>Your ideas make no sense. How exactly do you propose to enforce Western ideas of "human rights" on countries which don't agree? Military force? You can see how well that's currently working in the middle east (it's not).
No, I specifically said ECONOMIC pressure. Simply refuse to trade with any government that isn't governing with the consent of it's people and able to prove it by protecting their rights - so they could replace it if they so wish.
>You call Americans arrogant in one breath, but in other say that we should force every other country to accept our ideas of human rights. This seems rather arrogant to me. Forcing your ideas and culture on other people has never been historically successful; they only resent you for it, and view you as arrogant.
I wasn't suggesting American values. The values I'm talking about predate your country by some 3000 years. I also said nothing about pushing culture on anybody - simply ensuring that the people of every country has the right to have whatever culture they want.
>Trying to force everyone to accept your ideas with trade embargoes isn't a good idea either. Most countries require trade, as no one has all the resources they really need. Stopping trade will just lead to more wars, which you've already said doesn't work.
Yes, it's really easy to make war on countries with plenty when you have little. Sanctions DO work to enforce human rights - it did a bang job ending apartheid in my country.
>The only thing you can really do is use communication: try to convince people (not only the leaders, but their people too) that our ideas of freedom are worthy and worth fighting for (it'd help if we stopped watering them down for ourselves BTW), and then those people will demand those freedoms from their leaders, or forcibly remove their leaders if necessary. It happened in the former Soviet Union; they've adopted a Western-style economy and have far more freedoms now than they did under Communism, and not a single shot had to be fired.
Yes, and economic pressure worked on the old South Africa - communication alone doesn't do it. You need to put the governments of those countries under pressure in order to put their people in the POSITION to remove them in the first place.
>If people want freedom, they have to demand it and fight for it themselves, and earn it. It can't be provided to them by force, which is why the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq will never work.
I agree on the second part of this statement. But nobody can know the value of freedom to fight for it if they've NEVER known what freedom MEANS. Many slaves are content - but they stop being if they ever taste freedom.
>>Sorry - you CAN'T say "China has the right to choose their own fate" - because there are more than a billion people in China and hardly any of them get ANY say whatsoever in those choices, you give the country a choice and remove it from ever person IN the country. Of all the possible justifications for not acting against China that is the worst one I have ever heard. I can actually respect "We're too greedy to pay fair prices for labor" more easily - at least that's honest. To pretend that you are respecting the rights of China by supporting inaction against the lack of rights of it's citizens is hypocrisy taken too the level of parody.
>I'm not a big fan of China's government, but the people of China have far, far more freedom and human rights now after a few decades of trade with the West than they ever did under Mao, when most of them were starving and the country resembled North Korea more.
I heard this argument before. Pik Botha used to try and tell us "Appartheid CAN'T be bad, look how bad things are in the REST of Africa then look at the standard of living of OUR blacks - we must be the good guys"... it was bullshit, and nobody fell for it.
Technically those thoughts ARE in fact illegal, in practice being impossible to enforce nobody cares- but at least the constitutional prohibition on discrimination actually makes people think about these things - and reduces the actions arising from those thoughts.
How about the right to safe and fair working conditions ? Would it not be a violation of those to be passed over for promotion despite being the best candidate simply because you are gay ?
>>>Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you. >>Actually it most decidedly does not.
>Actually, it most assuredly does. You are free to think whatever you like in this country. Seriously. For reals.
I said I am not American. In my country you aren't - in fact *I* have a constitutional right NOT to be discriminated against. More specifically my constitution consists entirely of things the government can't take away, just like yours- but unlike yours contains one prohibition. It prohibits discrimination against anybody by anybody. It's actually a violation of the constitution here to think or say that. We haven't lost our political discourse as a result, if anything the racist politicians are generally the ones you WANT punished because they tend to break every other rule as well and be corrupt... in fact I would say it works remarkably well here. You think it's a terrible oppression - coming from a nation that had one of the most racist governments in 20th century history for 50 years... I tell you THIS IS THE GREATER FREEDOM.
>>Since it's a provable fact that I am NOT less than you, and nobody else is either
>Less how? Less smart? Less weight? Less income? There are a hundred different ways for one person to be "less than" someone else, since you never specify exactly what you're comparing (less than what?).
I specified it in another comment: valid grounds for judging a person are those he has control over. Those that he has no control over (his skin color for example) is NOT a valid thing to judge or measure by. That said- it's fairly obvious that in context I meant thinking "we purple people should have more rights than those green ones".
>>in fact one of the founding principles of your nation is that "all men are created equal before God"
>Just because two things are created equal doesn't necessarily mean they stay that way.
And if you read what I said above - that is perfectly fine. Judging the rapist a rapist is not discrimination. Judging the green man more likely to BE one is not EVER okay - unless he has already been convicted in a court of law.
Oh freedom of speech IS widely recognized, but it's also widely deemed limited- what differs is what limitations are deemed acceptable. Since that is a matter of sever contention - the logical conclusion is that we must assume NO limits to be acceptable short of the basic rule of not interfering with OTHER people's rights.
That pretty much covers libel and slander. I would then say that most of hte other "censored" things do not NEED censorship - they can be quite well covered by other existing laws. You don't need to CENSOR shouting fire in a crowded theaterhouse. Just be sure that you communicate that when you speak you are responsible for the consequences- in this case - that makes you guilty of reckless endangerment.
I have a very simple definition. The properties of a person by which he may be judged are those he CHOSE. His own actions. Those that he had no control over, like race and (probably) sexual preference and to an extent even religion (since he couldn't choose his parents) are NOT grounds for judging a person.
Freedom does have a logical limit- your freedom cannot be worth more than everybody else's - it ENDS the moment you use it to harm anybody else. Denying somebody opportunity he deserves because of his race or any irrelevent matter is wrong, and rightfully a crime because HE has the right to the free pursuit of happiness same as you and you do NOT have the right to take that away from him. You may have the right to think he shouldn't have it, but it's not usually a good idea to let society's laws be based on the ideas of people who are batshit insane.
Okay, most politicians are, especially if like me you define the desire for power as BEING a form of psychosis - but you can at least choose the insanity least likely to lead to civil wars and revolutions.
>No we didn't. All we had to do was apply the existing laws equally to all citizens, as required by the 14th amendment. If that was true, it's what would have happened in the first place. You needed a court decision before you were prepared to deal with the fact that "seperate bu equal" is a contradiction in terms !
>And they have the right to believe that, no matter how abhorrent the rest of us find those viewpoints to be.
That is only okay as long as I have a right to tell them how abhorrent those viewpoints are, and as long as any time they actually ACT on those viewpoints the people who suffer as a result have genuine legal protection they can rely on to protect THEIR rights.
>I would certainly pass for a promotion someone who claims that reality does not exist
And you can tell that by the color of his skin ? Or by who he chooses to fuck ? For that matter - if this philosophy of his, fallacious as it may be does not impact on his performance in his job - then quite frankly that is STILL discrimination and SHOULD still be illegal. I DID say "the best candidate", unless you can prove that somebody's philosophy on the universe has a direct impact on his work - it's not relevant and you shouldn't be considering it. If you're talking about promoting a priest then asking him if he believes $DEITY is relevant, for pretty much any other job it should make NO difference to the decision. A helluva lot of people on here are atheists, a minority belief system that is still widely discriminated against in many countries - notably America. Does it not bother you that highly skilled scientists and engineers could get passed over for promotion because they don't believe in the magical sky-daddy in favor of lesser candidates just because they proclaim said believe ? Well I guess if you're pushing an agenda it wouldn't. It would be a great way to get all the prestigious science jobs filled with evolution denyers I guess...
Do you think that's okay ? Do you think somebody who knows that the reason for his promotion was such discrimination should have NO legal or other recourse ?
Because I think he should. The whole POINT of the state is to protect your rights, it's why we pay them those fortunes in taxes (not that you American's know what taxes are, you complain about your taxes and you seriously have one of the lowest tax rates on the planet already) - so they will protect us from those who would steal our property or our lives, but no less so - from those who would deny us our fairly earned opportunities because they don't like how we look or think or what we say.
Talk about running to the other extreme. Not long ago if somebody beat you up over the color of your skin it was seen as a LESSER crime - is THAT not by your OWN logic equally wrong ?
BECAUSE we recognized that this was wrong (while it was NEVER seen as "somewhat okay" to do it for your property) we HAD to institute corrective laws to end this terrible atrocity.
And yet people still live who genuinely believe that how you look is an excuse to harbor opinions about who you are.
Who the hell said anything about value ? People are equal in potential by the simple fact that genetically we are so damn similiar it's scary. Any small African tribe has more genetic variation in them than the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE outside Africa. We're all descended from the same group of people - roughly 100 thousand of them and only an evolutionary blink of an eye ago. The tiny "differences" are such minor localization adaptations as to be utterly meaningless. Dog races are more genetically diverse than human "races"... it's a scientifically provable fact that we really ARE all pretty much the same thing. How much more EQUAL do you want ?
The moment it DOES - you've lost the right to. The moment you pass me over for promotion because I'm the wrong color even though I'm the best candidate you SHOULD be committing a crime.
What goes on in your head alone doesn't enter INTO a discussion of rights - because it doesn't affect anybody. But by whatever may or may not be out there I have the right to hate you if your stupid enough to discriminate against anybody and I will for damn sure excercize my right to call you a fucking moron if I find out about it and publicly mock you until shame forces you to reconsider.
There are some rights that are sufficiently widely recognized that even within various religions the majority of people are in favor of them - that transcend religious and moral believes and can be said to be universal rights that most people believe they should have. Notably: Freedom of thought Freedom of speech (including freedom of the press) Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly The right to protest Equality before the law (for the record - anybody who doesn't think he PERSONALLY should be lesser before the law gets counted as a yes vote here, it's the only fair way).
These are basic human rights recognized for thousands of years but only rarely given legal protection during history prior to the French Revolution - which directly inspired the content of the American constitution.
>Who's going to convince them all to recognize it? The government of Iran, just for example, is just about as inclined to recognize a right to free speech as the US government is to adopt Sharia law.
How about you countries with all the MONEY ? There isn't such a thing as a bad government that isn't also greedy. Stop feeding the greed and they'll do anything you tell them to.
>>Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you.
>Yes. Yes, it does.
Actually it most decidedly does not. As one of your founding fathers said: "You have the right to your own opinions, not your own facts". Since it's a provable fact that I am NOT less than you, and nobody else is either, and in fact one of the founding principles of your nation is that "all men are created equal before God"... well sorry, no it does not.
I would be even nicer to live in a world where people read the WHOLE post before they respond. A choice quote for you: "Nobody has the right to not be offended"
More importantly - I conclude my post saying there shouldn't be hate-speech laws. I state that even though I am MORALLY in favor of them (for ACTUAL hate-speech, blackboard isn't it) I believe that in practice they (like all censorship) do more harm than good. The outright authoritarian censorship isn't the big threat, in free countries it's very hard to ever make that happen. The real threat is the censorship with noble goals - like banning hate-speech. Because that censorship ALWAYS backfires and does more harm than good, and the worst thing is - it never actually makes whatever it was meant to address any better.
Banning hate-speech doesn't reduce the racism, it just causes the kind of crap you mention - and that's exactly the point I made.
What I really want to live in is a world where nobody NEEDS legal protection from discrimination - lets face it, no country in the world is anywhere close to that.
I said human rights, nothing else. Just the basic things we all tend to agree is rights we should all have.
A written constitution by itself is not enough - and I didn't say it was. I specifically said it needs to be enforced as the HIGHEST power in the land, higher than the government. In that kind of setup it works remarkably well. It worked in the U.S. and it's working surprisingly well in South Africa. Despite the fact that every government since the one that wrote it has been sliding ever deeper into a mess, the constitution is working surprisingly well and individual rights are being protected very well. The fact that the constitutional court charged with enforcing it has the power to force government to change laws when needed, and even proscribe policy in extreme cases is even more powerful.
How long have gays and lesbians fought for equal treatment before the law in America ? In South Africa, one couple went to the constitutional court and laid a charge that refusing them a marriage certificate was discrimination based on sexual preference (which our constitution specifically prohibits). The court asked only one question are they treated different. Answer: yes - and gave the government one year to change the law. Which the government then had to do. Nobody asked or cared what the founding fathers would have wanted. Nelson Mandela great man that he was, nobody cares about his personal opinion on gay marriage. The constitution guarantees that nobody - not a person, government or company can discriminate against you based on sexual preference, and thus the government was forced to change the law.
The concept can work very well - provided people are empowered enough to make USE of the constitution. But certainly at least getting basic human rights and equality recognized by each law system would already BE a major step forward for humanity ?
There IS no "merging" here. The lane on the left is SUPPOSED to be ONLY for people going to the East-onramp. The lane on the right ONLY for people going to the WEST-onramp OR Straight ahead. In other words - the people changing into the left lane are the ones merging here - and that's not the lane with the problem. People are going in a lane reserved for a different turn-off and at the last moment squeezing into a lane reserved for the other way making everybody slower.
Perhaps you misunderstood. I should have specified, in my country we drive on the OPPOSITE side of the road compared to America so that may be why you were confused and thought people were merging. This is NOT a merging road, it's in fact, for all intents and purposes a Y-junction, and people are driving on the way to one side of the Y up to the last moment then rushing across to the other side because they think they matter much more than everybody who is already in the qeue for it.
Well - I'm not an American so my point of view is based on what I read.
Having said that - your freedom ends where mine begins. I am in FAVOR of (some) hate-speech laws because most hate-speech IS racism and racism SHOULD be illegal. Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you. It ends before you can intrude on my right. Nobody has the right not to be offended, but you damn sure have the right not be a victim of racist behavior INCLUDING slurs.
On the other hand, since people generally don't stick a gun to your head and MAKE you read the hustler, there is no excuse for banning any porn, ever. No, not even child-porn - we'd do a LOT better going after the people who make the stuff than trying to censor it out of existence.
Having said all that - that's the idealistic viewpoint. More realistically I say that the real problem with censorship is this: 1) it ALWAYS fails 2) No matter how noble it's goal may be, the unintended results are always MORE harmful to society than whatever you censored.
So though I think people should have the right not be called racist slurs, in practical terms I'm opposed to hate-speech laws because it's better to let the racists shout and know who they are than to let the disease of it fester behind closed doors where it inevitably leads to violence against others.
I am happy for your country that this protection was given, I am sad because there is nothing in the world that can ensure that the basic rights you and I have are available to every person on the planet. As long as anybody is oppressed, there will ALWAYS be another war.
Contrary to what other people seemed to read - I did NOT suggest a global government nor did I suggest giving particular force to the U.N. What I suggested was globalising human rights and using the UN as a vehicle to do that. If every state recognized your right to free speech for example as a constitutional right and (this one can be taken from my side) was forced to ensure the constitution is the highest authority in the land (MORE power than the government) then human rights would be protected EVERYWHERE.
A once-off thing, not a constant interference. One agreement that these 4 or 5 rights are universal to all humans and any government that does not ensure their absolute protection EVEN FROM ITSELF is by definition NOT a legitimate government, automatic sanctions against refusers up to and including no longer recognizing the passports they issue.
Think about that. We'd cut refugee problems by 80% in a day. We'd ensure every government on earth is in a position where they can be held accountable. The rights American's are so proud off, the ideas you think you invented like government by consent of the governed - suddenly global.
I think it's arrogant that American's think they live in the greatest country on earth, but what's even WORSE is to genuinely believe that - and then NOT genuinely believe that people who were born in other countries deserve all the things that make your believe that. You can't give it to them with wars, Iraq Freedom was a stupid joke... but you could help give it to them with economic pressure, the only problem is- you would actually be forced to admit you aren't perfect and adopt some of the good ideas OTHER countries have had.
I know it's a completely idealist sentiment, but human rights are either universal or non-existent. They most certainly cannot be dependent on where you happened to be born. If any humans don't have them, then they aren't human rights. If we believe they are, and are inalienable, then we automatically assume responsibility to give them to as many people as possible.
Sorry - you CAN'T say "China has the right to choose their own fate" - because there are more than a billion people in China and hardly any of them get ANY say whatsoever in those choices, you give the country a choice and remove it from ever person IN the country. Of all the possible justifications for not acting against China that is the worst one I have ever heard. I can actually respect "We're too greedy to pay fair prices for labor" more easily - at least that's honest. To pretend that you are respecting the rights of China by supporting inaction against the lack of rights of it's citizens is hypocrisy taken too the level of parody.
>>source code (potentially at least) has intrinsic value far beyond it's practical re-usability, particularly in the academic sphere.
>Only if you value history and academic questions above practical use.
Firstly knowledge for the sake of knowledge IS more valuable than practical use - that's why science is more valuable to the human race than engineering, but the ideal is a world that has BOTH. Having clarified that belief though, how the hell did you get to that conclusion from what I said ? I didn't COMPARE the two at all. I merely said that the academic value will OUTLAST the practical value. There is a definite time-limit on how long you can practically use a software program before it's just frankly not up to par with your requirements anymore, but at least some of the things you can use the source code for (including but not limited to academic interest) have no such limitations.
Furthermore, it's a fact that the one thing copyright has NEVER been about is practical use. That's not it's purpose. It's purpose is EXACTLY for academic purposes, studying purposes, learning purposes. We need a public domain so we can study the works of the masters to prepare the next generation of masters. Some will write derivative works, some will not but nobody should be writing any fiction at all in English who hasn't READ at least one of Shakespeare's plays. The public domain provides inspiration, sources for studying and dissemination. In the vast majority of cases it does NOT provide practical use. There is no practical use for most works of art, their use is purely aesthetic - but that does not make them without value, and that is why we want them to enter the public domain - so they can inspire and be used as source material for NEW aesthetic works with no practical use. So scholars and students can use them to learn about the culture that produced them.
With software, the binary provides ONLY practical use (and in the case of the most artistic software - which are games, even that practical use is purely to create an aesthetic experience) - which has limited valuable duration, but all the esoteric uses remain of value for far longer while some of them never lose value.
Kurt Vonnegut writes in Cat's Cradle that the biggest flaw in the American version of capitalism is that it does not promote in any way the creation of pure knowledge, unless that knowledge can somehow be turned into monetary profit. The reality is that a discovery made today could save a billion lives in 50 years time, and have NO value until then- and we NEED to maintain the institutions to ensure that such discoveries CAN be made and will not be left unexplored because researchers have bills to pay. One of those institutions by which we do this is called the public domain, and the ONLY purpose copyright has is to ensure that this resource is as large as possible. Interestingly Cat's Cradle is in many ways an anti-science book. Even a book that comes to the conclusion that human science will doom us all, proclaims and decries the need for research without profit motive to be supported.
Slashdot Mirror
Nelson Mandela agrees with me - he WROTE that constitution...
>Your ideas make no sense. How exactly do you propose to enforce Western ideas of "human rights" on countries which don't agree? Military force? You can see how well that's currently working in the middle east (it's not).
No, I specifically said ECONOMIC pressure. Simply refuse to trade with any government that isn't governing with the consent of it's people and able to prove it by protecting their rights - so they could replace it if they so wish.
>You call Americans arrogant in one breath, but in other say that we should force every other country to accept our ideas of human rights. This seems rather arrogant to me. Forcing your ideas and culture on other people has never been historically successful; they only resent you for it, and view you as arrogant.
I wasn't suggesting American values. The values I'm talking about predate your country by some 3000 years. I also said nothing about pushing culture on anybody - simply ensuring that the people of every country has the right to have whatever culture they want.
>Trying to force everyone to accept your ideas with trade embargoes isn't a good idea either. Most countries require trade, as no one has all the resources they really need. Stopping trade will just lead to more wars, which you've already said doesn't work.
Yes, it's really easy to make war on countries with plenty when you have little. Sanctions DO work to enforce human rights - it did a bang job ending apartheid in my country.
>The only thing you can really do is use communication: try to convince people (not only the leaders, but their people too) that our ideas of freedom are worthy and worth fighting for (it'd help if we stopped watering them down for ourselves BTW), and then those people will demand those freedoms from their leaders, or forcibly remove their leaders if necessary. It happened in the former Soviet Union; they've adopted a Western-style economy and have far more freedoms now than they did under Communism, and not a single shot had to be fired.
Yes, and economic pressure worked on the old South Africa - communication alone doesn't do it. You need to put the governments of those countries under pressure in order to put their people in the POSITION to remove them in the first place.
>If people want freedom, they have to demand it and fight for it themselves, and earn it. It can't be provided to them by force, which is why the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq will never work.
I agree on the second part of this statement. But nobody can know the value of freedom to fight for it if they've NEVER known what freedom MEANS. Many slaves are content - but they stop being if they ever taste freedom.
>>Sorry - you CAN'T say "China has the right to choose their own fate" - because there are more than a billion people in China and hardly any of them get ANY say whatsoever in those choices, you give the country a choice and remove it from ever person IN the country. Of all the possible justifications for not acting against China that is the worst one I have ever heard.
I can actually respect "We're too greedy to pay fair prices for labor" more easily - at least that's honest. To pretend that you are respecting the rights of China by supporting inaction against the lack of rights of it's citizens is hypocrisy taken too the level of parody.
>I'm not a big fan of China's government, but the people of China have far, far more freedom and human rights now after a few decades of trade with the West than they ever did under Mao, when most of them were starving and the country resembled North Korea more.
I heard this argument before. Pik Botha used to try and tell us "Appartheid CAN'T be bad, look how bad things are in the REST of Africa then look at the standard of living of OUR blacks - we must be the good guys"... it was bullshit, and nobody fell for it.
Technically those thoughts ARE in fact illegal, in practice being impossible to enforce nobody cares- but at least the constitutional prohibition on discrimination actually makes people think about these things - and reduces the actions arising from those thoughts.
A mistake I regularly make, assuming the people I speak to have an IQ higher than their age.
>With a private employer you do not have a right to "fair" working conditions. That's my point.
Yes you damn well do. In any non barbaric country, it's a LEGAL right as well as a moral one.
How about the right to safe and fair working conditions ? Would it not be a violation of those to be passed over for promotion despite being the best candidate simply because you are gay ?
>>>Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you.
>>Actually it most decidedly does not.
>Actually, it most assuredly does. You are free to think whatever you like in this country. Seriously. For reals.
I said I am not American. In my country you aren't - in fact *I* have a constitutional right NOT to be discriminated against. More specifically my constitution consists entirely of things the government can't take away, just like yours- but unlike yours contains one prohibition. It prohibits discrimination against anybody by anybody. It's actually a violation of the constitution here to think or say that. ... in fact I would say it works remarkably well here. You think it's a terrible oppression - coming from a nation that had one of the most racist governments in 20th century history for 50 years... I tell you THIS IS THE GREATER FREEDOM.
We haven't lost our political discourse as a result, if anything the racist politicians are generally the ones you WANT punished because they tend to break every other rule as well and be corrupt
>>Since it's a provable fact that I am NOT less than you, and nobody else is either
>Less how? Less smart? Less weight? Less income? There are a hundred different ways for one person to be "less than" someone else, since you never specify exactly what you're comparing (less than what?).
I specified it in another comment: valid grounds for judging a person are those he has control over. Those that he has no control over (his skin color for example) is NOT a valid thing to judge or measure by.
That said- it's fairly obvious that in context I meant thinking "we purple people should have more rights than those green ones".
>>in fact one of the founding principles of your nation is that "all men are created equal before God"
>Just because two things are created equal doesn't necessarily mean they stay that way.
And if you read what I said above - that is perfectly fine. Judging the rapist a rapist is not discrimination. Judging the green man more likely to BE one is not EVER okay - unless he has already been convicted in a court of law.
Oh freedom of speech IS widely recognized, but it's also widely deemed limited- what differs is what limitations are deemed acceptable.
Since that is a matter of sever contention - the logical conclusion is that we must assume NO limits to be acceptable short of the basic rule of not interfering with OTHER people's rights.
That pretty much covers libel and slander. I would then say that most of hte other "censored" things do not NEED censorship - they can be quite well covered by other existing laws. You don't need to CENSOR shouting fire in a crowded theaterhouse. Just be sure that you communicate that when you speak you are responsible for the consequences- in this case - that makes you guilty of reckless endangerment.
I have a very simple definition. The properties of a person by which he may be judged are those he CHOSE. His own actions. Those that he had no control over, like race and (probably) sexual preference and to an extent even religion (since he couldn't choose his parents) are NOT grounds for judging a person.
Not so hard is it ?
Freedom does have a logical limit- your freedom cannot be worth more than everybody else's - it ENDS the moment you use it to harm anybody else. Denying somebody opportunity he deserves because of his race or any irrelevent matter is wrong, and rightfully a crime because HE has the right to the free pursuit of happiness same as you and you do NOT have the right to take that away from him. You may have the right to think he shouldn't have it, but it's not usually a good idea to let society's laws be based on the ideas of people who are batshit insane.
Okay, most politicians are, especially if like me you define the desire for power as BEING a form of psychosis - but you can at least choose the insanity least likely to lead to civil wars and revolutions.
>No we didn't. All we had to do was apply the existing laws equally to all citizens, as required by the 14th amendment.
If that was true, it's what would have happened in the first place. You needed a court decision before you were prepared to deal with the fact that "seperate bu equal" is a contradiction in terms !
>And they have the right to believe that, no matter how abhorrent the rest of us find those viewpoints to be.
That is only okay as long as I have a right to tell them how abhorrent those viewpoints are, and as long as any time they actually ACT on those viewpoints the people who suffer as a result have genuine legal protection they can rely on to protect THEIR rights.
>I would certainly pass for a promotion someone who claims that reality does not exist
And you can tell that by the color of his skin ? Or by who he chooses to fuck ?
For that matter - if this philosophy of his, fallacious as it may be does not impact on his performance in his job - then quite frankly that is STILL discrimination and SHOULD still be illegal. I DID say "the best candidate", unless you can prove that somebody's philosophy on the universe has a direct impact on his work - it's not relevant and you shouldn't be considering it.
If you're talking about promoting a priest then asking him if he believes $DEITY is relevant, for pretty much any other job it should make NO difference to the decision. A helluva lot of people on here are atheists, a minority belief system that is still widely discriminated against in many countries - notably America. Does it not bother you that highly skilled scientists and engineers could get passed over for promotion because they don't believe in the magical sky-daddy in favor of lesser candidates just because they proclaim said believe ?
Well I guess if you're pushing an agenda it wouldn't. It would be a great way to get all the prestigious science jobs filled with evolution denyers I guess...
Do you think that's okay ? Do you think somebody who knows that the reason for his promotion was such discrimination should have NO legal or other recourse ?
Because I think he should. The whole POINT of the state is to protect your rights, it's why we pay them those fortunes in taxes (not that you American's know what taxes are, you complain about your taxes and you seriously have one of the lowest tax rates on the planet already) - so they will protect us from those who would steal our property or our lives, but no less so - from those who would deny us our fairly earned opportunities because they don't like how we look or think or what we say.
Talk about running to the other extreme. Not long ago if somebody beat you up over the color of your skin it was seen as a LESSER crime - is THAT not by your OWN logic equally wrong ?
BECAUSE we recognized that this was wrong (while it was NEVER seen as "somewhat okay" to do it for your property) we HAD to institute corrective laws to end this terrible atrocity.
And yet people still live who genuinely believe that how you look is an excuse to harbor opinions about who you are.
Who the hell said anything about value ? People are equal in potential by the simple fact that genetically we are so damn similiar it's scary. Any small African tribe has more genetic variation in them than the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE outside Africa.
We're all descended from the same group of people - roughly 100 thousand of them and only an evolutionary blink of an eye ago. The tiny "differences" are such minor localization adaptations as to be utterly meaningless.
Dog races are more genetically diverse than human "races"... it's a scientifically provable fact that we really ARE all pretty much the same thing. How much more EQUAL do you want ?
The moment it DOES - you've lost the right to. The moment you pass me over for promotion because I'm the wrong color even though I'm the best candidate you SHOULD be committing a crime.
What goes on in your head alone doesn't enter INTO a discussion of rights - because it doesn't affect anybody. But by whatever may or may not be out there I have the right to hate you if your stupid enough to discriminate against anybody and I will for damn sure excercize my right to call you a fucking moron if I find out about it and publicly mock you until shame forces you to reconsider.
There are some rights that are sufficiently widely recognized that even within various religions the majority of people are in favor of them - that transcend religious and moral believes and can be said to be universal rights that most people believe they should have.
Notably:
Freedom of thought
Freedom of speech (including freedom of the press)
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly
The right to protest
Equality before the law (for the record - anybody who doesn't think he PERSONALLY should be lesser before the law gets counted as a yes vote here, it's the only fair way).
These are basic human rights recognized for thousands of years but only rarely given legal protection during history prior to the French Revolution - which directly inspired the content of the American constitution.
>Who's going to convince them all to recognize it? The government of Iran, just for example, is just about as inclined to recognize a right to free speech as the US government is to adopt Sharia law.
How about you countries with all the MONEY ? There isn't such a thing as a bad government that isn't also greedy. Stop feeding the greed and they'll do anything you tell them to.
>>Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you.
>Yes. Yes, it does.
Actually it most decidedly does not. As one of your founding fathers said: "You have the right to your own opinions, not your own facts". Since it's a provable fact that I am NOT less than you, and nobody else is either, and in fact one of the founding principles of your nation is that "all men are created equal before God"... well sorry, no it does not.
I would be even nicer to live in a world where people read the WHOLE post before they respond.
A choice quote for you: "Nobody has the right to not be offended"
More importantly - I conclude my post saying there shouldn't be hate-speech laws. I state that even though I am MORALLY in favor of them (for ACTUAL hate-speech, blackboard isn't it) I believe that in practice they (like all censorship) do more harm than good. The outright authoritarian censorship isn't the big threat, in free countries it's very hard to ever make that happen.
The real threat is the censorship with noble goals - like banning hate-speech. Because that censorship ALWAYS backfires and does more harm than good, and the worst thing is - it never actually makes whatever it was meant to address any better.
Banning hate-speech doesn't reduce the racism, it just causes the kind of crap you mention - and that's exactly the point I made.
What I really want to live in is a world where nobody NEEDS legal protection from discrimination - lets face it, no country in the world is anywhere close to that.
I said human rights, nothing else. Just the basic things we all tend to agree is rights we should all have.
A written constitution by itself is not enough - and I didn't say it was. I specifically said it needs to be enforced as the HIGHEST power in the land, higher than the government. In that kind of setup it works remarkably well. It worked in the U.S. and it's working surprisingly well in South Africa.
Despite the fact that every government since the one that wrote it has been sliding ever deeper into a mess, the constitution is working surprisingly well and individual rights are being protected very well. The fact that the constitutional court charged with enforcing it has the power to force government to change laws when needed, and even proscribe policy in extreme cases is even more powerful.
How long have gays and lesbians fought for equal treatment before the law in America ? In South Africa, one couple went to the constitutional court and laid a charge that refusing them a marriage certificate was discrimination based on sexual preference (which our constitution specifically prohibits). The court asked only one question are they treated different. Answer: yes - and gave the government one year to change the law. Which the government then had to do.
Nobody asked or cared what the founding fathers would have wanted. Nelson Mandela great man that he was, nobody cares about his personal opinion on gay marriage. The constitution guarantees that nobody - not a person, government or company can discriminate against you based on sexual preference, and thus the government was forced to change the law.
The concept can work very well - provided people are empowered enough to make USE of the constitution. But certainly at least getting basic human rights and equality recognized by each law system would already BE a major step forward for humanity ?
There IS no "merging" here.
The lane on the left is SUPPOSED to be ONLY for people going to the East-onramp. The lane on the right ONLY for people going to the WEST-onramp OR Straight ahead.
In other words - the people changing into the left lane are the ones merging here - and that's not the lane with the problem. People are going in a lane reserved for a different turn-off and at the last moment squeezing into a lane reserved for the other way making everybody slower.
Perhaps you misunderstood. I should have specified, in my country we drive on the OPPOSITE side of the road compared to America so that may be why you were confused and thought people were merging. This is NOT a merging road, it's in fact, for all intents and purposes a Y-junction, and people are driving on the way to one side of the Y up to the last moment then rushing across to the other side because they think they matter much more than everybody who is already in the qeue for it.
>Hah! You are telling that to a guy who just gave up after 3 months debugging deadlocks in a multithreaded app...
Multithreading *is* breaking the rules :P
Well - I'm not an American so my point of view is based on what I read.
Having said that - your freedom ends where mine begins. I am in FAVOR of (some) hate-speech laws because most hate-speech IS racism and racism SHOULD be illegal. Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you. It ends before you can intrude on my right.
Nobody has the right not to be offended, but you damn sure have the right not be a victim of racist behavior INCLUDING slurs.
On the other hand, since people generally don't stick a gun to your head and MAKE you read the hustler, there is no excuse for banning any porn, ever. No, not even child-porn - we'd do a LOT better going after the people who make the stuff than trying to censor it out of existence.
Having said all that - that's the idealistic viewpoint. More realistically I say that the real problem with censorship is this:
1) it ALWAYS fails
2) No matter how noble it's goal may be, the unintended results are always MORE harmful to society than whatever you censored.
So though I think people should have the right not be called racist slurs, in practical terms I'm opposed to hate-speech laws because it's better to let the racists shout and know who they are than to let the disease of it fester behind closed doors where it inevitably leads to violence against others.
I am happy for your country that this protection was given, I am sad because there is nothing in the world that can ensure that the basic rights you and I have are available to every person on the planet. As long as anybody is oppressed, there will ALWAYS be another war.
Contrary to what other people seemed to read - I did NOT suggest a global government nor did I suggest giving particular force to the U.N.
What I suggested was globalising human rights and using the UN as a vehicle to do that. If every state recognized your right to free speech for example as a constitutional right and (this one can be taken from my side) was forced to ensure the constitution is the highest authority in the land (MORE power than the government) then human rights would be protected EVERYWHERE.
A once-off thing, not a constant interference. One agreement that these 4 or 5 rights are universal to all humans and any government that does not ensure their absolute protection EVEN FROM ITSELF is by definition NOT a legitimate government, automatic sanctions against refusers up to and including no longer recognizing the passports they issue.
Think about that. We'd cut refugee problems by 80% in a day. We'd ensure every government on earth is in a position where they can be held accountable.
The rights American's are so proud off, the ideas you think you invented like government by consent of the governed - suddenly global.
I think it's arrogant that American's think they live in the greatest country on earth, but what's even WORSE is to genuinely believe that - and then NOT genuinely believe that people who were born in other countries deserve all the things that make your believe that.
You can't give it to them with wars, Iraq Freedom was a stupid joke... but you could help give it to them with economic pressure, the only problem is- you would actually be forced to admit you aren't perfect and adopt some of the good ideas OTHER countries have had.
I know it's a completely idealist sentiment, but human rights are either universal or non-existent. They most certainly cannot be dependent on where you happened to be born. If any humans don't have them, then they aren't human rights. If we believe they are, and are inalienable, then we automatically assume responsibility to give them to as many people as possible.
Sorry - you CAN'T say "China has the right to choose their own fate" - because there are more than a billion people in China and hardly any of them get ANY say whatsoever in those choices, you give the country a choice and remove it from ever person IN the country. Of all the possible justifications for not acting against China that is the worst one I have ever heard.
I can actually respect "We're too greedy to pay fair prices for labor" more easily - at least that's honest. To pretend that you are respecting the rights of China by supporting inaction against the lack of rights of it's citizens is hypocrisy taken too the level of parody.
>>source code (potentially at least) has intrinsic value far beyond it's practical re-usability, particularly in the academic sphere.
>Only if you value history and academic questions above practical use.
Firstly knowledge for the sake of knowledge IS more valuable than practical use - that's why science is more valuable to the human race than engineering, but the ideal is a world that has BOTH.
Having clarified that belief though, how the hell did you get to that conclusion from what I said ? I didn't COMPARE the two at all. I merely said that the academic value will OUTLAST the practical value. There is a definite time-limit on how long you can practically use a software program before it's just frankly not up to par with your requirements anymore, but at least some of the things you can use the source code for (including but not limited to academic interest) have no such limitations.
Furthermore, it's a fact that the one thing copyright has NEVER been about is practical use. That's not it's purpose. It's purpose is EXACTLY for academic purposes, studying purposes, learning purposes. We need a public domain so we can study the works of the masters to prepare the next generation of masters. Some will write derivative works, some will not but nobody should be writing any fiction at all in English who hasn't READ at least one of Shakespeare's plays.
The public domain provides inspiration, sources for studying and dissemination. In the vast majority of cases it does NOT provide practical use. There is no practical use for most works of art, their use is purely aesthetic - but that does not make them without value, and that is why we want them to enter the public domain - so they can inspire and be used as source material for NEW aesthetic works with no practical use. So scholars and students can use them to learn about the culture that produced them.
With software, the binary provides ONLY practical use (and in the case of the most artistic software - which are games, even that practical use is purely to create an aesthetic experience) - which has limited valuable duration, but all the esoteric uses remain of value for far longer while some of them never lose value.
Kurt Vonnegut writes in Cat's Cradle that the biggest flaw in the American version of capitalism is that it does not promote in any way the creation of pure knowledge, unless that knowledge can somehow be turned into monetary profit. The reality is that a discovery made today could save a billion lives in 50 years time, and have NO value until then- and we NEED to maintain the institutions to ensure that such discoveries CAN be made and will not be left unexplored because researchers have bills to pay.
One of those institutions by which we do this is called the public domain, and the ONLY purpose copyright has is to ensure that this resource is as large as possible.
Interestingly Cat's Cradle is in many ways an anti-science book. Even a book that comes to the conclusion that human science will doom us all, proclaims and decries the need for research without profit motive to be supported.