4 ms·

This is poor logic, even if we agree on the ultimate result. > Whether or not China recognizes human rights doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not they are

This is poor logic, even if we agree on the ultimate result. > Whether or not China recognizes human rights doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not they are breaking them. "Whether or not your country recognizes Sharia doesn't have any bearing on whether or not you are breaking it and you should be prosecuted for breaking it." See how stupid your logic sounds when it is told from another perspective? If you want to fight for something at least try to understand what makes you right and the other one wrong.

tomjen3 5y ago
You are assuming that all world views are equal, and doing so in a way that appear to be quite arrogant. We are absolutely saying that not all views are equal and that it is a violation whether the country acknowledge it or not. If you need to anchor it in something else: humanism has brought the quickest, most effective and most complete, reduction the suffering of individuals of any system ever practiced anywhere, by more than one magnitude. Sharia is hanging of men for having sex with men, and the beating of women for getting raped.
- laurent92 5y ago
  Humanism? How do you check this? Why not “It’s extremely probable that economic development brought the quickest most effective reduction of human suffering”? Why not “Fossil fuels brought the quickest reduction of suffering”? Maybe our interest for humanism depleted when we had to get rid of fossil fuels because of climate change; at which point we noticed that humanism was only a pipe dream atop a fossil-dependent society, and coal had made our life much easier for a short period of time, until we fell into hard times again.
  - wangii 5y ago
    why is this down voted? I honestly don't know. imho the point is perfectly valid. is there too much political correctness?
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    You may as well ask if we stopped humanism when we stopped using asbestos. The answer is the same: no.
stale2002 5y ago
> when it is told from another perspective? The difference is that the other perspective is wrong, and ours is much closer to being correct (even if it still has problems). So that is why your statement is silly. And before you say it, no, I do not care about any of your arguments about cultural relativism. I am perfectly happy, saying that people who, for example, want to kill gay people, have morals that are wrong, and that our morals, which are that we shouldn't do that, are correct. Are you able to do that?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
haswell 5y ago
You are mixing "Rights" and "Laws" in your analogy, which are often directly at odds with each other.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  Rights are laws. In US they are written into Constitution which is the law and which is source of these rights and basis for enforcing them. "Human rights" are part of international law which is an agreement signed by multiple countries -- a form of law.
  - floxy 5y ago
    >which is source of these rights Not in the American tradition. "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..." "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/rights-constitution-2/ https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/rights-constitut...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
AllegedAlec 5y ago
> See how stupid your logic sounds when it is told from another perspective? It makes no sense because the Declaration of Human Rights is morally right, and China's refusal to acknowledge them makes them by definition evil. And before you try moral/cultural relativism in saying that 'well, they think they're right/ Sharia followers think they're right'. Even if you managed to argue that position well, that only means that there is an irreconcilable gap between the moral cornerstones of civilisations, and because of that, we will at some point have some huge war to figure out which one will turn out to be right.
- qwytw 5y ago
  Killing millions of innocent people in a pointless war does not seem like a very good way too prove that all countries should respect human rights. I mean as oppressive as the Chinese government is almost all of the people they oppress in Honkong or the mainland are still much better of (and more free) than they would be during or after WWIII regardless of who won. And claiming that it would be the right way to solve these "irreconcilable" differences is much more antithetical to the Declaration of Human Rights than whatever China is doing now...
  - AllegedAlec 5y ago
    > And claiming that it would be the right way to solve these "irreconcilable" differences is much more antithetical to the Declaration of Human Rights than whatever China is doing now... I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying its inevitable.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    We don't have to kill them. Instead, we just have to recognize where they are wrong, and oppose them as much as is feasible. If there was a modern day nazi nation, that was genoiciding people en mass, that had nukes, such that invasion was impossible/mutually destructive, the answer would be the same. Yes, sometimes it is difficult to stop all the bad things that evil people are doing. But that does not change the fact that those actions are still clearly evil and should be opposed where possible.
- 5y ago

tomjen3 5y ago

You are assuming that all world views are equal, and doing so in a way that appear to be quite arrogant. We are absolutely saying that not all views are equal and that it is a violation whether the country acknowledge it or not. If you need to anchor it in something else: humanism has brought the quickest, most effective and most complete, reduction the suffering of individuals of any system ever practiced anywhere, by more than one magnitude. Sharia is hanging of men for having sex with men, and the beating of women for getting raped.

laurent92 5y ago
Humanism? How do you check this? Why not “It’s extremely probable that economic development brought the quickest most effective reduction of human suffering”? Why not “Fossil fuels brought the quickest reduction of suffering”? Maybe our interest for humanism depleted when we had to get rid of fossil fuels because of climate change; at which point we noticed that humanism was only a pipe dream atop a fossil-dependent society, and coal had made our life much easier for a short period of time, until we fell into hard times again.
- wangii 5y ago
  why is this down voted? I honestly don't know. imho the point is perfectly valid. is there too much political correctness?
- tomjen3 5y ago
  You may as well ask if we stopped humanism when we stopped using asbestos. The answer is the same: no.

stale2002 5y ago

> when it is told from another perspective? The difference is that the other perspective is wrong, and ours is much closer to being correct (even if it still has problems). So that is why your statement is silly. And before you say it, no, I do not care about any of your arguments about cultural relativism. I am perfectly happy, saying that people who, for example, want to kill gay people, have morals that are wrong, and that our morals, which are that we shouldn't do that, are correct. Are you able to do that?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

haswell 5y ago

You are mixing "Rights" and "Laws" in your analogy, which are often directly at odds with each other.

lmilcin 5y ago
Rights are laws. In US they are written into Constitution which is the law and which is source of these rights and basis for enforcing them. "Human rights" are part of international law which is an agreement signed by multiple countries -- a form of law.
- floxy 5y ago
  >which is source of these rights Not in the American tradition. "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..." "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/rights-constitution-2/ https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/rights-constitut...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

AllegedAlec 5y ago

> See how stupid your logic sounds when it is told from another perspective? It makes no sense because the Declaration of Human Rights is morally right, and China's refusal to acknowledge them makes them by definition evil. And before you try moral/cultural relativism in saying that 'well, they think they're right/ Sharia followers think they're right'. Even if you managed to argue that position well, that only means that there is an irreconcilable gap between the moral cornerstones of civilisations, and because of that, we will at some point have some huge war to figure out which one will turn out to be right.

qwytw 5y ago
Killing millions of innocent people in a pointless war does not seem like a very good way too prove that all countries should respect human rights. I mean as oppressive as the Chinese government is almost all of the people they oppress in Honkong or the mainland are still much better of (and more free) than they would be during or after WWIII regardless of who won. And claiming that it would be the right way to solve these "irreconcilable" differences is much more antithetical to the Declaration of Human Rights than whatever China is doing now...
- AllegedAlec 5y ago
  > And claiming that it would be the right way to solve these "irreconcilable" differences is much more antithetical to the Declaration of Human Rights than whatever China is doing now... I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying its inevitable.
- stale2002 5y ago
  We don't have to kill them. Instead, we just have to recognize where they are wrong, and oppose them as much as is feasible. If there was a modern day nazi nation, that was genoiciding people en mass, that had nukes, such that invasion was impossible/mutually destructive, the answer would be the same. Yes, sometimes it is difficult to stop all the bad things that evil people are doing. But that does not change the fact that those actions are still clearly evil and should be opposed where possible.
5y ago