NationStates Jolt Archive

In quite some dabates and discussions (forum and RL) I have noticed that sometimes when people run out of arguments just say: "Well, that is my position, (that is how how I was brought up), I believe it is / should be like that and you wont change my opinion and you will have to respect that as an opinion."
That usually is the point were I get upset and think something like "scr** him/her, I am right and she/he is stupid" and I guess that is how many others feel in such a situation. But if I think about it more closely I have to admit that there are things I just believe in and I cannot argue for, but which nevertheless are very important to me, if not most. Who for example can argue why there should be something like human rights? Well, maybe one could use fairness (everyone is treated equal) as an argument, but then you have to give reasons why there should be something like fairness... you can do this with almost anything and you will either go in circles or come to a point where you can't find reason anymore.
So and here comes my question:
Why should it be more legitimate to assume that there should be human right than to assume that e.g. homosexality is inherently evil? Of course there are more people who assume that there should be human rights than who consider homosexuality evil. But is the majority always right? For example if it said that one plus one is three?

In quite some dabates and discussions (forum and RL) I have noticed that sometimes when people run out of arguments just say: "Well, that is my position, (that is how how I was brought up), I believe it is / should be like that and you wont change my opinion and you will have to respect that as an opinion."
That usually is the point were I get upset and think something like "scr** him/her, I am right and she/he is stupid" and I guess that is how many others feel in such a situation. But if I think about it more closely I have to admit that there are things I just believe in and I cannot argue for, but which nevertheless are very important to me, if not most. Who for example can argue why there should be something like human rights? Well, maybe one could use fairness (everyone is treated equal) as an argument, but then you have to give reasons why there should be something like fairness... you can do this with almost anything and you will either go in circles or come to a point where you can't find reason anymore.
So and here comes my question:
Why should it be more legitimate to assume that there should be human right than to assume that e.g. homosexality is inherently evil? Of course there are more people who assume that there should be human rights than who consider homosexuality evil. But is the majority always right? For example if it said that one plus one is three?

First, I'd like to say you forgot to include the old "I don't have to defend it because it's self-evident" argument.

Second, it can be a right and it can be evil. You have the right to intentionally damage your body, e.g. eat too much, but damaging your body intentionally is generally regarded as a sin, the body is a temple, gluttony. The government does not and should not regulate sin and we shouldn't ask them to. If you are a Christian (thus the sin thing), you likely believe there is only one qualified judge and all will stand before him. Do you think God needs your assistance in judging these folks or is it just that you're so offended that you feel the need to punish them? Aren't wrath (punishing the sinful) and pride (considering yourself deserving of more rights than the sinful) two of the seven deadly sins? Maybe it's even envy (they're getting away with sin and I'm not). Whatever it is, it is certainly not your place to punish the sinful.

So your problem is that you think that your beliefs should be accepted by everyone like exists in a totalitarian government? Are you angry because these people refuse to listen to your "reason"? After all, why do you consider yourself right over others? I mean, to say that you wish that victory in an argument is so incredibly stupid, no one ever says "thanks for telling me that my belief that I have had for years has finally been disproven by an argument over the internet". You seek to deny human rights in order to back your opinion over human rights. I think that is funny. As well in any society the people in power are always right.

*hands the prize for missing the point to Holyawesomeness*

*hands the prize for missing the point to Holyawesomeness*

Yeah, I think I skewed from the topic a bit as well, but at least I responded to what s/he said.

So and here comes my question:
Why should it be more legitimate to assume that there should be human right than to assume that e.g. homosexality is inherently evil? Of course there are more people who assume that there should be human rights than who consider homosexuality evil. But is the majority always right? For example if it said that one plus one is three?

As for homosexuality it is not a question of allowing the right, it is a question of allowing equal rights. When society condones the denying of rights to groups based on superficial personal traits and stereotypes, they set a precedent of unethical treatment that will lead to tyranny.

Oops, I probably did miss the point. But I guess I do not really see the problem. This is the internet, and no one will ever give up their pet belief. The only point here is to argue and debate and discuss. No one who started off in disagreement will ever agree(or at least should be expected to). As well certain beliefs exist in almost everyones mind due to the fact that the idea is part of the culture.

Well, homosexuality is a question of rights vs morality in the minds of many people. To those who believe strongly in religion often the idea is that morality is more important than any right, and to those who believe strongly in rights often think that rights supercede morality. I still do not get the whole anger with the arguments thing that started the thread but I am personally opposed to gay marriage and politically I care little about the issue.

So and here comes my question:
Why should it be more legitimate to assume that there should be human right than to assume that e.g. homosexality is inherently evil? Of course there are more people who assume that there should be human rights than who consider homosexuality evil. But is the majority always right? For example if it said that one plus one is three?
Short answer: If you take the direct phrasing of your question, you could disregard any principle because I don't think it's ever OK to assume a particular policy is the right course of action. If you want to hold a position concerning a government action, you have to have a non-assumptive basis for making that decision.

In the context of your question: Human rights can easily be justified through rational, logical reasoning. If you respect the rights of other people, it encourages other nations to do the same for your people and prevents the world from degenerating into meaningless wars. There are tons of others. You can't say that declaring homosexuality a sin has any basis in a justification beyond faith.

When you stop supporting your opinion with reasons and evidence... you have become lazy and irresponsible.

Why should it be more legitimate to assume that there should be human right than to assume that e.g. homosexality is inherently evil? Of course there are more people who assume that there should be human rights than who consider homosexuality evil. But is the majority always right? For example if it said that one plus one is three?

Yes, the majority is always right. Well, you won't be able to change it's opinion anyway. Society is much too bullheaded to accept radical change aside from times of suffering. As long as the majority doesn't suffer, it could care less about anything else. If society deems homosexuality evil, for example, then it would become evil. Wait...that's already happened. Bad example, but you get my point. Society has had the same views on many complex subjects since before the Bible had been written. Well, ancient Greece had its own thing going on with homosexuality, but that's beside the point. Arguing about wether or not the rest of the world is right is both futile and pointless. Just learn to accept that society is always right and you can go on to live a life of blissful ignorance and intolerance, just as the generations past have done and generations to come shall continue to do.

When you stop supporting your opinion with reasons and evidence... you have become lazy and irresponsible.

Lazy is perhaps not the right word, many of those who have no reasonable arguments are most active in their arguments...

I would say you become predictable, irresponsible, and very dangerous.

Oops, I probably did miss the point. But I guess I do not really see the problem. This is the internet, and no one will ever give up their pet belief. The only point here is to argue and debate and discuss. No one who started off in disagreement will ever agree(or at least should be expected to). As well certain beliefs exist in almost everyones mind due to the fact that the idea is part of the culture.
Not true. I've been convinced a number of times, and changed my opinion on various topics since I've been here...or fleshed out ones that weren't so clear. My underlying beliefs may not be different...but I doubt many of us are truly different in that regard...I think we probably all share some common ground.

Not true. I've been convinced a number of times, and changed my opinion on various topics since I've been here...or fleshed out ones that weren't so clear. My underlying beliefs may not be different...but I doubt many of us are truly different in that regard...I think we probably all share some common ground.

Echoed.

Not true. I've been convinced a number of times, and changed my opinion on various topics since I've been here...or fleshed out ones that weren't so clear. My underlying beliefs may not be different...but I doubt many of us are truly different in that regard...I think we probably all share some common ground.

Indeed. And after all, the goal is not simply to out-debate another person and sway them to your belief, but for all of us to grow as people and gain understanding of other viewpoints. In that sense our views will change as we view other ideals with a more human understanding.

I for one, have been educated a great deal on differing viewpoints and social ideals. I have gained valuable perspective into how other people think about issues. Before this happened it was so much easier to paint the issue as "us vs them" and dehumanize the "other side".

Well, homosexuality is a question of rights vs morality in the minds of many people. To those who believe strongly in religion often the idea is that morality is more important than any right, and to those who believe strongly in rights often think that rights supercede morality. I still do not get the whole anger with the arguments thing that started the thread but I am personally opposed to gay marriage and politically I care little about the issue.

Many of us believe that extending equal rights to all is the moral thing to do. In other words, we have our cake and eat it too; rights AND morality in the same dish.

Many of us believe that extending equal rights to all is the moral thing to do. In other words, we have our cake and eat it too; rights AND morality in the same dish.

Well, that is because you support gay rights, but your opponents argue that it is immoral(your morality is different than that of the opponents). I myself think that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, it most certainly interferes with normal sexuality and reproduction. It may not be classified as a psychological disorder but most other sexual oddities are not seen in the same light as homosexuality. I mean, bestiality, and the like are seen as odd and wrong.

In quite some dabates and discussions (forum and RL) I have noticed that sometimes when people run out of arguments just say: "Well, that is my position, (that is how how I was brought up), I believe it is / should be like that and you wont change my opinion and you will have to respect that as an opinion."
That usually is the point were I get upset and think something like "scr** him/her, I am right and she/he is stupid" and I guess that is how many others feel in such a situation. But if I think about it more closely I have to admit that there are things I just believe in and I cannot argue for, but which nevertheless are very important to me, if not most. Who for example can argue why there should be something like human rights? Well, maybe one could use fairness (everyone is treated equal) as an argument, but then you have to give reasons why there should be something like fairness... you can do this with almost anything and you will either go in circles or come to a point where you can't find reason anymore.
So and here comes my question:
Why should it be more legitimate to assume that there should be human right than to assume that e.g. homosexality is inherently evil? Of course there are more people who assume that there should be human rights than who consider homosexuality evil. But is the majority always right? For example if it said that one plus one is three?

I have to commend you for coming to the awareness that you cannot dictate your opinion to others any more than they can dictate it to you. It takes a big person to acknowledge this reality. Each of us can argue pros and cons to most any position and offer supporting evidence or at least our interpretation of the evidence, but ultimately, you and only you are responsible for the things you chose to believe in and I am responsible for my beliefs. We do have a responsibility to use our thoughts and beliefs as benevolently as possible IMO, but again, that is my opinion and based very deeply in my religious beliefs, which many would argue with.

In quite some dabates and discussions (forum and RL) I have noticed that sometimes when people run out of arguments just say: "Well, that is my position, (that is how how I was brought up), I believe it is / should be like that and you wont change my opinion and you will have to respect that as an opinion."
That usually is the point were I get upset and think something like "scr** him/her, I am right and she/he is stupid" and I guess that is how many others feel in such a situation. But if I think about it more closely I have to admit that there are things I just believe in and I cannot argue for, but which nevertheless are very important to me, if not most. Who for example can argue why there should be something like human rights? Well, maybe one could use fairness (everyone is treated equal) as an argument, but then you have to give reasons why there should be something like fairness... you can do this with almost anything and you will either go in circles or come to a point where you can't find reason anymore.
So and here comes my question:
Why should it be more legitimate to assume that there should be human right than to assume that e.g. homosexality is inherently evil? Of course there are more people who assume that there should be human rights than who consider homosexuality evil. But is the majority always right? For example if it said that one plus one is three?

I think you are confusing two different issues.

On the one hand, you are talking about a common debate tactic, but not one that is very viable or useful. Generally speaking, whenever someone starts out the debate, they take a stance, and then they say that said stance is true; basically that said view of the world conforms to the way the world actually is. When presented with information that contradicts this view, or more simply says that such a stance does not agree with how the world is, people retreat to a position of saying "This is how I percieve the world, so nyah!" As I have no 1st-person perspective on how they percieve the world, I am not in a position to say that they are wrong. However, the problem with this tactic is that I could really care less how people perceive the world; I want to know how the world is. That being the case, I could really give a rat-crap about your perceptions, and to be honest, if all you are saying is "This is what I believe" and not really making any objective claims about the world, then you aren't really saying anything and shouldn't clutter the discussion.

On the other, you are asking a question of epistemic justification. I would say that there are several reasons why, for instance, you might view human rights as true in the objective sense. One is that they exist in the external world, based on rational arguments for how the world is. Another is the pragmatic justification that it has been useful for us in the past to assume that human rights exist. There are others, but you get the general idea. By contrast, it has never proven particularly useful to assume that homosexuality is inherently evil, and is increasingly unuseful now. There is also some solid evidence that homosexuality is not inherently evil because of what we know about evil and how it interacts with the external world (the whole of Psalms, as well as argumentation by most philosophers, is that evil is self-destructive. Homosexuals don't seem to be naturally self-destructive. Ergo, homosexuals aren't naturally evil).

The thing is, you say human rights as though it most certainly is inalienable, and that since its hard to argue it, other hard to argue things might still be true.

This is false. Human rights are not rights, they are something society agrees on we should have. The difference between that and gay rights, for example, is that gay rights has an argument on the other side. There are no signifigant arguments against human rights, none with real evidence. Human rights is something regarding a majority, so the majority should argue it. Gay rights has to do with a minority, so majority rule shouldnt nessecairaly apply to it.

The thing is, you say human rights as though it most certainly is inalienable, and that since its hard to argue it, other hard to argue things might still be true.

This is false. Human rights are not rights, they are something society agrees on we should have. The difference between that and gay rights, for example, is that gay rights has an argument on the other side. There are no signifigant arguments against human rights, none with real evidence. Human rights is something regarding a majority, so the majority should argue it. Gay rights has to do with a minority, so majority rule shouldnt nessecairaly apply to it.

I do not get your point. Gay rights are considered to fit under the category of human rights that are decided by majority in democratic systems. Why does majority rule not apply? The majority decides rights for every other group.

I do not get your point. Gay rights are considered to fit under the category of human rights that are decided by majority in democratic systems. Why does majority rule not apply? The majority decides rights for every other group.

The US Constitution created a republic in an effort to prevent majority rule denying rights to minorities. We don't live in a democracy.

I do not get your point. Gay rights are considered to fit under the category of human rights that are decided by majority in democratic systems. Why does majority rule not apply? The majority decides rights for every other group.

When was the last time there was a referendum on freeing the blacks(nation wide)? There wasn't. Minority rights are not a thing for the majority to control, because it doesnt involve the majority. But thats not what this thread is about.

Well, the U.S. government was designed to keep both the majority and minority in check not to favor either side in any way. As well the freedom of the slaves came from political powers, it has little to do with minority or majority only power and ultimately represents that I should have said republic instead of democracy. The black people did not decide their own freedom, it was men like Lincoln that gave it to them because the south was no longer part of the union and because Lincoln disagreed with slavery. As well, the thread no longer has any argument to keep it on track. I will of course respond to the topic if re-argued but will also respond to arguments that oppose mine.

Well, the U.S. government was designed to keep both the majority and minority in check not to favor either side in any way. As well the freedom of the slaves came from political powers, it has little to do with minority or majority only power and ultimately represents that I should have said republic instead of democracy. The black people did not decide their own freedom, it was men like Lincoln that gave it to them because the south was no longer part of the union and because Lincoln disagreed with slavery.

For the most part, lincoln did not disagree with slavery.

For the most part, lincoln did not disagree with slavery.

Everything I have heard said he did. I think that position on slavery was the reason the south seceded(they believed that his anti-slavery position would threaten their rights to own slaves as well as remove power from the states).
I have not been in a U.S. history class in a while but the government was not made of black people at the time and they did not have to free the slaves if they chose not to(governments are rarely forced to do anything, especially if only a minority demands it).

In quite some dabates and discussions (forum and RL) I have noticed that sometimes when people run out of arguments just say: "Well, that is my position, (that is how how I was brought up), I believe it is / should be like that and you wont change my opinion and you will have to respect that as an opinion."
Generally when someone says this I read it as conceding defeat; you'll notice it's generally only said when all other options/arguments are exhausted. U;timately, however, you do have to respect the individual's right to come to certain conclusions about things, regardless as to whether they're right or wrong. In short, you have every bit as much of a right to be dead wrong about something as I hae to be spot on about everything.

That usually is the point were I get upset and think something like "scr** him/her, I am right and she/he is stupid" and I guess that is how many others feel in such a situation. But if I think about it more closely I have to admit that there are things I just believe in and I cannot argue for, but which nevertheless are very important to me, if not most.
You're certainly not the only one; in the latter case however this is something you should probably work on, as we should all have definate ideas about how we feel and why.

Who for example can argue why there should be something like human rights? Well, maybe one could use fairness (everyone is treated equal) as an argument, but then you have to give reasons why there should be something like fairness... you can do this with almost anything and you will either go in circles or come to a point where you can't find reason anymore.
It's not so much an issue of fairness as it is an issue of consistency. Morality is nothing without principle, and we've all got to learn to consistently apply it. The basic rights that we have exist because without them, humanity would degenerate into anarchy and wanton destruction.

So and here comes my question:
Why should it be more legitimate to assume that there should be human right than to assume that e.g. homosexality is inherently evil? Of course there are more people who assume that there should be human rights than who consider homosexuality evil. But is the majority always right? For example if it said that one plus one is three?
I'm not sure I understand the first two thirds of this question, but I can definately say that the majority is not always right. The assertation that it is, essentially, is tantamount to endorsing the idea that a large enough group of people can change reality. The idea that a ruling consciousness--be it God or society--controls reality is laughable at best, and depressing at worst.

Everything I have heard said he did. I think that position on slavery was the reason the south seceded(they believed that his anti-slavery position would threaten their rights to own slaves as well as remove power from the states).
I have not been in a U.S. history class in a while but the government was not made of black people at the time and they did not have to free the slaves if they chose not to(governments are rarely forced to do anything, especially if only a minority demands it).

The south ceeded because of states rights.

Anyways, this has nothing to do with anything. Simply, the majority should not have the right to oppress the minority, as their position has little real arguments to them.

The south ceeded because of states rights.

Anyways, this has nothing to do with anything. Simply, the majority should not have the right to oppress the minority, as their position has little real arguments to them.

I did actually mention states rights in my little thing you quoted. But anyway, a right is something that is very hard to tell the importance of. I mean we can all agree that racism is bad, but the support of a minority that lacks the respect of the majority on the grounds of morality is something that has not really happened. The argument is that by sponsoring the immoral group, immorality of that form is promoted and the promotion corrupts others within the society. I mean, we are discriminating against gays because of skin or hair or any physical trait but instead because we believe that their beliefs will cause harm to society and morality.

I did actually mention states rights in my little thing you quoted. But anyway, a right is something that is very hard to tell the importance of. I mean we can all agree that racism is bad, but the support of a minority that lacks the respect of the majority on the grounds of morality is something that has not really happened. The argument is that by sponsoring the immoral group, immorality of that form is promoted and the promotion corrupts others within the society. I mean, we are discriminating against gays because of skin or hair or any physical trait but instead because we believe that their beliefs will cause harm to society and morality.

Oh, no. Beliefs? Being gay is a belief? Science tends to disagree with you. Sexuality is decided as much by a person as skin color is.

Oh, no. Beliefs? Being gay is a belief? Science tends to disagree with you. Sexuality is decided as much by a person as skin color is.

That is interesting because homosexuals have some things that keep them from breeding(lack of interest in the opposite sex). As well many psychological disorders are genetic such as schizophrenia and probably psychopathy because psychotic adults torture animals as small children. I think that sexual characteristics and the tendency to act on whatever is part of your belief system. Besides homosexuality is just as right as pedophilia, bestiality and most other forms of sexual deviancy.

There are no signifigant arguments against human rights, none with real evidence.
That's patently false; here's 5:
1. The postmodern/Giorgio Agamben's - When we construct this idea of human rights, we grant the state the ability to grant rights to individuals. The upside of this, however, is that this also gives the state the ability to take away those rights, as the state has become the arbiter and ultimate adjudicator of rights claims. This is the only logic that can justify genocide because the state can only slaughter a populace when it has the ability to take away the rights of that populace.

2. The Marxist - human rights are a way of distracting the proletariat from the struggle against capital. It sets up the struggle as a theoretical political one rather than a material one, and makes it seem like petty dictatorships rather than capitalism is the enemy.

3. Eurocentrism - human rights are a Western concept that doesn't take into account different cultural perspectives on what a fundamental right may be.

4. Power politics - respecting human rights impedes a nation's ability to act in their best interest. If nations can't act in their best interest in the most logical manner, they'll be forced to lash out irrationally to make other nations respect them by fear, starting violent wars that may involve the use of WMD.

5. Objectivist - You can't take my property and use it to help some random people! It's my money!

That is interesting because homosexuals have some things that keep them from breeding(lack of interest in the opposite sex). As well many psychological disorders are genetic such as schizophrenia and probably psychopathy because psychotic adults torture animals as small children. I think that sexual characteristics and the tendency to act on whatever is part of your belief system. Besides homosexuality is just as right as pedophilia, bestiality and most other forms of sexual deviancy.

First of all, even if you consider it to be a mental defect, it is illegal to discriminate against someone due to mental defect.

Second of all, it is established scientifically that sexuality is not a choice.

Third of all, pedophilia and bestiality has a victim that cannot consent to sex and thus must be regulated by government. You cannot establish a victim in homosexuality.

First of all, even if you consider it to be a mental defect, it is illegal to discriminate against someone due to mental defect.

Second of all, it is established scientifically that sexuality is not a choice.

Third of all, pedophilia and bestiality has a victim that cannot consent to sex and thus must be regulated by government. You cannot establish a victim in homosexuality.

How am I discriminating? I am only saying that people should not marry or have sex with others of their gender. The rule is the same as it is for straight people. The fact that I refuse to acknowledge their belief is the same as refusing to acknowledge that Mr. Glibbs the dancing goblin is not telling schizos what to do. Mr. Glibbs could exist and would be hard to disprove the existence of but the fact is he doesn't. As well sexuality is a choice, gays can choose to have sex with whatever they want, and have had sex with the opposite gender and can abstain from sex. Those are choices. Gays have the ability to do about as much with their sexuality as a straight person(I mean people even have sex with their hands and mechanical equipment).
As well the victim is not important in establishing this idea, I could claim that the victim is the homosexual for being promiscuous and hedonistic. The idea is that it is deviant just like those other behaviors. A better example would probably be feederism where one person fattens the other until immobility in many cases. It is harmful but consensual.

That's patently false; here's 5:
1. The postmodern/Giorgio Agamben's - When we construct this idea of human rights, we grant the state the ability to grant rights to individuals. The upside of this, however, is that this also gives the state the ability to take away those rights, as the state has become the arbiter and ultimate adjudicator of rights claims. This is the only logic that can justify genocide because the state can only slaughter a populace when it has the ability to take away the rights of that populace.

2. The Marxist - human rights are a way of distracting the proletariat from the struggle against capital. It sets up the struggle as a theoretical political one rather than a material one, and makes it seem like petty dictatorships rather than capitalism is the enemy.

3. Eurocentrism - human rights are a Western concept that doesn't take into account different cultural perspectives on what a fundamental right may be.

4. Power politics - respecting human rights impedes a nation's ability to act in their best interest. If nations can't act in their best interest in the most logical manner, they'll be forced to lash out irrationally to make other nations respect them by fear, starting violent wars that may involve the use of WMD.

5. Objectivist - You can't take my property and use it to help some random people! It's my money!

1. Thats talking about a state granting human rights, not human rights in general.

2. I read the communist manifesto, and didnt see anything as such. Can you quote someone on the subject, someone signifigant?

3. Who said anything about fundamentals? This whole argument seems to not make sense.

4. Thats self-contradictory, and also doesnt make sense.

5. Thats welfare, not human rights. I assume we are using human rights as things such as the right to speach, religion, life, etc. While you could argue life and welfare, life means not being murdered, etc.

First, all I needed to do was disprove your original statement that there were no arguments against human rights. That's false. There are a lot of them. I don't agree with them, but they're there.

1. Thats talking about a state granting human rights, not human rights in general.
If the state doesn't act on them, then they're meaningless. "Human rights are universal, but we won't intervene in that genocide over there." You see why that doesn't make sense?

2. I read the communist manifesto, and didnt see anything as such. Can you quote someone on the subject, someone signifigant?
Slavoj Zizek, for one. There are a few others; I don't have my cite book with me. The conception of human rights wasn't around when Marx was writing; it's an adaptation.


3. Who said anything about fundamentals? This whole argument seems to not make sense.
Sure it does. The modern conception of human rights stems from the Enlightenment; a Western event. Human rights are based on Western conceptions of humanity and don't take into account other cultures' viewpoints on the issues at hand.


4. Thats self-contradictory, and also doesnt make sense.
Give reasons why that's true. If I'm a governing official, and I think it'll help me win a war if I torture a prisoner or kill civilians, human rights become annoyances to be swatted (to a certain viewpoint). The exigencies of war override such qualms.

5. Thats welfare, not human rights. I assume we are using human rights as things such as the right to speach, religion, life, etc. While you could argue life and welfare, life means not being murdered, etc.
I mean things like intervention in genocide and third-world disease prevention; they cost the taxpayer money and provide no services to the tax payer in return.

How am I discriminating? I am only saying that people should not marry or have sex with others of their gender. The rule is the same as it is for straight people. The fact that I refuse to acknowledge their belief is the same as refusing to acknowledge that Mr. Glibbs the dancing goblin is not telling schizos what to do. Mr. Glibbs could exist and would be hard to disprove the existence of but the fact is he doesn't. As well sexuality is a choice, gays can choose to have sex with whatever they want, and have had sex with the opposite gender and can abstain from sex. Those are choices. Gays have the ability to do about as much with their sexuality as a straight person(I mean people even have sex with their hands and mechanical equipment).
As well the victim is not important in establishing this idea, I could claim that the victim is the homosexual for being promiscuous and hedonistic. The idea is that it is deviant just like those other behaviors. A better example would probably be feederism where one person fattens the other until immobility in many cases. It is harmful but consensual.

Beyond your scary and repulsive stereotyping of homosexuals, your argument is almost precisely that which was made against interracial marriage.

Marriage is a fundamental right. You cannot deny it on the invidious criteria of gender anymore than you can on the basis of race.

I and every other adult should be able to marry another adult regardless of their gender or race.

Beyond your scary and repulsive stereotyping of homosexuals, your argument is almost precisely that which was made against interracial marriage.

Marriage is a fundamental right. You cannot deny it on the invidious criteria of gender anymore than you can on the basis of race.

I and every other adult should be able to marry another adult regardless of their gender or race.




I never knew marriage was a right :confused:


Edit: Is there anyway to permanently retain my title? I wanna be a Cybersheep Farmer forever :D

How am I discriminating? I am only saying that people should not marry or have sex with others of their gender. The rule is the same as it is for straight people. The fact that I refuse to acknowledge their belief is the same as refusing to acknowledge that Mr. Glibbs the dancing goblin is not telling schizos what to do. Mr. Glibbs could exist and would be hard to disprove the existence of but the fact is he doesn't. As well sexuality is a choice, gays can choose to have sex with whatever they want, and have had sex with the opposite gender and can abstain from sex. Those are choices. Gays have the ability to do about as much with their sexuality as a straight person(I mean people even have sex with their hands and mechanical equipment).
As well the victim is not important in establishing this idea, I could claim that the victim is the homosexual for being promiscuous and hedonistic. The idea is that it is deviant just like those other behaviors. A better example would probably be feederism where one person fattens the other until immobility in many cases. It is harmful but consensual.
Boy, it sure is good you don't let little things like science, reason or evidence get in the way of blind bigotry. /sarcasm

I never knew marriage was a right :confused:


Edit: Is there anyway to permanently retain my title? I wanna be a Cybersheep Farmer forever :D
Well, since it confers benefits provided by and protected by the federal government, then marriage can certainly be considered a right under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. And honestly, I think it's just a matter of time before even the US gets behind gay marriage (no pun intended). It just takes us a while--after all, slavery was outlawed in most of the civilized world before we got rid of it. Why not this? The rest of the world is taking the lead, adn we'll eventually follow, no matter how much the Dobsonites hope otherwise.

I never knew marriage was a right :confused:
Go read the decision in Loving v. Virginia. Although I assume Cat-Tribe has a preprepared diatribe (pun intended) on this subject.

I never knew marriage was a right :confused:


Edit: Is there anyway to permanently retain my title? I wanna be a Cybersheep Farmer forever :D

Loving v. Virginia. 388 US 1 (1967) ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)).

Also, see Article 16 of the UN Charter of Human Rights.


.

Loving v. Virginia. 388 US 1 (1967) ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)).

Also, see Article 16 of the UN Charter of Human Rights.


.That's not very much of a diatribe. :D

We're getting much more efficient at this particular proof. Maybe the seventeen thousand different threads are the reason. This thread is already three pages in, why hasn't a new one popped up yet. God forbid all the people who would deny rights on the basis of sex would all come to the one thread so we could just make the argument once.

5. Objectivist - You can't take my property and use it to help some random people! It's my money!

Oh no, I can't let you get away with this. In this context you seem to be arguing the Objectivist notion of rational self interest as somehow inpinging on basic human rights, when as a point of fact the Objectivist viewpoint on ethics is to date the only philosophy I've observed that upholds these rights constantly and without attempting to justify their perversion or misapplication. If you have a right to life, we contend, you therefore have the right to enjoy its benefits. It's wildly more complex than you're making it out to be, and it is not an endictment of basic human rights. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Oh no, I can't let you get away with this. In this context you seem to be arguing the Objectivist notion of rational self interest as somehow inpinging on basic human rights, when as a point of fact the Objectivist viewpoint on ethics is to date the only philosophy I've observed that upholds these rights constantly and without attempting to justify their perversion or misapplication. If you have a right to life, we contend, you therefore have the right to enjoy its benefits. It's wildly more complex than you're making it out to be, and it is not an endictment of basic human rights. Quite the opposite, in fact.
It is, however, an indictment of the state's role in upholding and guaranteeing human rights. I'd ask - if it's not ok for the state to spend money on welfare, why is it OK for the state to intervene in a foreign conflict for humanitarian reasons? It's functionally the same thing, as it's spending your money on something that has no bearing to your self interest. Human rights are meaningless unless there's an enforcement mechanism. Unless welfare's OK after all, upholding the conception of universal human rights isn't either.

It is, however, an indictment of the state's role in upholding and guaranteeing human rights. I'd ask - if it's not ok for the state to spend money on welfare, why is it OK for the state to intervene in a foreign conflict for humanitarian reasons? It's functionally the same thing, as it's spending your money on something that has no bearing to your self interest. Human rights are meaningless unless there's an enforcement mechanism. Unless welfare's OK after all, upholding the conception of universal human rights isn't either.

An objectivist believes that state to which he belongs need only concern itself with the welfare of that state. There would be no intervention for humanitarian reasons. This isn't the goal of the objectivist. That's not a denial of human rights however. Just because I believe in human rights and would like for you to have them does not mean it is my job to make sure that your rights are respected throughout the world. Now the state to which you belong, the objectivist state would respect those rights. That's really the point. With basic human rights all would have access to wealth and power. Now as far as welfare, the objectivist believes it is nobler to let people fend for themselves. That's not a denial of human rights. While you have a right to life, no one is required to ensure that your life is lived comfortably or in the same style or economic level as my life. Many believe self-reliance to be a basic human right as well.

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
— Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group many initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.
— Ayn Rand, "What is Capitalism" Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, p. 19.

An objectivist believes that state to which he belongs need only concern itself with the welfare of that state. There would be no intervention for humanitarian reasons. This isn't the goal of the objectivist. That's not a denial of human rights however. Just because I believe in human rights and would like for you to have them does not mean it is my job to make sure that your rights are respected throughout the world.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. "Human rights are good and all, but when someone doesn't respect them, we aren't going to do anything." What do those rights mean, then? I'll give you a hint: absolutely nothing. One of the best criticisms of the humanitarian justification for the War in Iraq is that there are other countries who abuse human rights just as much, if not worse, than Saddam did. How can it be said that the war was in defense of a universal code of human rights if those rights aren't really universal? Or if those same rights - the right to food, for example - aren't being allowed in one's own country because of underfunded welfare programs or the refusal of government to interfere with racism in the private sector's hiring practices.

Now the state to which you belong, the objectivist state would respect those rights. That's really the point. With basic human rights all would have access to wealth and power. Now as far as welfare, the objectivist believes it is nobler to let people fend for themselves. That's not a denial of human rights. While you have a right to life, no one is required to ensure that your life is lived comfortably or in the same style or economic level as my life. Many believe self-reliance to be a basic human right as well.
I tend to think it's hypocritical when a nation declares that they respect human rights and do nothing when they're violated throughout the world. That's at the least a false respect; at worst, a apologism for inaction in the face of horrific abuses.

That's hypocrisy at it's finest. "Human rights are good and all, but when someone doesn't respect them, we aren't going to do anything." What do those rights mean, then? I'll give you a hint: absolutely nothing. One of the best criticisms of the humanitarian justification for the War in Iraq is that there are other countries who abuse human rights just as much, if not worse, than Saddam did. How can it be said that the war was in defense of a universal code of human rights if those rights aren't really universal? Or if those same rights - the right to food, for example - aren't being allowed in one's own country because of underfunded welfare programs or the refusal of government to interfere with racism in the private sector's hiring practices.

I tend to think it's hypocritical when a nation declares that they respect human rights and do nothing when they're violated throughout the world. That's at the least a false respect; at worst, a apologism for inaction in the face of horrific abuses.

So unless the state is willing to attack other sovereign states, then they are against human rights. Good to know. /sarcasm Forgive me, if I kiss the ground and thank the Lord that you don't set foreign policy in my country.

You have the right to work which is given in an objectivist society and to be rewarded for that work which is also given in an objectivist society. An objectivist government protects against force and views racism as a type of force. An objectivist government would protect against racism.

YYour point does not hold. You are intentionally biasing the argument and pretending like it makes an argument that objectivism is against human rights. All you've shown is that you don't like objectivism. Moving on.

So unless the state is willing to attack other sovereign states, then they are against human rights. Good to know. /sarcasm Forgive me, if I kiss the ground and thank the Lord that you don't set foreign policy in my country.
A few questions: Were 800,000 dead Rwandans a good thing? How about 13 million dead in the Holocaust? How about the civil war in Sierra Leone? Or ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? I bet the answer is no. So think before you criticize.

There's also more to humanitarian intervention than military aspects. How about HIV/AIDS aid? Would that be allowed in an objectivist country? What about embargoes on the industry of nations that abuse human rights? There's much more to human rights than the narrow state-centric conception that most people have. It's not just about your country, believe it or not. And it's absolute hypocrisy to say "My country is a paragon of human rights" when it doesn't feel the need to defend them internationally. Actually, it's more than hypocrisy - it exposes the lie.

You have the right to work which is given in an objectivist society and to be rewarded for that work which is also given in an objectivist society. An objectivist government protects against force and views racism as a type of force. An objectivist government would protect against racism.
So you think affirmative action would be OK in an objectivist country? To me, that seems like too much interference in the workings of the free market. But I could be wrong.

YYour point does not hold. You are intentionally biasing the argument and pretending like it makes an argument that objectivism is against human rights. All you've shown is that you don't like objectivism. Moving on.
Basically, you assume that human rights as a conception are an inherently good thing. I'm saying that a criticism of the concept could have a justification from an objectivist standpoint. I'm not trying to criticize Objectivism, because I don't assume that universal codes of human rights are good things. Get rid of that assumption, and you'll see this is an objective (pun intended) presentation of a potential qualm with human rights theory. I end up concluding that human right as a conception are probably good, but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about in this post.

A few questions: Were 800,000 dead Rwandans a good thing? How about 13 million dead in the Holocaust? How about the civil war in Sierra Leone? Or ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? I bet the answer is no. So think before you criticize.
Hey again Deleuze. Sorry, but I have to put this to bed.

First of all, we did not cause these problems. That means, in effect, that we are not--or rather, we should not be responsible for solving them. World War 2 was a different beast, since it had an incredible potential to mess with our trade contacts and political affiliations, particularly with Britain. Of course it's not a 'good thing' but engaging in imperialistic practices in the name of the greater good is still engaging in imperialistic practices. This country loves to stick it's nose where it doesn't belong: we don't realize or don't want to realize that shit like this happens ever day, it happens whether or not we do anything about it, it happens regardless of whether or not we have battallions of men in the country, it happens no matter who is in power and it happens completely independent of our attempts to stop it. A lot of this violence, in fact, could probably be stopped if we'd not make a point of going around trying to piss off everyone else in the world that has brown skin.

There's also more to humanitarian intervention than military aspects. How about HIV/AIDS aid? Would that be allowed in an objectivist country?
Not for other countries. Do you see any South Africans over here paying taxes? I don't. There's a certain amount of legitimacy to the idea from the standpoint of slowing the spread of the disease, but the fact of the matter is our education efforts over there are doing about this much: 0.

I don't want to come off racist here, but I haven't been too thrilled with the decision making skills I've seen from some of these African leaders. I won't make the same generalization about the people since I haven't met them, but I fear many have the same problems.

What about embargoes on the industry of nations that abuse human rights?
Embargoes are only as good as the nations that agree to them; when the US puts an embargo on someone, we're essentially taking a piss. It's the same kind of prick-waving that got us into this terrorism pickle in the first place.

There's much more to human rights than the narrow state-centric conception that most people have. It's not just about your country, believe it or not. And it's absolute hypocrisy to say "My country is a paragon of human rights" when it doesn't feel the need to defend them internationally. Actually, it's more than hypocrisy - it exposes the lie.
It's not hypocrisy, it's honesty. I have to date seen no evidence or heard any argument that successfully demonstrates--using objective fact--that we have a responsibility to people who live thousands of miles away. You sound like you're advocating world government here, which unsettles me immensely.

But let's delve into this a bit more. Since I know you're not an Objectivist, I think it's pretty safe to assume that you do not beleive Morality is objective. If it's not objective, that makes it subjective, no? So essentially, what you're saying here is that a state gains virtue by imposing subjective moral judgements on another country, forcing them to comply with their [subjective, mind you] idea of human rights. It would be like if we invaded Russia because they wouldn't show the Simpsons on broadcast TV. "But it's so good!"

So you think affirmative action would be OK in an objectivist country? To me, that seems like too much interference in the workings of the free market. But I could be wrong.
Defending against racism != Affirmative action. Nonetheless, I beleive Jocabia is mistaken here; productive labor is an obgligation and a virtue, not necessarily a right. Like anything else, a job should be attained through a process of volitional, goal-oriented action.

Basically, you assume that human rights as a conception are an inherently good thing. I'm saying that a criticism of the concept could have a justification from an objectivist standpoint. I'm not trying to criticize Objectivism, because I don't assume that universal codes of human rights are good things.
Objectivism does not promote universal 'codes' or edicts for your behavior; virtue does not come from obeying iron clad absolutes like 'Thou shalt not have any Gods before me.' Objectivism merely contends that moral facts or moral quiestions can be observed and measured against objective standards for value, i.e. life.

Still, it puzzles me why you'd say that universal codes for behavior are bad, when a couple of paragraphs ago you were extolling upon the virtues of the state who goes to war to enforce said codes.

Hey again Deleuze. Sorry, but I have to put this to bed.
Oh, Melkor - we're just getting started.

First of all, we did not cause these problems. That means, in effect, that we are not--or rather, we should not be responsible for solving them.
Then that's not a commitment to human rights, or a consistent philosophy of upholding human rights. It's a rather self-centered view of the world: the only problems worth fixing are problems we caused. Human rights philosophy dictates that all people have equal value. In that case, it doesn't matter whether we caused the problem or not. We need to fix it.

I'll repeat the actual question - do you really think that our actions in Rwanda were the correct ones?

World War 2 was a different beast, since it had an incredible potential to mess with our trade contacts and political affiliations, particularly with Britain.
Cast those arguments aside. Pretend they didn't exist. Did we have a moral imperative to stop the Holocaust?

Of course it's not a 'good thing' but engaging in imperialistic practices in the name of the greater good is still engaging in imperialistic practices. This country loves to stick it's nose where it doesn't belong: we don't realize or don't want to realize that shit like this happens ever day, it happens whether or not we do anything about it, it happens regardless of whether or not we have battallions of men in the country, it happens no matter who is in power and it happens completely independent of our attempts to stop it.
I disagree. Genocide is preventable. There's no way what's going on in Darfur would happen if the US put its foot down, said "Hell no. One step further, and we're going to bomb the shit out of you." The UN empirically hasn't been able to fix these problems - there are too many problems with the portions of the UN charter about peacekeeping to count, and they all prevent effective action against genocide and ethnic cleansing. In Kosovo, for example, we managed to stop a massive campaign of violence against the Kosovars without using ground troops.

Further, it's not imperialistic to say that genocide is wrong. I'd say it's more imperialistic to think your culture is so much better than someone elses that you should exterminate them to keep them from polluting it.

A lot of this violence, in fact, could probably be stopped if we'd not make a point of going around trying to piss off everyone else in the world that has brown skin.
Well, yeah. But that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Your "this" refers to something different.

Not for other countries. Do you see any South Africans over here paying taxes? I don't. There's a certain amount of legitimacy to the idea from the standpoint of slowing the spread of the disease, but the fact of the matter is our education efforts over there are doing about this much: 0.
That's factually false. From 1998 (when education campaigns began) to 2001, HIV infection rates fell by over 6% of the population in South Africa, from about 21% to about 15%. And that's just education; let's not forget condoms and medicine.

However, my philosophical point stands. Basic human rights philosophy says that everyone has an equal value, regardless of taxpayer status. The part of your post I quoted illustrates my point nicely - Objectivism criticizes standard conceptions of human rights.

I don't want to come off racist here, but I haven't been too thrilled with the decision making skills I've seen from some of these African leaders. I won't make the same generalization about the people since I haven't met them, but I fear many have the same problems.
Do a little research on Botswana, and depending on your point of view, Uganda. African leaders are quite capable of using aid and their own resources effectively.

Embargoes are only as good as the nations that agree to them; when the US puts an embargo on someone, we're essentially taking a piss. It's the same kind of prick-waving that got us into this terrorism pickle in the first place.
That's a practical consideration, not a philosophical one. I was illustrating a greate point about ways to deal with human rights abusers. But depending on the amount a country relies on US companies, embargoes could mean a hell of a lot.

It's not hypocrisy, it's honesty. I have to date seen no evidence or heard any argument that successfully demonstrates--using objective fact--that we have a responsibility to people who live thousands of miles away. You sound like you're advocating world government here, which unsettles me immensely.
I'm advocating humanitarian intervention on the basis that no one deserves to be slaughtered by machetes because of their ethnic background. That seems pretty persuasive to me. We can go further into human rights theory, if you want.

I think world government is a good idea, but impractical. I wouldn't strive for it. And unilateral humanitarian intervention certainly doesn't necessitate a world government.

But let's delve into this a bit more. Since I know you're not an Objectivist, I think it's pretty safe to assume that you do not beleive Morality is objective. If it's not objective, that makes it subjective, no? So essentially, what you're saying here is that a state gains virtue by imposing subjective moral judgements on another country, forcing them to comply with their [subjective, mind you] idea of human rights. It would be like if we invaded Russia because they wouldn't show the Simpsons on broadcast TV. "But it's so good!"
It depends on what you mean by "subjective." Do I think that people have different ideas about morality? Of course! But that doesn't mean I think every action someone else might take is right just because they say it is. You know my stance on moral philosophy. From a rule utilitarian perspective, humanitarian intervention is a good thing in that it saves thousands and sometimes millions of lives. And a world which allows genocide would be an awful world to live in. I'm not imposing my moral system any more than the penal system does. I think we can both agree that's a good thing. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference where the criminals live. That's why we have international treaties and the Genocide Convention.

The Simpsons is not an issue of basic human rights. A war with Russia is worse than not showing the Simpsons.

Defending against racism != Affirmative action. Nonetheless, I beleive Jocabia is mistaken here; productive labor is an obgligation and a virtue, not necessarily a right. Like anything else, a job should be attained through a process of volitional, goal-oriented action.
OK, thanks on that one. I thought I got it.

Objectivism does not promote universal 'codes' or edicts for your behavior; virtue does not come from obeying iron clad absolutes like 'Thou shalt not have any Gods before me.' Objectivism merely contends that moral facts or moral quiestions can be observed and measured against objective standards for value, i.e. life.

Still, it puzzles me why you'd say that universal codes for behavior are bad, when a couple of paragraphs ago you were extolling upon the virtues of the state who goes to war to enforce said codes.
It's not that they're bad; it's that I never assumed they were good. I came to a rational conclusion that they were good after weighing the arguments on both sides, including the Objectivist ones. Jocabia thought I was criticizing Objectivism when what I was actually doing was attempting to represent its viewpoint. He/she assumed that saying that "X thinks human rights are bad" is the same as "X is bad." It's not.

Oh, Melkor - we're just getting started.
Heh. Here we go again, eh?

Then that's not a commitment to human rights, or a consistent philosophy of upholding human rights. It's a rather self-centered view of the world: the only problems worth fixing are problems we caused.
Depends on the nature of the problem. In some cases we did cause [or exacerbate] these problems and we're morally obligated to answer to them. It's not that they're not worth fixing, but it's wrong to decide for me which problems are worth fixing.

Human rights philosophy dictates that all people have equal value. In that case, it doesn't matter whether we caused the problem or not. We need to fix it.
All people do not have equal value, at least not intrinsically. Value on a scale like this is too hard to quantify; different folks have a wildly expansive range of talents and abilities. People do not have equal value, as you phrased it, simply because some men are simply more productive for others: they make a better life for themselves and the people around them by carrying out their goals and aspirations. Other men are--I hate to say it-- parasites: second-handers if you will, living solely off the merits and labors of others. You can see them in nearly every corner of society.

I'll repeat the actual question - do you really think that our actions in Rwanda were the correct ones?
I wasn't too interested in it when this happened, and I remain rather disinterested now. Suffice to say I can't really address this question from a knowledgeable vantage point. On the surface I'd probably argue for 'no,' but there may be elements to the equation to which I remain unaware.

Would I argue that the outcome was not beneficial to the Rwandans? No, not really. I wouldn't argue that the Iraqis or Afghanis are worse off either. I don't think anyone is here to make that argument; but when you start asking that question we're starting down that 'ends justifies the means' road again and we've already exposed our differences as to the root of that concept. People love to say two wrongs don't make a right, but apparently theft is justified to make a right out of tyranny or suffering.

Cast those arguments aside. Pretend they didn't exist. Did we have a moral imperative to stop the Holocaust?
You can't pretend they don't exist, that would be simply compartmentalizing the issue. You can't reasonably argue that it's a valid way to make your point by ignoring a portion of the antecedent knowledge. You can't just pretend that slaughtering millions of people won't have any other effect beyond their deaths. Nazi Germany was a direct threat to the safety of every sovereign nation in Europe, and as U-Boat patrols proved, to the US as well. You can't just put people in ovens and try to be all smooth about it.

I disagree. Genocide is preventable.
Well, yes, technically. But the manpower needed to make genocide an impossibility would be ridiculous. You'd basically need to keep tabs on every nutcase in the world with some money in the bank or a band of radicals, say. It would require an intelligence system nearly beyond reckoning, and the sum of all of this would probably mean we'd lose another 30 or so percent of our paychecks.

There's no way what's going on in Darfur would happen if the US put its foot down, said "Hell no. One step further, and we're going to bomb the shit out of you."
Yeah, I'll give you that. However, the thing we've got to remember is once you get in, the same mentality that sent you there in the first place dictates that you've got to stay for a generation and rebuild things to a certain standard: we're seeing it start in Iraq. This in turn creates problems for us that may not have existed before; things like terrorism, international animosity, and the like. We've been doing stuff like this since World War One pretty much, and from where I sit we're not really doing a wonderful job of making the world a better place. I see American interventions happen more and more, correlating with an increasing worldwide terror threat.

The UN empirically hasn't been able to fix these problems - there are too many problems with the portions of the UN charter about peacekeeping to count, and they all prevent effective action against genocide and ethnic cleansing. In Kosovo, for example, we managed to stop a massive campaign of violence against the Kosovars without using ground troops.
Agreed. The UN is corrupt and impotent. The one thing I liked about the Iraq war was us essentially telling the UN to go fuck themselves. The UN tends to prefer discussing a problem over solving it: they are not necessarily men of action but men with too much hot air. If we leave it up to the UN, nothing will ever get done. Ever.

Further, it's not imperialistic to say that genocide is wrong. I'd say it's more imperialistic to think your culture is so much better than someone elses that you should exterminate them to keep them from polluting it.
Agreed. Stopping genocide is all well and good, but now we're getting into this massive rebuilding process every time and it's just killing us. A policy of trying to stop every bad thing that happens everywhere else only makes us busy, irritated, and predictable. I totally agree with you that genocide is wrong and something should be done about it when it happens, but it would be nice if we could find a way that didn't make one fourth of my time at work state slavery.

Well, yeah. But that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Your "this" refers to something different.
Yeah, I just went off on a mini-tangent there. I do that sometimes.

That's factually false. From 1998 (when education campaigns began) to 2001, HIV infection rates fell by over 6% of the population in South Africa, from about 21% to about 15%. And that's just education; let's not forget condoms and medicine.
A good start I guess, but there's still a long way to go. Something inside me still insists that this is one of those problems that we can't possibly solve: think of it sort of like a money pit with bodies like the Drug War [damn, we're good at this] and that's pretty much what it is in the end: another way for us to waste our jingly on problems that will be nigh on impossible to stop. Solving issues like these can be difficult to solve if you take into account the rights of the folks that don't have any of these problems.

However, my philosophical point stands. Basic human rights philosophy says that everyone has an equal value, regardless of taxpayer status. The part of your post I quoted illustrates my point nicely - Objectivism criticizes standard conceptions of human rights.
Objectivism criticizes a great many philosophical conventions: it's the only philosophy I think I've ever seen that explicitly denounces so many others in fact. And, if your basic concept of 'everyone [having] an equal value' properly describes your view of human rights, then your damn right we challenge it. More specifically, we challenge the idea that we have these rights intrinsically. We see it sort of the idea of the Original Sin only the other way around. Granted, as a basic concept I'd probably prefer the idea to it's Christian antithesis, but the truth [as I see it] lies somewhere in the middle.


Do a little research on Botswana, and depending on your point of view, Uganda. African leaders are quite capable of using aid and their own resources effectively.
I'm sure a few know the ropes. Like any other group of people, there are in all probability competent people out there too.

That's a practical consideration, not a philosophical one. I was illustrating a greate point about ways to deal with human rights abusers. But depending on the amount a country relies on US companies, embargoes could mean a hell of a lot.
My point still stands too--if you're talking about embargoes you have to take into account their effects: to fail to do so is to commit the same error I mentioned earlier about compartmentalizing the effects of the Holocaust deaths. The US flings around embargoes and other sanctions like no other country I've ever seen. Embargoes are kind of like communism: they might seem workable when you first use them but after a time it just gets ridiculous.

I'm advocating humanitarian intervention on the basis that no one deserves to be slaughtered by machetes because of their ethnic background. That seems pretty persuasive to me. We can go further into human rights theory, if you want.
No one deserves it, but do I deserve to be put to work for their freedom? Do I deserve any monetary or metaphysical debt caused by my ancestors? Sure it's persuasive, but that doesn't validate the concept in and of itself. It introduces emotion, not reason.

I think world government is a good idea, but impractical. I wouldn't strive for it. And unilateral humanitarian intervention certainly doesn't necessitate a world government.
I'd argue that a theory-practice dichotomy is a contradiction since if something doesn't work in practice there's got to be something wrong with the theory of it too. People often tell us that Communism [damn it, here I go again] is a good idea in theory but doesn't work in practice, for example.

It depends on what you mean by "subjective." Do I think that people have different ideas about morality? Of course! But that doesn't mean I think every action someone else might take is right just because they say it is. You know my stance on moral philosophy. From a rule utilitarian perspective, humanitarian intervention is a good thing in that it saves thousands and sometimes millions of lives.
My problem with this view is I see it as something of a cop out; because on one hand you're telling me here that moral objectivity is bad, then turning around and invoking an 'absolute' regarding human rights. It singles out one concept as an absolute and ignores all others. This view places these human rights on a higher level than life itself, because the only way to ensure these rights universally is to compromise the life or property of those who have an 'excess' of rights, like.... maybe... the rich. Or, more broadly, Americans in general since we're the ones working for most of this money that we're pissing away on arresting potheads and paying farmers not to grow crops in the name of the "greater good."

Humanitarianism, as I keep saying, cannot be compartmentalized, because it contradicts itself as soon as you start making it involuntary. I'll grant that maybe... maybe I'd actually be willing to help out with some of this if I had some more cash to play around with--I'm willing to go the other way with this too, but you can't tell me that it's right to have me paying for things I don't even get to assess for myself. Some of these things are real problems that really do need to be solved, but I'm not prepared to trust the politicians that muck around with a quarter of my life's work to decide just what those situations are and how much I should be paying for them. In order for any moral or physical absolute to be considered properly, it must first be properly denoted within the context of all the other facts [other absolutes] around it. The concept of 'Human Rights' cannot exist without the underlying concept of 'Freedom.' Do you want to tell me now that Human Rights can or should exist without Freedom?

And a world which allows genocide would be an awful world to live in. I'm not imposing my moral system any more than the penal system does. I think we can both agree that's a good thing. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference where the criminals live. That's why we have international treaties and the Genocide Convention.
Well, then you should probably invest in an orbital cruiser, since our wold allows genocide. Well, it doesn't exactly allow it, but it seems to happen every now and then anyway: this shit's been going on for eons now and the occasional flare-up is probably an inevitability. International treaties, as with any other document, can be of service to mankind if it's written correctly and corruption doesn't gain the upper hand. But, I must mention, to the people who do these things, treaties don't mean shit.

The Simpsons is not an issue of basic human rights. A war with Russia is worse than not showing the Simpsons.
Heretic!

Yes, it was something of a ridiculous hyperbole.

It's not that they're bad; it's that I never assumed they were good. I came to a rational conclusion that they were good after weighing the arguments on both sides, including the Objectivist ones. Jocabia thought I was criticizing Objectivism when what I was actually doing was attempting to represent its viewpoint. He/she assumed that saying that "X thinks human rights are bad" is the same as "X is bad." It's not.
Well, we think rights are a two way street; we all have them but we shouldn't necessarily have to lose them because someone else got screwed. Most people think its heartless I guess.