"However, Macs will continue to serve as a transmission vector for viruses and Trojans so long as anti-malware software is not installed."....From the link posted above.....
Logical Fallacy actually....not even semantics....I think this is just propaganda. Linux boxes and macs simply do not get infected and then go on and infect other windows machines. At least not at this point. Perhaps someday we will have cross-platform viruses, but we don't currently.
To be a vector the malware cycle needs to complete itself within a mac or linux box which would mean they are infected. A carrier state is also a state of infection with the cycle being completed in the host although adverse conditions are not felt by the host. Neither of these is actually happening so this is just bogus hogwash from what I can tell.
Um... no. What are you talking about? Having a million windows viruses wouldn't bring your mac to a stand still. It is called storage and most everyone has more storage than even millions of malware and virus codes would be able to clog up. Plus I can't imagine someone even downloading a million or a billion separate viruses. Remember they don't replicate on linux or mac boxes. Every machine has more useless code sitting around on the hard drive than you would ever find malware and it fails to bring down the machines.
Infected is not equivalent to immune. Immune means your body kills off the disease and you don't have it anymore. Chicken pox is like a herpes virus. It is able to hide itself from immune attack and will only surface when immunity gets messed up somehow.
Chicken pox gets supressed and hides in your neurons. People who get their immunity compromised temporarily let the virus replicate. It travels down the neurons and causes skin erruptions known as shingles. Shingles lesions contain live chicken pox virus which can be passed to other people.
These windows viruses are in know way infecting mac machines or linux machines. And they are not carriers since carriers have replicating virus which can be transmitted from one host to another. Neither Linux or Mac boxes can directly infect a window machine.
Not really similar since a carrier is replicating and spreding the disease. The disease cycle is still progressing even though a carrier doesn't know it and there are no ill effects for the carrier. The mac isn't even a dead end host like many parasitic infections which are not meant for humans. Those actually can cause a disease process that has symptoms.
The malware on macs isn't replicating and spreading.
It is more like someone picked got a piece of mail addressed to nobody with no forwarding address and it is in a pile of junk in a drawer. Unless someone gets it out of the drawer and sends it to someone else, there is not really a problem.
Bingo.... my kids have yet to make their own purchase since they don't know the password. I do all of the app purchases after they have gone to bed. Sounds like the kids got hold of dad's password somehow, but apple can't be responsible for the kids using dad's password if he can't keep it from them. Plus $5m damages for 200 bucks seems a bit over the top.
My problem is I work a menial job and have only moderate brainpower so I don't think I will every be able to work on the questions of space travel. But I love to watch movies about it.
Just built one.... works really really well. Thanks. My kids are going to die when they see this thing go. Got mine to fly nicely for over 15' until it hit a lamp.
I actually think that the human race is rather insignificant at least to the universe. I don't believe that humans are sacred or particularly exceptional even though we don't yet know of other similar creatures in the universe. Humans are merely the creatures we know of rising up out of star stuff and attempting to understand the universe. I think someone on Star Trek once said that we are an attempt by the Universe to understand itself and this seems as good an answer as any I have heard.
But I do have to live on the planet and I also have to do so with other humans so I firmly believe we need a rational set of rules we can all agree on so that each of can pursue our lives without unnecessary restrictions by whims, dogma, and morality of others.
In the sense of human rights being rule-like and some religion being rule-like I suppose you might have a point.... but then again is the constitution a religion? I think some view it as a sacred document and in some ways this makes it a religious text..... I don't know though. I still think that religion is attempting to explain how we got here, what made us, where we will go after we die and such. Human rights gives this aspect of religion a pretty short shrift.... if in fact it gives any attention at all to it.
I think human rights is also less religious like in that the rights defined are not what you should do, but what others can't do to you. More of a set of negative rights. Religions generally tend to morality and dictates what followers need to do..... not always, but Human Rights is more about what each of us is entitled to as humans and not how we should go about our lives.
"Ultimately, I think I am too nihilistic to personally buy into Human Rights."
hahaha... that is funny. Why do you think you are too nihilistic? I have always found nihilism to be useless except as a mental distraction or exercise. I loved reading Turgenev and at some point I read lots of philosophy by folks like Kant, Kierkegaard, and Neitzshe but in the end I didn't see the point to dwelling upon there isn't a point to anything. It can be fun in a rhetorical sense, but overall life is too short to be so self indulgent and not seek meaning or purpose on a personal level at least. Currently, my entire purpose or reason for being here is to merely experience. This seems to me a rational purpose for being on the planet, because it is more like a statement of what already is. It doesn't sound like much, but for me it is awesome and keeps me engaged in the world. I just want to always keep in my mind that I should never pass up a chance to engage and experience. I want to become the best at experiencing things that I can. It makes life full and magical.
The human race is far far far away from achieving true human rights everywhere, but then again, it took more than 500 years to get from the Magna Carta, thru the enlightenment to the Constitution of the US. In the last 200 or so years the world has gone from being dominated by Monarchies, Empires, and Theocracies to most of the world having their own sort of constitution. People are increasingly able to determine how they are to be ruled.
In another 300-500 years we might achieve a even better status with regards to how humanity runs its affairs on the planet.
It has been fun chatting...it always helps me to clarify my own thinking and check whether the chaos in my brain can be beaten into rationality. It is nice to be coherent sometimes. I am ecstatic that you can understand what I mean even if you don't entirely agree. It is nice to be able to have anyone understand where I am coming from. I too understand where you are coming from and wish you well on your own path. --best regards
"Religions seek to answer the big questions. Who? Why? How? Where?" "God did it" is not an answer to anything, and not all religions even have a creation story. I would say, Religions seek to give meaning to life.
....but god did it is the only answer for those who believe it to be true......just saying everyone has an opinion and doesn't agree on everything.
Ok, I would say I agree with what you say, but you were saying human rights is a religion. It is not. Human rights are a mechanism for society to function better. We were not discussing what religion actually is.... and although I love to discuss that as well I will stick to the point of human rights. They are in no manner equivalent to most of the major religions I am aware of. How are human rights a religion if you indeed feel them to be? I am curious. Or are you just saying that people are passionate about them and dogmatic and this seems similar to folks who follow religion?
"Everything is spread by dialogue and conversation. At one point, all philosophy was only passed down by oral tradition." All philosophy, yes. But not inherent human conditions. Laughter, love, friendship, did not have to be spread by dialogue.
I'm not sure what you are really trying to say here. Human rights does not seek to define such things as laughter, love, or friendship. Human rights a set of ideas that everyone can agree to that allows us to function better as societies and peoples. Once defined, we say that such rights are inherent to every human without distinction. By defining rights as inherent in everyone makes them inherent. We don't say.... such and such people have these rights, but because these folks come from a different part of our globe or different traditions and cultures that they somehow can't have the same rights. The agreed upon rights are inherent in everyone.
And remember all laws and everything which makes society is agreed to in some fashion, so human rights are not something mystical or unique. They are only new in the refinement of what human society has done since groups of humans got together. But the agreement part is no different to all of us agreeing that murder will be considered a crime or robbing a store is considered a crime. We all agree for the most part that such things will be viewed this way in our society. But even what murder is exactly is not so easily defined in any black and white way; which is why there is a graded approach to killing people.
The constitution defined rights which were viewed to be inherent in humans as the declaration of independence so eloquently stated..... but these rights are also merely philosophical gymnastics, human rights elaborates more of the rights to which we as humans can agree. Inherency in the sense of the constitution just means that everyone under the law is inherently the same and yet reality shows us everyday that this is not true. The constitution sets up a structure and plan to enable this structure. And it provides this structure to everyone who is a citizen. Human rights is more of a worldwide phenomenon and applicable to all of mankind and the inherent human rights belong to all humans of our planet.
Nothing that is inherent, by definition, needs to be spread or invented.
Yes things which are inherent can be invented and spread. The constitution was all about inherent rights. But those were the ones we could agree to at the time..... and they were invented and they have been spread. Inherent can certainly be a defined characteristic.
Seems to me, your objection to my use of the word inherent is more one which is definitional or semantic. You perhaps define the word to be only one facet of how the word has come to be used. Perhaps you need to look further into the founding philosophies which resulted in our constitution to grasp inherency in the sense of enlightenment thought. Inherent can be something inbred or innate fro
I have to admit, this almost convinced me. For the last 12 hours I thought you very well might have a point. But for something to be inherently human you would expect it to appear throughout history and geography. But even you admit (and I completely agree) that inherent rights are a brand new philosophy that have originated in North America. I would compare it to a religion.
I don't believe it all originates in North America but that is not really important. Enlightenment thinking has its roots in Europe mostly although the constitution of our country proved to be a sort of apex or seminal document which encapsulated 3 centuries of philosophic thinking. But philosophy, thinking, although they may begin in once place if they prove worthy become universal across the globe.
Something doesn't have to be apparent throughout history and geography for it to be relevant or useful. If that were the case, the guy with the most muscles and the biggest club would still be getting all of the women by brute force. And yet our societies have evolved far beyond primitive and tribal times.
Ancient Rome didn't have human rights really at all, but that does not mean we can't agree to have human rights and define them through universal norms we have agreed to as a more civilized people. Human rights do not serve the same function as religions. You compare it to a religion, but I am not sure how it really is comparable since it doesn't serve the same functions as religions. Human rights is more like how we want to set up the day to day minutia of our societies functions. More like the actual mechanics. Human rights seeks no grand answers of the universe.
Religions seek to answer the big questions. Who? Why? How? Where? Human rights and enlightenment thinkers are more along the lines of.... we are here.... how can we make all of our lots in life better and what mechanisms can we as a species use within our limitations to achieve such goals. Humans are capable of great good and great evil, so how do we maximize the good aspects while limiting the bad sides. The constitution went a long way toward changing the course of human history and even changed how people live their lives. Human rights will do the same and acts more as an extension of what the constitution was just beginning to do.
Not inherent, not particularly meaningful, not containing any ultimate truth.
The inherency of human rights is just how we define them. We are people. All people in principle should have the same set of rights because we are all equal entities. This doesn't mean we are all the same or should be. But we can define a space where everyone is free to follow their path as much as they are able and not be unnecessarily impeded by other people, groups, or governments.
I would not agree that human rights are not meaningful any more than I would agree the Constitution of the US is not meaningful. Human rights has already proven meaningful and I would have to ask you why you think the achievements of human rights don't mean much?
As to truth? Human rights are not seeking to define "ultimate truth" if there is such a thing. They only attempt to delineate where the peoples of the globe think we should start as far as agreed upon rights. There are lots of rights that are not defined by human rights because people can't agree that they are indeed rights. The only way things become a human right is if globally, humans can assent to them being so. Human rights is a participatory thing.
Starting in a single location and spreading only through conversions. And even similarly to religion the new conversions are the most devoted. "People who live under military juntas and dictators tend to have a more favorable view of human rights and understand the value of them."
Everything is spread by dialogue and conversation. At one point, all philosophy was only passed down by oral tradition. Human rights is defined
A standard in most of North America, and only in the last ~100 years.
I understand that the concept of human rights is a new phenomenon. I actually stated such in my last post. You must have missed that or I did not emphasize it enough.
The constitution of the united states is a new phenomenon as well being a bit over 200 years old. It is a pinnacle of a few hundred years of enlightenment thinking. But it has largely supplanted the way most of the globe view how the relationship of individuals and their government should function. Newness of ideas does not make them less potent or important. It does not make them specific to any particular part of the globe either.
The concept of human rights and their ongoing evolution is actually an extension and a continuance of enlightenment philosophy and thought. In some ways it enlarges what the constitution started and the further agreements internationally which are fundamental to their continuance and expansion are a completely different phase of how humans will go about living together on an ever shrinking globe together. They are in essence a necessity for the continuance of peaceful human coexistence in a more diverse and crowded planet.
If you knew anything at all about other cultures you would know that this is a cultural opinion.
Since I have lived ample time among multiple cultures of the world, I think I might have some insights that the average person perhaps does not. However, my having spent many many years living overseas and experiencing other cultures does not really have relevance to this issue anyhow. What is an important take away point about the issue of human rights is that they are agreed to by multiple cultures. Human rights are a global and international agreement already.
I would disagree with your assertion that this is my opinion. Human rights are global, international, and multicultural. They have nothing to do with my opinions.
You can think that this is the absolute truth, you can call everyone who disagrees a stupid barbarian, but far far far far far more people over the history of the world have disagreeable with that they have agreed to it
Human rights have nothing to do with absolute truth, whatever that is. Human rights are agreements but international groups and societies. I never said people who disagree with me are stupid or barbarian.... the concept is hard to grasp if one has not really explored what it is about.
but far far far far far more people over the history of the world have disagreeable with that they have agreed to it
1. Human rights is a modern concept... just like the constitution was in its day. 2. Human rights is a new phase of how humans should deal with each other....and yet the concept is revealed somewhat in religious and philosophy as well. Basically they are a more refined version of "do unto others as you would have the do to you." or the Golden Rule. 3. Most of history has not been kind to humans. I don't see what relevance that "history of world" disagreeing?? with human rights ?? has to do with the current evolution of human history. The modern world is about changing things for the better. The constitution of the US laid out a blueprint for the relationship of people to their government. Human Rights hits a different and yet similar set of concepts in a more profound way.
You are a tiny minority, and if we are using Democratic means instead of force then that is a provably wrong statesman (even just in our own time it would probably lose).
I actually don't think I am the tiny minority. Most people who come to understand what human rights really are about will see a value in them. It is actually harder for people who live in places such as the US and Europe. People who live under military juntas and dictators tend to have a more favorable view of human rights and understand the value of
"The law does not define what is inherent in humanity." But what does then? You cannot just say they are inherent and then seem to imply that you mean that rights are about perfect equality based on your own cultural based opinions.
Well "inalienable rights" are guaranteed "by our creator" whoever that is if you buy into the declaration of independence. But that is a pretty generic term for it. But the point of the statement is that these rights are not derived by manmade laws or institutions. Rights are something beyond the limitations of government and rest with the being of each individual. Human rights are also not based upon my own cultural opinions. There are agreed to international norms which have been determined to apply to all peoples of the globe.
I also didn't say anything about "rights are about perfect equality based upon" my own "cultural based opinions". I'm not even sure what you mean by that.
The idea of rights is too complicated and based on opinions to really get us anywhere. What I am saying is that the only practical thing everyone should be able to agree on is that the only real guarantee is a guarantee backed by force.
1. Rights are not complicated. 2. Rights are based upon universal precepts agreed upon by the peoples of the world. 3. Rights are not guaranteed by force but by assent. 4. Rights are a relatively modern concept.
Actually I don't agree that the 'only' guarantee of rights is backed by force. A far larger guarantee of rights is assent. If everyone in a society agrees that everyone should have a certain set of rights, then no force is necessary to establish such rights. We vote and we all agree that what is voted upon will be how things are until they are voted on again to make a change. If everyone buys in... then no force is needed to guarantee such rights. That is what the constitution set out to do and there has been pretty successful peaceful perpetuation of the system which safeguards our rights for the most part. The ideas are much more powerful than force. Doesn't mean force isn't needed from time to time, but it isn't predominant.
You can say, that women have the exact same right to freedom as any man, but there is no omnipotent god in the sky making sure that "right" is obeyed. There is nothing to be gained by saying all humans have a right to food when millions are starving every day. That is absolute proof that that "right" does not exist, and in fact there would not even be humans on Earth if every living thing had the right to food, shelter, and to be free form being killed and eaten (because evolution could never of occurred).
It isn't me or anyone saying women have the same rights as a man. Women are humans and do have the same rights as individuals as any man. That is a standard agreed upon human right and me saying women have rights or not has little to do with the fact of women's rights existing.
Rights don't depend on respect of the given right or adherence to respect of the right by others. Human rights throughout the world are trampled upon all the time by governments and other groups. It doesn't imply then that because this happens the rights do not exist.
Human rights are derived from agreement on what such rights for humans should be. For some the rights may be derived from a god or others may just find that they are a part of each of us.....it doesn't matter. The rights are inherent and not dependent on the whims of any one individual or group within society.Others infringing on your rights doesn't mean that therefore the rights don't exist.
Rights are the ideals to which we as free people aspire. Most rights are negative rights in the sense of people not being required to do something or are entitlements to be left alone. Less common are positive rights which guaranteed access to something. Like the bill of rights, most humans rights are a set of negative rights. I don't have the right to food s
I think your laws = rights misses the mark on what laws and rights are. Laws are rules. Laws can be used to ensure human rights are preserved or also be used to deny people their human rights. Rights are inherent in being a human and about the freedom to exercise ones individual will. The law does not define what is inherent in humanity.
The law can define which rights will be allowed....eg. The law ensured a person has the right to be a slave if said person was purchased from slave traders back in the 1700-1800's. The law could say women couldn't own property and couldn't vote. The initial drafts of the constitution only allowed people who owned land to vote. I don't believe any rational person would say that such laws did anything except block human rights.
So I don't agree that laws=rights. That is a logical fallacy on many levels really.
There aren't really any national corporations. The powerful ones are global corporate oligarchies. They buy out governments, pit countries against each other and fund the hate that americans feel for each other.... a house divided......
The sheeple and small businesses are just fodder for the global corporate elites to play with at their whim.
I think these guys are so bought and paid for they don't really have any moral fiber. All that is holding them up is the stacks of cash which are stacked around them. They have no opinions except those that money can buy.
Following the same set of laws doesn't make someone equal or even bring equality.
Equality isn't derived from laws but from the natural order of things. However, in certain instances, laws can serve to make things unequal and such is the case with making marriage between a man and a woman. It is a restriction and serves to unnecessarily block others from equal access under the law.
Saying "they would both be following the same set of laws" doesn't mean citizens have the same rights because both are subservient to the same statutes. In fact quite the opposite since one groups equal access is being blocked by a legal statute. Such laws will necessarily be changed with time as was case with rights for slaves, women, and black american citizens before. Homosexual rights are the next area of obvious restriction of equal rights for all citizens.
Laws defining marriage between a man and a woman are not liberating... they are contracting. There is no place for such absurd laws in a free society.
Why? Because they are inherently treating citizens in an unequal manner. There is no burden placed upon heterosexual individuals and yet there is an unequal burden placed on those who are homosexual. Homosexual couples and their families do not derive the same benefits bestowed by the government to those in long term monogomous relationships. They and their families do not get equal rewards for stability and the longevity of their relationship. They don't even get the same legal standing in terms of family life, inheritance and a host of other benefits showered on much of the heterosexual population. Gays are actually at a large disadvantage from a legal and financial standpoint. The government is picking favorites.
Human rights is about humans and not about genders.
Any citizen should be allowed to enter into a government sanctioned union with the full host of benefits any other citizen would receive. Perhaps the term "marriage" would better be left to church sanctioned unions and ceremonies. Blocking civil unions for gays because of religious theologic arguments and bigotry is wrong.
Our government and constitution are secular and should abide no religious insertions although plenty have infiltrated our laws. It is not the physical genitalia which should determine whom can marry whom since none of us has a choice at birth as to which gender we are to be. Nor do we get to determine which gender we would wish to be with. We are all humans and citizens and should have the right to determine who we want to spend our lives with.
What would be your answer for the case of a man who undergoes a sex change surgically and legally, and then decides to marry a man? Is that two men marrying?
What would be your thoughts about a completely physiologic woman who is in every way physically a woman and yet is genetically a man. Should she be allowed to marry a man or should she only be allowed to marry a woman because of being a genetic man?
To your point: Having a law that explicitly states marriage is between a man and a women and then saying gay men have equivalent rights to strait men because they can marry a women ignores the entire purpose of what a relationship bond is about.... the ability of the individual to choose whom they want to be with for life and to derive the legal/financial benefits of such a union.
Your statement is fundamentally more about genitalia and less about a person. Laws based upon genitalia rather than the individual are by their very nature contrary to equality. The government should not make arbitrary decisions which abridge the rights of the citizens. This is what DOMA and the state constitutional amendment laws do. Such laws set up an unequal status among citizens. One Man/One woman definition is a narrow interpretation of law based upon religious bigotry. Forcing such a law on everyone and then saying they are equal cause the law covers everyone is backward frankly.
So whatever trick your brain is playing on you about how the law engenders equality simply because it exists and if people play by the rules they are equal is kind of a sad delusion. Interesting trick of the mind, but quite misguided.
So you are arguing that because you like a woman and are attracted to women you marrying them is equivalent to a gay man having the right to marry a woman?
That doesn't make sense. Would you feel the same if the law were were such that a person was required to marry the same gender? You would be required to marry a man and a gay man would be required to marry a man if indeed they or you were to marry. Thus you would have equal rights with a gay man. These are not equivalents. Somehow your argument seems to suffer some sort of misunderstanding of what rights are really about. Rights and liberties are about ones ability to pursue ones own bliss and make ones own choices regardless of the belief systems of others.
Your argument consists of a false equivalence since the value of heterosexual relationships between heterosexual folks is not the same as a heterosexual relationship for someone of a homosexual orientation.
Your analogy of loving a fish is a bit nonsensical since we are talking about humans and not cross species rights. Absurdity doesn't strengthen your position. I can understand you not wanting to argue again since your argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
I don't think it is the exception. Most everywhere here where I live currently people are nice, friendly, courteous. It is that way almost all other places I have been as well and I have lived in some 20 odd places in my life including other countries. I guess if you view the world as negative it will be. I love the world and I love the people in it. More good than bad by far.
I love our USPS employees we chat every time we go to the post office and catch up. I love our DL renewal people, they are always courteous and go out of the way to help me out since my ID got stolen and someone got a suspended license in another state using my info (I always have problems but the clerks go out of their way to help me out. Our local politicians are most generally very nice people and are friends and neighbors even if I disagree with some of their views. Perhaps you live in the wrong part of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
"However, Macs will continue to serve as a transmission vector for viruses and Trojans so long as anti-malware software is not installed." ....From the link posted above.....
Logical Fallacy actually....not even semantics....I think this is just propaganda.
Linux boxes and macs simply do not get infected and then go on and infect other windows machines. At least not at this point. Perhaps someday we will have cross-platform viruses, but we don't currently.
To be a vector the malware cycle needs to complete itself within a mac or linux box which would mean they are infected. A carrier state is also a state of infection with the cycle being completed in the host although adverse conditions are not felt by the host. Neither of these is actually happening so this is just bogus hogwash from what I can tell.
Um... no.
What are you talking about?
Having a million windows viruses wouldn't bring your mac to a stand still. It is called storage and most everyone has more storage than even millions of malware and virus codes would be able to clog up. Plus I can't imagine someone even downloading a million or a billion separate viruses.
Remember they don't replicate on linux or mac boxes.
Every machine has more useless code sitting around on the hard drive than you would ever find malware and it fails to bring down the machines.
Infected is not equivalent to immune.
Immune means your body kills off the disease and you don't have it anymore.
Chicken pox is like a herpes virus. It is able to hide itself from immune attack and will only surface when immunity gets messed up somehow.
Chicken pox gets supressed and hides in your neurons. People who get their immunity compromised temporarily let the virus replicate. It travels down the neurons and causes skin erruptions known as shingles. Shingles lesions contain live chicken pox virus which can be passed to other people.
These windows viruses are in know way infecting mac machines or linux machines. And they are not carriers since carriers have replicating virus which can be transmitted from one host to another.
Neither Linux or Mac boxes can directly infect a window machine.
Not really similar since a carrier is replicating and spreding the disease. The disease cycle is still progressing even though a carrier doesn't know it and there are no ill effects for the carrier. The mac isn't even a dead end host like many parasitic infections which are not meant for humans. Those actually can cause a disease process that has symptoms.
The malware on macs isn't replicating and spreading.
It is more like someone picked got a piece of mail addressed to nobody with no forwarding address and it is in a pile of junk in a drawer. Unless someone gets it out of the drawer and sends it to someone else, there is not really a problem.
Bingo.... my kids have yet to make their own purchase since they don't know the password. I do all of the app purchases after they have gone to bed.
Sounds like the kids got hold of dad's password somehow, but apple can't be responsible for the kids using dad's password if he can't keep it from them.
Plus $5m damages for 200 bucks seems a bit over the top.
thanks....
I can't believe this got modded to zero?
Sometimes I am baffled by how things are evolving.
My problem is I work a menial job and have only moderate brainpower so I don't think I will every be able to work on the questions of space travel.
But I love to watch movies about it.
Just built one.... works really really well. Thanks.
My kids are going to die when they see this thing go.
Got mine to fly nicely for over 15' until it hit a lamp.
Not getting what you mean by Step 4. I am stuck without brain visualization.
I actually think that the human race is rather insignificant at least to the universe. I don't believe that humans are sacred or particularly exceptional even though we don't yet know of other similar creatures in the universe. Humans are merely the creatures we know of rising up out of star stuff and attempting to understand the universe. I think someone on Star Trek once said that we are an attempt by the Universe to understand itself and this seems as good an answer as any I have heard.
But I do have to live on the planet and I also have to do so with other humans so I firmly believe we need a rational set of rules we can all agree on so that each of can pursue our lives without unnecessary restrictions by whims, dogma, and morality of others.
In the sense of human rights being rule-like and some religion being rule-like I suppose you might have a point.... but then again is the constitution a religion? I think some view it as a sacred document and in some ways this makes it a religious text..... I don't know though. I still think that religion is attempting to explain how we got here, what made us, where we will go after we die and such. Human rights gives this aspect of religion a pretty short shrift.... if in fact it gives any attention at all to it.
I think human rights is also less religious like in that the rights defined are not what you should do, but what others can't do to you. More of a set of negative rights.
Religions generally tend to morality and dictates what followers need to do..... not always, but Human Rights is more about what each of us is entitled to as humans and not how we should go about our lives.
"Ultimately, I think I am too nihilistic to personally buy into Human Rights."
hahaha... that is funny. Why do you think you are too nihilistic?
I have always found nihilism to be useless except as a mental distraction or exercise. I loved reading Turgenev and at some point I read lots of philosophy by folks like Kant, Kierkegaard, and Neitzshe but in the end I didn't see the point to dwelling upon there isn't a point to anything. It can be fun in a rhetorical sense, but overall life is too short to be so self indulgent and not seek meaning or purpose on a personal level at least. Currently, my entire purpose or reason for being here is to merely experience. This seems to me a rational purpose for being on the planet, because it is more like a statement of what already is. It doesn't sound like much, but for me it is awesome and keeps me engaged in the world. I just want to always keep in my mind that I should never pass up a chance to engage and experience. I want to become the best at experiencing things that I can. It makes life full and magical.
The human race is far far far away from achieving true human rights everywhere, but then again, it took more than 500 years to get from the Magna Carta, thru the enlightenment to the Constitution of the US. In the last 200 or so years the world has gone from being dominated by Monarchies, Empires, and Theocracies to most of the world having their own sort of constitution. People are increasingly able to determine how they are to be ruled.
In another 300-500 years we might achieve a even better status with regards to how humanity runs its affairs on the planet.
It has been fun chatting...it always helps me to clarify my own thinking and check whether the chaos in my brain can be beaten into rationality. It is nice to be coherent sometimes. I am ecstatic that you can understand what I mean even if you don't entirely agree. It is nice to be able to have anyone understand where I am coming from. I too understand where you are coming from and wish you well on your own path.
--best regards
"Religions seek to answer the big questions. Who? Why? How? Where?"
"God did it" is not an answer to anything, and not all religions even have a creation story. I would say, Religions seek to give meaning to life.
....but god did it is the only answer for those who believe it to be true......just saying everyone has an opinion and doesn't agree on everything.
Ok, I would say I agree with what you say, but you were saying human rights is a religion. It is not. Human rights are a mechanism for society to function better.
We were not discussing what religion actually is.... and although I love to discuss that as well I will stick to the point of human rights. They are in no manner equivalent to most of the major religions I am aware of. How are human rights a religion if you indeed feel them to be? I am curious.
Or are you just saying that people are passionate about them and dogmatic and this seems similar to folks who follow religion?
"Everything is spread by dialogue and conversation. At one point, all philosophy was only passed down by oral tradition."
All philosophy, yes. But not inherent human conditions.
Laughter, love, friendship, did not have to be spread by dialogue.
I'm not sure what you are really trying to say here. .... such and such people have these rights, but because these folks come from a different part of our globe or different traditions and cultures that they somehow can't have the same rights. The agreed upon rights are inherent in everyone.
Human rights does not seek to define such things as laughter, love, or friendship. Human rights a set of ideas that everyone can agree to that allows us to function better as societies and peoples. Once defined, we say that such rights are inherent to every human without distinction.
By defining rights as inherent in everyone makes them inherent. We don't say
And remember all laws and everything which makes society is agreed to in some fashion, so human rights are not something mystical or unique. They are only new in the refinement of what human society has done since groups of humans got together. But the agreement part is no different to all of us agreeing that murder will be considered a crime or robbing a store is considered a crime. We all agree for the most part that such things will be viewed this way in our society. But even what murder is exactly is not so easily defined in any black and white way; which is why there is a graded approach to killing people.
The constitution defined rights which were viewed to be inherent in humans as the declaration of independence so eloquently stated..... but these rights are also merely philosophical gymnastics, human rights elaborates more of the rights to which we as humans can agree. Inherency in the sense of the constitution just means that everyone under the law is inherently the same and yet reality shows us everyday that this is not true. The constitution sets up a structure and plan to enable this structure. And it provides this structure to everyone who is a citizen. Human rights is more of a worldwide phenomenon and applicable to all of mankind and the inherent human rights belong to all humans of our planet.
Nothing that is inherent, by definition, needs to be spread or invented.
Yes things which are inherent can be invented and spread. The constitution was all about inherent rights. But those were the ones we could agree to at the time..... and they were invented and they have been spread. Inherent can certainly be a defined characteristic.
Seems to me, your objection to my use of the word inherent is more one which is definitional or semantic. You perhaps define the word to be only one facet of how the word has come to be used. Perhaps you need to look further into the founding philosophies which resulted in our constitution to grasp inherency in the sense of enlightenment thought. Inherent can be something inbred or innate fro
I have to admit, this almost convinced me. For the last 12 hours I thought you very well might have a point.
But for something to be inherently human you would expect it to appear throughout history and geography.
But even you admit (and I completely agree) that inherent rights are a brand new philosophy that have originated in North America.
I would compare it to a religion.
I don't believe it all originates in North America but that is not really important. Enlightenment thinking has its roots in Europe mostly although the constitution of our country proved to be a sort of apex or seminal document which encapsulated 3 centuries of philosophic thinking.
But philosophy, thinking, although they may begin in once place if they prove worthy become universal across the globe.
Something doesn't have to be apparent throughout history and geography for it to be relevant or useful. If that were the case, the guy with the most muscles and the biggest club would still be getting all of the women by brute force. And yet our societies have evolved far beyond primitive and tribal times.
Ancient Rome didn't have human rights really at all, but that does not mean we can't agree to have human rights and define them through universal norms we have agreed to as a more civilized people.
Human rights do not serve the same function as religions. You compare it to a religion, but I am not sure how it really is comparable since it doesn't serve the same functions as religions. Human rights is more like how we want to set up the day to day minutia of our societies functions. More like the actual mechanics. Human rights seeks no grand answers of the universe.
Religions seek to answer the big questions. Who? Why? How? Where?
Human rights and enlightenment thinkers are more along the lines of.... we are here.... how can we make all of our lots in life better and what mechanisms can we as a species use within our limitations to achieve such goals. Humans are capable of great good and great evil, so how do we maximize the good aspects while limiting the bad sides.
The constitution went a long way toward changing the course of human history and even changed how people live their lives.
Human rights will do the same and acts more as an extension of what the constitution was just beginning to do.
Not inherent, not particularly meaningful, not containing any ultimate truth.
The inherency of human rights is just how we define them. We are people. All people in principle should have the same set of rights because we are all equal entities. This doesn't mean we are all the same or should be. But we can define a space where everyone is free to follow their path as much as they are able and not be unnecessarily impeded by other people, groups, or governments.
I would not agree that human rights are not meaningful any more than I would agree the Constitution of the US is not meaningful. Human rights has already proven meaningful and I would have to ask you why you think the achievements of human rights don't mean much?
As to truth? Human rights are not seeking to define "ultimate truth" if there is such a thing. They only attempt to delineate where the peoples of the globe think we should start as far as agreed upon rights. There are lots of rights that are not defined by human rights because people can't agree that they are indeed rights. The only way things become a human right is if globally, humans can assent to them being so. Human rights is a participatory thing.
Starting in a single location and spreading only through conversions.
And even similarly to religion the new conversions are the most devoted. "People who live under military juntas and dictators tend to have a more favorable view of human rights and understand the value of them."
Everything is spread by dialogue and conversation. At one point, all philosophy was only passed down by oral tradition. Human rights is defined
A standard in most of North America, and only in the last ~100 years.
I understand that the concept of human rights is a new phenomenon. I actually stated such in my last post. You must have missed that or I did not emphasize it enough.
The constitution of the united states is a new phenomenon as well being a bit over 200 years old. It is a pinnacle of a few hundred years of enlightenment thinking. But it has largely supplanted the way most of the globe view how the relationship of individuals and their government should function.
Newness of ideas does not make them less potent or important. It does not make them specific to any particular part of the globe either.
The concept of human rights and their ongoing evolution is actually an extension and a continuance of enlightenment philosophy and thought. In some ways it enlarges what the constitution started and the further agreements internationally which are fundamental to their continuance and expansion are a completely different phase of how humans will go about living together on an ever shrinking globe together. They are in essence a necessity for the continuance of peaceful human coexistence in a more diverse and crowded planet.
If you knew anything at all about other cultures you would know that this is a cultural opinion.
Since I have lived ample time among multiple cultures of the world, I think I might have some insights that the average person perhaps does not.
However, my having spent many many years living overseas and experiencing other cultures does not really have relevance to this issue anyhow. What is an important take away point about the issue of human rights is that they are agreed to by multiple cultures. Human rights are a global and international agreement already.
I would disagree with your assertion that this is my opinion. Human rights are global, international, and multicultural. They have nothing to do with my opinions.
You can think that this is the absolute truth, you can call everyone who disagrees a stupid barbarian, but far far far far far more people over the history of the world have disagreeable with that they have agreed to it
Human rights have nothing to do with absolute truth, whatever that is.
Human rights are agreements but international groups and societies.
I never said people who disagree with me are stupid or barbarian.... the concept is hard to grasp if one has not really explored what it is about.
but far far far far far more people over the history of the world have disagreeable with that they have agreed to it
1. Human rights is a modern concept... just like the constitution was in its day.
2. Human rights is a new phase of how humans should deal with each other....and yet the concept is revealed somewhat in religious and philosophy as well. Basically they are a more refined version of "do unto others as you would have the do to you." or the Golden Rule.
3. Most of history has not been kind to humans. I don't see what relevance that "history of world" disagreeing?? with human rights ?? has to do with the current evolution of human history. The modern world is about changing things for the better. The constitution of the US laid out a blueprint for the relationship of people to their government. Human Rights hits a different and yet similar set of concepts in a more profound way.
You are a tiny minority, and if we are using Democratic means instead of force then that is a provably wrong statesman (even just in our own time it would probably lose).
I actually don't think I am the tiny minority. Most people who come to understand what human rights really are about will see a value in them. It is actually harder for people who live in places such as the US and Europe. People who live under military juntas and dictators tend to have a more favorable view of human rights and understand the value of
"The law does not define what is inherent in humanity."
But what does then? You cannot just say they are inherent and then seem to imply that you mean that rights are about perfect equality based on your own cultural based opinions.
Well "inalienable rights" are guaranteed "by our creator" whoever that is if you buy into the declaration of independence. But that is a pretty generic term for it. But the point of the statement is that these rights are not derived by manmade laws or institutions. Rights are something beyond the limitations of government and rest with the being of each individual.
Human rights are also not based upon my own cultural opinions. There are agreed to international norms which have been determined to apply to all peoples of the globe.
I also didn't say anything about "rights are about perfect equality based upon" my own "cultural based opinions". I'm not even sure what you mean by that.
The idea of rights is too complicated and based on opinions to really get us anywhere.
What I am saying is that the only practical thing everyone should be able to agree on is that the only real guarantee is a guarantee backed by force.
1. Rights are not complicated.
2. Rights are based upon universal precepts agreed upon by the peoples of the world.
3. Rights are not guaranteed by force but by assent.
4. Rights are a relatively modern concept.
Actually I don't agree that the 'only' guarantee of rights is backed by force. A far larger guarantee of rights is assent. If everyone in a society agrees that everyone should have a certain set of rights, then no force is necessary to establish such rights. We vote and we all agree that what is voted upon will be how things are until they are voted on again to make a change. If everyone buys in... then no force is needed to guarantee such rights. That is what the constitution set out to do and there has been pretty successful peaceful perpetuation of the system which safeguards our rights for the most part.
The ideas are much more powerful than force. Doesn't mean force isn't needed from time to time, but it isn't predominant.
You can say, that women have the exact same right to freedom as any man, but there is no omnipotent god in the sky making sure that "right" is obeyed. There is nothing to be gained by saying all humans have a right to food when millions are starving every day. That is absolute proof that that "right" does not exist, and in fact there would not even be humans on Earth if every living thing had the right to food, shelter, and to be free form being killed and eaten (because evolution could never of occurred).
It isn't me or anyone saying women have the same rights as a man. Women are humans and do have the same rights as individuals as any man. That is a standard agreed upon human right and me saying women have rights or not has little to do with the fact of women's rights existing.
Rights don't depend on respect of the given right or adherence to respect of the right by others. Human rights throughout the world are trampled upon all the time by governments and other groups. It doesn't imply then that because this happens the rights do not exist.
Human rights are derived from agreement on what such rights for humans should be. For some the rights may be derived from a god or others may just find that they are a part of each of us.....it doesn't matter. The rights are inherent and not dependent on the whims of any one individual or group within society.Others infringing on your rights doesn't mean that therefore the rights don't exist.
Rights are the ideals to which we as free people aspire. Most rights are negative rights in the sense of people not being required to do something or are entitlements to be left alone. Less common are positive rights which guaranteed access to something. Like the bill of rights, most humans rights are a set of negative rights. I don't have the right to food s
I think your laws = rights misses the mark on what laws and rights are.
Laws are rules. Laws can be used to ensure human rights are preserved or also be used to deny people their human rights.
Rights are inherent in being a human and about the freedom to exercise ones individual will. The law does not define what is inherent in humanity.
The law can define which rights will be allowed....eg. The law ensured a person has the right to be a slave if said person was purchased from slave traders back in the 1700-1800's. The law could say women couldn't own property and couldn't vote. The initial drafts of the constitution only allowed people who owned land to vote. I don't believe any rational person would say that such laws did anything except block human rights.
So I don't agree that laws=rights. That is a logical fallacy on many levels really.
There aren't really any national corporations. The powerful ones are global corporate oligarchies. They buy out governments, pit countries against each other and fund the hate that americans feel for each other. ... a house divided......
The sheeple and small businesses are just fodder for the global corporate elites to play with at their whim.
yep.... I don't know how you got modded down.
shows how complete the illusions being painted are.
Reminds me of the Matrix.
I think these guys are so bought and paid for they don't really have any moral fiber. All that is holding them up is the stacks of cash which are stacked around them. They have no opinions except those that money can buy.
Following the same set of laws doesn't make someone equal or even bring equality.
Equality isn't derived from laws but from the natural order of things. However, in certain instances, laws can serve to make things unequal and such is the case with making marriage between a man and a woman. It is a restriction and serves to unnecessarily block others from equal access under the law.
Saying "they would both be following the same set of laws" doesn't mean citizens have the same rights because both are subservient to the same statutes. In fact quite the opposite since one groups equal access is being blocked by a legal statute. Such laws will necessarily be changed with time as was case with rights for slaves, women, and black american citizens before. Homosexual rights are the next area of obvious restriction of equal rights for all citizens.
Laws defining marriage between a man and a woman are not liberating... they are contracting. There is no place for such absurd laws in a free society.
Why? Because they are inherently treating citizens in an unequal manner. There is no burden placed upon heterosexual individuals and yet there is an unequal burden placed on those who are homosexual. Homosexual couples and their families do not derive the same benefits bestowed by the government to those in long term monogomous relationships. They and their families do not get equal rewards for stability and the longevity of their relationship. They don't even get the same legal standing in terms of family life, inheritance and a host of other benefits showered on much of the heterosexual population. Gays are actually at a large disadvantage from a legal and financial standpoint. The government is picking favorites.
Human rights is about humans and not about genders.
Any citizen should be allowed to enter into a government sanctioned union with the full host of benefits any other citizen would receive. Perhaps the term "marriage" would better be left to church sanctioned unions and ceremonies. Blocking civil unions for gays because of religious theologic arguments and bigotry is wrong.
Our government and constitution are secular and should abide no religious insertions although plenty have infiltrated our laws. It is not the physical genitalia which should determine whom can marry whom since none of us has a choice at birth as to which gender we are to be. Nor do we get to determine which gender we would wish to be with. We are all humans and citizens and should have the right to determine who we want to spend our lives with.
What would be your answer for the case of a man who undergoes a sex change surgically and legally, and then decides to marry a man? Is that two men marrying?
What would be your thoughts about a completely physiologic woman who is in every way physically a woman and yet is genetically a man. Should she be allowed to marry a man or should she only be allowed to marry a woman because of being a genetic man?
To your point:
Having a law that explicitly states marriage is between a man and a women and then saying gay men have equivalent rights to strait men because they can marry a women ignores the entire purpose of what a relationship bond is about.... the ability of the individual to choose whom they want to be with for life and to derive the legal/financial benefits of such a union.
Your statement is fundamentally more about genitalia and less about a person. Laws based upon genitalia rather than the individual are by their very nature contrary to equality. The government should not make arbitrary decisions which abridge the rights of the citizens. This is what DOMA and the state constitutional amendment laws do. Such laws set up an unequal status among citizens. One Man /One woman definition is a narrow interpretation of law based upon religious bigotry. Forcing such a law on everyone and then saying they are equal cause the law covers everyone is backward frankly.
So whatever trick your brain is playing on you about how the law engenders equality simply because it exists and if people play by the rules they are equal is kind of a sad delusion. Interesting trick of the mind, but quite misguided.
So you are arguing that because you like a woman and are attracted to women you marrying them is equivalent to a gay man having the right to marry a woman?
That doesn't make sense. Would you feel the same if the law were were such that a person was required to marry the same gender? You would be required to marry a man and a gay man would be required to marry a man if indeed they or you were to marry. Thus you would have equal rights with a gay man. These are not equivalents. Somehow your argument seems to suffer some sort of misunderstanding of what rights are really about. Rights and liberties are about ones ability to pursue ones own bliss and make ones own choices regardless of the belief systems of others.
Your argument consists of a false equivalence since the value of heterosexual relationships between heterosexual folks is not the same as a heterosexual relationship for someone of a homosexual orientation.
Your analogy of loving a fish is a bit nonsensical since we are talking about humans and not cross species rights. Absurdity doesn't strengthen your position.
I can understand you not wanting to argue again since your argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
But you can marry the one you love. A gay person cannot.
There are lots of right gay people don't get to have as a result.
Nice start AC. Let the food fight begin!!! ;-P
woot.
I don't think it is the exception. Most everywhere here where I live currently people are nice, friendly, courteous. It is that way almost all other places I have been as well and I have lived in some 20 odd places in my life including other countries.
I guess if you view the world as negative it will be. I love the world and I love the people in it. More good than bad by far.
I love our USPS employees we chat every time we go to the post office and catch up. I love our DL renewal people, they are always courteous and go out of the way to help me out since my ID got stolen and someone got a suspended license in another state using my info (I always have problems but the clerks go out of their way to help me out. Our local politicians are most generally very nice people and are friends and neighbors even if I disagree with some of their views.
Perhaps you live in the wrong part of the country.
Naw... Chenney's...that way everyone could be in the dark about all of the covert snack runs.