4 ms·

> But there is no reason why any person should be excluded from basic rights and privileges because they aren't "owned" by any particular subdivision. This is

by cbd1984 12y ago

> But there is no reason why any person should be excluded from basic rights and privileges because they aren't "owned" by any particular subdivision. This is something to work towards, but it runs up against some pretty basic problems. For one thing, enforcement of those rights will entail war. For another, some rights are contrary to local culture. For example, the right to leave Islam is contrary to the culture of a region which wants sharia law. The right for certain people to get married and live together and have sex (both of which are relevant even if marriage goes away) is contrary to certain other religious cultures. Are those cultures wrong? Are you going to tell people their culture is wrong?

DanBC 12y ago
Yes, I am happy to tell those people they are wrong. Freedom of religion -and that includes no religion- is a right I defend. (Article 18 UDHR) Freedom to marry is sadly ambiguously worded in UNDHR But I defend the right for people of age -regardless of gender- to marry and have a family. (Article 16)
- mc32 12y ago
  The think is that while most of us will agree with your point of view, in the end it's just a point if view. These opinions are based on our frameworks --they aren't either natural or universal. So someone else can have completely different framework not based on traditional western thinking and come up with a logical framework which contradicts yours. We're fortunate in that most people have agreement on some principles and that we don't have to figure out why it's undesirable to make theft perfectly legal or make assault perfectly legal foe everyone, bug all of this just happens to be convention. We don't arrive at that because 2+2=4.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    You onow these are in the Universal Declaratin of Human Rights, right? And that these are things that many countries have agreed are human rights and are things that they should work to? And that they're now part of international law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_... And so, while they are just shot some people made up they have a bit more going for them than that.
- refurb 12y ago
  (Article 18 UDHR) And how do you propose to enforce that right?
- restalis 12y ago
  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is nothing but a political agreement of the powers that dominated at the time of its publication. My thought (and I admit I may be wrong about it) is that the only state of matters worth having is one that contributes to a system's preservation and prosperity. Having such agreements on what constraints or freedoms to be set on human's irrational beliefs, social convictions on sexual behavior, or one's favorite color, may prevent some conflicts of spurious nature that would be otherwise expensive to deal with, but have nothing to do with the real, objective challenges that we have to face as humans.

by cbd1984 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago

Yes, I am happy to tell those people they are wrong. Freedom of religion -and that includes no religion- is a right I defend. (Article 18 UDHR) Freedom to marry is sadly ambiguously worded in UNDHR But I defend the right for people of age -regardless of gender- to marry and have a family. (Article 16)

mc32 12y ago
The think is that while most of us will agree with your point of view, in the end it's just a point if view. These opinions are based on our frameworks --they aren't either natural or universal. So someone else can have completely different framework not based on traditional western thinking and come up with a logical framework which contradicts yours. We're fortunate in that most people have agreement on some principles and that we don't have to figure out why it's undesirable to make theft perfectly legal or make assault perfectly legal foe everyone, bug all of this just happens to be convention. We don't arrive at that because 2+2=4.
- DanBC 12y ago
  You onow these are in the Universal Declaratin of Human Rights, right? And that these are things that many countries have agreed are human rights and are things that they should work to? And that they're now part of international law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_... And so, while they are just shot some people made up they have a bit more going for them than that.
refurb 12y ago
(Article 18 UDHR) And how do you propose to enforce that right?
restalis 12y ago
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is nothing but a political agreement of the powers that dominated at the time of its publication. My thought (and I admit I may be wrong about it) is that the only state of matters worth having is one that contributes to a system's preservation and prosperity. Having such agreements on what constraints or freedoms to be set on human's irrational beliefs, social convictions on sexual behavior, or one's favorite color, may prevent some conflicts of spurious nature that would be otherwise expensive to deal with, but have nothing to do with the real, objective challenges that we have to face as humans.