginning; the harder China squeezes the sand, the faster it will slip through its fingers. Don't believe me? Ask the Soviets. Come to think of it, the PRC is right around the same age the USSR was when it collapsed...
      - coldtea 7y ago

coldtea 7y ago

>Because basic human rights are in fact an objective value, not subjective. Well, wars that killed tons of people were supposedly fought for "basic human rights" and "democracy" too, so there's that. >If 100% of the people in a country believe state slavery is ideal, that no human rights is ideal, all that means is that 100% of the people in that country are wrong. And whose to say? Some other country based on its own culture, and treating it as some some of universal laws of physics? >Vaccines are also not a subjective value That's neither here, nor there, because vaccines are the subject of scientific study, and results can be measured. Preferred way of government, laws, ethical questions, etc, are cultural, and should be up to the people.

pimmen 7y ago
> And whose to say? Some other country based on its own culture, and treating it as some some of universal laws of physics? The UN Convention of Human Rights. Which China recognizes, that's why it got Taiwan's seat at the Security Council. I posit being in a position to judge and enforce human rights, and then violating the rights you recognize for your own gain, is immoral. > Preferred way of government, laws, ethical questions, etc, are cultural, and should be up to the people. That doesn't work, which is why we have the UN Convention. There were more non-Jews than Jews in Germany, a party only resonating with the majority population could then harness that to murder the minority. To make sure minorities are safe the International community is trying to make human rights universal in spite of what a local majority thinks.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >That doesn't work, which is why we have the UN Convention. We have the UN Convention because some top-dog nation states pushed for it, as a means to influence lesser states in a faux-democratic way [1]. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/linking-us-foreign-aid-un-votes-what-are-implications https://www.cgdev.org/publication/linking-us-foreign-aid-un-... When the UN doesn't vote or suggest something they like, they can simply veto it or ignore it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Conve... (not ratified by US) https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/23/politics/un-security-council-sexual-violence/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/23/politics/un-security-coun... https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/43-times-us-has-used-veto-power-against-un-resolutions-israel https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/43-times-us-has-used-veto... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty#US_withdrawal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty#... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Discrimination_Against_Women#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_... (not ratified by US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Non-ratification_by_the_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Non-ratificatio... (not ratified by US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat... (not ratified by US) So much for "making minorities safe" -- they also have to be the minorities (or majorities) certain top dogs care about. [1] And this is not a new Trump-era thing: the US has pushed UN votes its way through this and similar means since Kissinger times
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Long before that, it goes back a long way. First I'm aware of it was the approach taken by Harry Anslinger - he of the racist reefer madness and swathes of faked evidence to support his moral crusade. A crusade for outlawing hemp, not just cannabis, at the League of Nations and inserting it in international opium treaties. Then again after being appointed as US representative by Kennedy in 61, for the sustained pressure at the UN that eventually led to the global war on drugs. Took a while to achieve global compliance there - as other countries had different approaches that had worked very well.
adventured 7y ago
> Well, wars that killed tons of people were supposedly fought for "basic human rights" and "democracy" too, so there's that. That's not a meaningful statement. It doesn't matter what something was supposedly fought for (Iraq was supposedly fought for WMDs). It matters what it was fought for (Iraq wasn't fought for WMDs). > And whose to say? Some other country based on its own culture, and treating it as some some of universal laws of physics? The people in Hong Kong or Japan are not so biologically different such that what causes their humanity to thrive, is entirely different from what causes the humanity of North Korea to thrive. Culture is a bogus excuse, there is nothing special about it that justifies oppressing people. You answered your own question with the last part. We can easily prove out what is best for humanity, under what conditions humans best thrive. Yes, it in fact can be measured and easily demonstrated. We've already figured this out. It's no different than understanding that humans don't thrive when they're suffocating or starving or lacking water. > That's neither here, nor there, because vaccines are the subject of scientific study, and results can be measured. And that's where your entire premise falls apart. A human morality can be judged by its outcomes, very clearly. This is night & day in many cases, such as Cold War West & East Berlin, or current North & South Korea. The actual outcomes of an applied morality can plainly be measured in numerous obvious ways. We do it all the time: we know for a scientific fact (yes, scientific fact) that the approach Denmark uses is vastly superior to the approach North Korea uses. We have measured the outcomes, we know what works. We have dozens of metrics of human life that we can measure it based on, such as life expectancy or access to basic healthcare. Morality is not entirely subjective: someone strangling an innocent person to death in murder isn't a matter of opinion as to whether it's good or not. That's a simple, obvious, baseline example proof that morality is not always subjective. Someone having an opinion on something doesn't mean it's right or wrong by itself. Whether a morality is good or not, requires one simple starting question: does this approach improve human existence; does it lead to demonstrably increased happiness and well being. The surveys of the happiest countries that persistently come out with eg Scandinavia on top, are not a fluke. From basic foundations you can determine objective morality issues to build a society on, including whether eg murdering innocent people is proper to a society flourishing or not. We can measure how humanity survives, thrives, or fails under various conditions and create approaches that utilize rules of morality that are best to spur positive outcomes. If this weren't true, the best outcome countries would all be scrambled, it'd be nearly entirely random. Sudan would be right up there with the Netherlands. You'd have repressive slave states routinely with hyper GDP per capita figures, low work hours, top notch welfare states, and leading all the happiness surveys world wide. Of course that's not the common outcome at all, it's exactly the opposite.

tcxqy 7y ago

The fact that "human rights" are an objective value doesn't mean that every country has to necessarily abide by them. >A proper human morality stems from what best provides for a high quality of life for humans. Ah, morality. What a can of worms are you opening to justify your beliefs! What's funnier is that these arguments always come from leftists... the very same people who are always so quick to shoot down imperialism. But cultural imperialism, where you use your military power to shove your "morality" up everybody else's butts, now that's okay. Because it's "human rights" and stuff. Yeah.

yellowapple 7y ago
> The fact that "human rights" are an objective value doesn't mean that every country has to necessarily abide by them. It does, however, mean that the countries which do not abide by them deserve to be - and if history is any indicator, will be - overthrown and replaced by countries that do.
- tcxqy 7y ago
  Will they? I mean there are dozens of countries where "human rights" are continuously being violated and nobody cares. The West is too afraid of China for one simple reason: it's not led by retards, which means it's actually flourishing. That does not compute for them, because they seem to think liberal values are integral to a nation advancing. Well, wrong. Sorry.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    You're substantially overestimating China's political and economic stability. Large authoritarian regimes like China's simply do not have a track record of lasting long. Tibet and Taiwan and Hong Kong are just the beginning; the harder China squeezes the sand, the faster it will slip through its fingers. Don't believe me? Ask the Soviets. Come to think of it, the PRC is right around the same age the USSR was when it collapsed...
    - coldtea 7y ago