God given rights?

[woolfe9998]

Or, put another way, if the rights listed in that document were truly as universal as claimed, there would arguably be no real need for it. The fact that you and Craig are saying it is being used to change various nations underlines my point that societies are different and there's no universal agreement.

I think there's some semantic confusion here. The word "universal" in this context means that all people have or should have these rights, not that everyone agrees on it or follows it. It means these rights should be respected regardless of race, creed, color, age, gender, or national origin.

And, if it really is used to change the behavior of certain nations, then I see no reason to be so critical of the concept of it, unless in disagreeing with specific aspects of it. This is of course expected. The list generally reflects western secular humanistic morality but even westerners are likely to disagree with one of more items in a list that long.

Trying to formulate an international ethos of basic human rights is an endeavor fraught with great difficulty. I view this as a principled early start.

 

[Whiskey16]

woolfe9998, thank you for your expansion upon universal principles.

We'll miss Craig's positions being posted here.

 

[cwjerome]

I think there's some semantic confusion here. The word "universal" in this context means that all people have or should have these rights, not that everyone agrees on it or follows it. It means these rights should be respected regardless of race, creed, color, age, gender, or national origin.

Of course it doesn't mean everyone agrees or follows it, name me one thing in life where this happens as a matter of choice?

But the term "universal" goes back to the point earlier in the thread that calling rights universal means everyone has them inherently. Call them natural rights, universal rights, god-given rights, whatever... the basic idea is that people are born with them.

 

[sandorski]

Of course it doesn't mean everyone agrees or follows it, name me one thing in life where this happens as a matter of choice?

But the term "universal" goes back to the point earlier in the thread that calling rights universal means everyone has them inherently. Call them natural rights, universal rights, god-given rights, whatever... the basic idea is that people are born with them.

..or should have them.

 

[woolfe9998]

Of course it doesn't mean everyone agrees or follows it, name me one thing in life where this happens as a matter of choice?

But the term "universal" goes back to the point earlier in the thread that calling rights universal means everyone has them inherently. Call them natural rights, universal rights, god-given rights, whatever... the basic idea is that people are born with them.

I don't think that calling them "universal" necessarily means what you claim. But even if it does, it just means that whoever chose that word agrees with your view. It doesn't make it the correct view.

In any event, for purposes of the declaration of rights, it doesn't really matter how the drafter conceived it, as something emanating from nature or as an binding agreement by and among human societies and nations. It has the same function either way.

And why, by the way, does this particular declaration differ in material ways from others of its type? We seem to have a hard time putting our collective finger on just exactly what these rights are that we're all born with. The fact that it is quite obviously a matter of opinion tends to defeat the notion that we are born with innate rights.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think there's some semantic confusion here. The word "universal" in this context means that all people have or should have these rights, not that everyone agrees on it or follows it. It means these rights should be respected regardless of race, creed, color, age, gender, or national origin.

The issue IMO isn't so much with the word "universal" as with the word "should". That implies some sort of objective standard for human rights that I do not believe exists. The inability of nations to come up with agreement on what those rights should be really underlines the point.

I don't reject the UN's effort to declare what it considers to be human rights simply because so many countries don't follow (or even try to follow) that standard. I consider it folly because it presumes the notion of "global society" that does not exist.

As you said, it's mostly a western secularist set of principles, and westerners -- especially Americans -- have a bad habit of assuming that everyone else "should" want to adhere to the same standards. Or even worse, that everyone else would want to if only they had the option.

 

[Moonbeam]

Humanity is asleep living in a wrong world separated by self hate from its true nature. This damage can be reversed but it is very difficult. Knowledge of a different state of consciousness was verified and has been passed from the awakened to the awakening for thousands of years via a myriad of methodologies suited for their time and their place. Occasionally schools of knowledge will become public and offer light to this sleeping world including the fact that real morality depends on the awakening of the true self, the human potential we were all born with.

It is the pain of separation that all people experience, the question as to what is the Matrix, that drives people to suspect that something is wrong with this world of dreams. It is this unconscious longing that some folk cannot suppress, that drives human evolution and seeking, the certainty that somewhere somehow the kingdom of heaven exists. It is this unconscious longing, this buried awareness, the self evident sense, that we were once perfect, that leads to the certainty in many that there exists universal rights. As long as humanity exists in a state of sleep there will be this drive to awaken, to find the universal truth, the proper nature of what we really are.

The dog may bark but the caravan moves on.

The sleeper may not know what the universal truth is, the rose can have many names, but to smell the rose is to be certain of its essence. When the lover and the beloved are one, everything the soul aches for is made manifest. Rights wrongs, good and evil, all fly out the window and cease to exist. To awaken is to love undivided and that is all there is.

 

[Whiskey16]

The issue IMO isn't so much with the word "universal" as with the word "should".

A moving of goal posts, you had made 'universal' a primary semantic argument and have yet to concede to the great corrections of that misrepresentation.

A far as 'should' - that decision is not for you, as an individual to decide, but of the greater society, and one that already has been accepted and from a declared foundation, continues to evolve into a strong and legally binding implementation.

I consider it folly because it presumes the notion of "global society" that does not exist.

You keep repeating this fallacy. That has already been well defined in this thread through external citation and historical support. I feel that it would be wasted for me again to quote and repeat points already posted.

A presumption of the 'notion of "global society" that not does exist.' Your words -- your argumentative position. So basically refuted by applying your own quotes: A Google search of "global society" returns over 2,000,000 hits. This notion does exist. This thread has presented its ideas, history, and definition for that notion. You may not continue to argue, in good and honest faith as in the mission of your forum, its nonexistence.

As you have done elsewhere in this forum, you are again playing argumentatively semantic and misrepresentative games while choosing to neglect the presented content at hand.

The onus is upon you to finally and directly address the presented points with your counter support for their being no 'notion (an impossible task as you must present that none in this world perceive a 'global society') or that, in effect, there is no practice of a 'global society as already presented and defined in this thread [1] [2] [3] [4].

To support your position would be the impossibility to demonstrate a negate and to deny the very real evolving presence and definition of a 'global society.' As such, in this Discussion Club, I expect you to concede your point as being invalidated, that it is only that of your unsupportable belief, and to end its argumentative presentation as a 'fact' and 'truth'.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think there is an emergent "global society," in nascent stages. It's a very slow process fraught with setbacks, backlash, anger, xenophobia and all kind of other impediments. It may be another century or several more before it reaches anything close to fruition. But that doesn't mean it isn't a goal we shouldn't work toward.

While I'm not a utopian in that I don't foresee any time where people don't create divisions which result in violence and other bad behavior, I think trying to move closer to that state of affairs is a worthy goal. Having an international body issue a declaration of universal rights is a tiny first step.

 

[momeNt]

I think there is an emergent "global society," in nascent stages. It's a very slow process fraught with setbacks, backlash, anger, xenophobia and all kind of other impediments. It may be another century or several more before it reaches anything close to fruition. But that doesn't mean it isn't a goal we shouldn't work toward.

While I'm not a utopian in that I don't foresee any time where people don't create divisions which result in violence and other bad behavior, I think trying to move closer to that state of affairs is a worthy goal. Having an international body issue a declaration of universal rights is a tiny first step.

I haven't checked back in a while, but this raises my hackles like none other haha.

I know there is this push, look at the EU, USA seems to deal more with the EU than with any individual country of the union, and they always seek to have support for UN directives/suggestions (w/e they are called).

The further we are removed from ultimate authorities being granular and more macro, the more power we remove from a single individual person not part of the authoritative structure. I think we would have to sacrifice so much to get what resembles anything like a universal right, that we'd be completely without freedom.

 

[woolfe9998]

I haven't checked back in a while, but this raises my hackles like none other haha.

I know there is this push, look at the EU, USA seems to deal more with the EU than with any individual country of the union, and they always seek to have support for UN directives/suggestions (w/e they are called).

The further we are removed from ultimate authorities being granular and more macro, the more power we remove from a single individual person not part of the authoritative structure. I think we would have to sacrifice so much to get what resembles anything like a universal right, that we'd be completely without freedom.

For purposes of diffusing this, I'll point out that I was talking about breaking down divisions by way of a global society, not a world government. I think to some extent this is inevitable due to increased flow of information and cross-national interaction. The only thing I have said I supported by way of the UN is an aspirational statement of universal human rights.

We can debate whether "world government" or just giving the UN more power is appropriate at another time. The only thing I would say about world government at this time is that the change cannot come that way, from the top down. First, there would have to be a breaking down of divisions at the social and cultural level, at the initiative of individuals. I'm not sure if a world government would ever be appropriate, but it certainly wouldn't be without global social change occurring first, because no one would ever feel comfortable being represented by a government that doesn't reflect his values.

 

[Whiskey16]

The further we are removed from ultimate authorities being granular and more macro, the more power we remove from a single individual person not part of the authoritative structure. I think we would have to sacrifice so much to get what resembles anything like a universal right, that we'd be completely without freedom.

What of those specific rights do you take issue with?

I'll present a relation that your ideologically driven presentation may be on par with - - the declarations of the Union states so long ago and then more recently to that of desegregation or even the US Executive application of prisoner abuse. Ironically, US examples of an authoritarian drive for the selfish right of those in power to project tyranny upon the marginalised. Exactly to act in abuse and avoidance of already existing legislation. Now you find fear of universal rights as outlined in the original UN Declaration of Human Rights and the ratification of the evolving international laws and treaties for human rights that followed.

Please read up on the presented history and justified call for such rights for all. Cause is of long historical precidents of individuals (states, municipal, corporations, to single people) proclaiming ideologically driven sovereignty to abuse those without power and protection.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

A far as 'should' - that decision is not for you, as an individual to decide, but of the greater society, and one that already has been accepted and from a declared foundation, continues to evolve into a strong and legally binding implementation.

Well, this is the crux of the disagreement -- you think that the United Nations gets to tell me how I must behave, and I say the UN can kiss my proverbial ass. My view is more representative of Americans, I'd say, while yours is more representative of Europeans and Canadians. But that's part of the reason I moved from Canada to the United States.

"Strong and legally binding implementation"? Ha. If you want to claim that this document is some sort of idealistic goal, fine; but on a practical level, we continue to have a large percentage of the nations of the world ignore even the very basics of what we take for granted in the west. I don't think they really care very much about what the UN has to say about the matter.

And how exactly do you propose to make this "legally binding" on any country that chooses to ignore it? The UN is completely toothless; the very idea of suggesting that they could "bind" anything is immediately dismissible.

A Google search of "global society" returns over 2,000,000 hits.

A Google search of "sasquatch" returns over 65,000,000 hits. So much for that.

The "notion" exists, in that people talk about it, and some even think it exists. People think all sorts of things exist, whether they do or not. I don't agree with the idea of a "global society", except perhaps in the very broadest of strokes. There's consensus among most nations about a number of basics, but it doesn't go much further than that. Certainly not far enough to suggest any sort of unifying code of human rights.

You may not continue to argue, in good and honest faith as in the mission of your forum, its nonexistence.

Please just stick to the discussion and don't try to tell me what I can and cannot argue. I have as much right to argue against the existence of a global society as you have a right to try to claim that it does.

I think there is an emergent "global society," in nascent stages. It's a very slow process fraught with setbacks, backlash, anger, xenophobia and all kind of other impediments. It may be another century or several more before it reaches anything close to fruition. But that doesn't mean it isn't a goal we shouldn't work toward.

I'm not entirely averse to the notion, but I have serious concerns about both the practicalities and legalities. Americans have a strong desire for self-government and little interest in other countries telling us how to behave (even when they're sometimes correct.) People in other nations have similar reluctances.

So yes, perhaps in the nascent stages. But until we actually have some of the major nations walking the walk, I don't consider these as more than hypothetical exercises. Right now we can't even get agreement among the "civilized" countries about issues as fundamental as freedom of speech, so I'd say we have a very long way to go.

 

[woolfe9998]

So yes, perhaps in the nascent stages. But until we actually have some of the major nations walking the walk, I don't consider these as more than hypothetical exercises. Right now we can't even get agreement among the "civilized" countries about issues as fundamental as freedom of speech, so I'd say we have a very long way to go.

Yes, Americans strongly prefer to self-govern. But can you imagine if we had a world government that was based on secular humanistic values, how, say, the Arab world would react to that? It's obviously not an idea whose time has yet come.

I'll say again what I said in response to Moment, above. I'm talking about global society, either as a precursor to global government or not. The social and cultural boundaries, and with them the idea of nationalism, would have to break down first before there could be any realistic possibility of global government, even as a loose confederation. In the present day world, it isn't even remotely realistic, basically for the reasons you've given. Right now I can support the UN's mission (even if I disagree with the actual UN often), but not much more than that.

 

[sandorski]

Yes, Americans strongly prefer to self-govern. But can you imagine if we had a world government that was based on secular humanistic values, how, say, the Arab world would react to that? It's obviously not an idea whose time has yet come.

I'll say again what I said in response to Moment, above. I'm talking about global society, either as a precursor to global government or not. The social and cultural boundaries, and with them the idea of nationalism, would have to break down first before there could be any realistic possibility of global government, even as a loose confederation. In the present day world, it isn't even remotely realistic, basically for the reasons you've given. Right now I can support the UN's mission (even if I disagree with the actual UN often), but not much more than that.

I would add that the UN isn't really the best structure for such a thing. Meaning, that having each Nation appoint by their Federal Government isn't the best way. Give the citizens the vote for whom they want directly, for eg. The idea that some Nations have the Veto is definitely not going to work.

Any such Government should only deal with those issues that extend beyond borders. In regards to Human Rights, I'm not sure such a Government should be given the power to impose or attempt to impose such things. At least not at first. I think it should encourage such things and have them as guiding principles, but there are too many societies that are not ready to accept many of those Rights.

 

[cwjerome]

I don't think that calling them "universal" necessarily means what you claim. But even if it does, it just means that whoever chose that word agrees with your view. It doesn't make it the correct view.

In any event, for purposes of the declaration of rights, it doesn't really matter how the drafter conceived it, as something emanating from nature or as an binding agreement by and among human societies and nations. It has the same function either way.

And why, by the way, does this particular declaration differ in material ways from others of its type? We seem to have a hard time putting our collective finger on just exactly what these rights are that we're all born with. The fact that it is quite obviously a matter of opinion tends to defeat the notion that we are born with innate rights.

Are we born with love? Is it part of our essence, our particular state of humanness? Is it part of our natural being or is it learned? I would argue that we are born with it, but it may take certain social conditions to fully flourish... and I would equate this with natural rights.

I think whether something is inherent within us or is decided upon by groups means a great deal. Why do you think the ancients talked about the cosmos when discussing morality?

 

[Whiskey16]

Just a quick post, Charles.

Please just stick to the discussion and don't try to tell me what I can and cannot argue. I have as much right to argue against the existence of a global society as you have a right to try to claim that it does.

I am in this discussion, honestly recognising what is written, contributed, making the effort to present supporting citations, yet I am not fabricating non-positions of other members all to stymy discourse. Charles, you have failed in this simplest of discussional construct. By not directly quoting what you attempt to address, you returned rather creative arguments against what you incorrectly perceive. It has been demonstrated by multiple members that you have misrepresented and ignored key points to this discussion of rights among human society.

Yes, as per the mission of this sub-forum, I do have a position to denounce what already invalidated points you may not argue when you neglect recognition of existing presentations and ignore the presented evidence for and validated existence of a global society an universal rigthts. A failed argument on your part and without substance, you keep on disruptively repeating. Despite your charge, I do not have the power silence a position - you do, as you have forcefully imposed such a bullish measure against Craig.

"Strong and legally binding implementation"? Ha. If you want to claim that this document is some sort of idealistic goal, fine; but on a practical level, we continue to have a large percentage of the nations of the world ignore even the very basics of what we take for granted in the west.

Sticking to this argumentative fabrication, we see. Charles, again you ignore presented content and its context all to remain firm with now excessively argumentative misrepresentation that the intended universality of human rights is invalidated and false as not EVERY state has yet ratified the still evolving laws and treaties concerning those ideals.

You have been indignant and dismissive of specifics in existing posts, but here goes again:

In a thread entitled 'God given rights,' I countered that societies formulate morals and out of which may relegate a dogmatic doctrine -- not vice-versa. I then contributed into this discussion a globalised set of moral standards and rights that were drafted by members of our global society and intended as goals for all to eventually achieve -- not as having already universally achieved as you continue to argumentatively mischaracterise me to have said:

..

A global foundation as a starting place. Yet you have demonstrated to be so ideologically dismissive as to deny such published ideals -- particularly attached to the United Nations -- as having any worth. An interacting society brings pressure for change. Not immediate for all, to be sure. There will always be those who are so anti-social and individualistic as to go their own way. But over time, the reaction against he socially defining grain returns greater consequences, and thereby a greater pressure to adequately act and participate.

Over time, with the evolution of our global society and progressing representative politics within states, more, and more states will ratify treaties concerning human rights, most of which the USA already has.

As far as the global society, the UN, and your USA, you are sourly incorrect to deny US responsibility and recognition to its membership and ratification of international bodies and treaties:

Well, this is the crux of the disagreement -- you think that the United Nations gets to tell me how I must behave, and I say the UN can kiss my proverbial ass. My view is more representative of Americans..

An idealogical driven and revisionist fantasy. External bodies telling you how to behave? The USA freely chose to enter such laws into jurisdiction of its own! The USA was a contributing author and cheerleader for many of them!

Charles, you're so ideologically out to lunch as to twist this into some conspiracist fable of a dark foreign entity autocratically imposing its will upon your freedom loving souls....Black helicopters soon to swoop down too? You personally do what you wish, yet it appears your government has poorly represented you as an individual. As an individual who lacks supporting evidence for your cause, you may not jump around in this thread to deny existence of what is and how your own state is already bound to law it chose to accept and ratify. Your state was a primary author of the aforementioned founding universal principles for human rights.

Behave? US courts already tell you so as they domestically enforce international law ratified by your state. I will later list all of the ratified treaties upon human rights that USA is party to, plus contribute some examples of US domestic courts applying rulings based upon that very same accepted and practiced international law. Of that original declaration that I brought forward, the USA was a prime author, supporter, and patron to its greater acceptance and evolution into wide-spreading fundamental human rights laws.

A simple supportive start to further invalidate yet another of your poorly conceived arguments is that of the USSC ruling for Hamdan, where the third Geneva Convention was held as law to hold the US executive in cheque.

I'm attempting to discuss this topic; you keep insisting on discussing me. I will ask you again to stop with the personal comments and address the arguments only. If you can't do that politely, then please leave the thread. And if you want to complain about what you perceive as improper treatment of another member, you already know where that belongs (and you also know that it does not belong here.) --ck

--------------------------------------------

To reinforce CK comments Craig was instructed to take his issues that he was complaining about to the Mod Discussion forum. To date, he has not.

If you have concerns with an issue, please take such again to the Mod Discussion area.

As the guidelines are stated for here, discuss ideas, attack points, back up statements when call on to do so.

Personal attacks of/on a poster are NOT acceptable. That includes lecturing or talking down to them.

As posters, all are equal here and are expected to act that way.

EK
Admin

 

[Whiskey16]

Charles, many of us are still awaiting your recognition of much of the substance in this thread concerning how principles and laws come to be in society plus supporting evidence to your fearful arguement for the "United Nations telling (autocratically so) you how to behave."

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Charles, many of us are still awaiting your recognition of much of the substance in this thread concerning how principles and laws come to be in society...

I don't know what this means. I've said all along that societies are created by groups that agree on common principles. In general, the smaller the group, the more likely it is to suit the goals of its members, and the larger, the less likely. Of necessity, a group consisting of the entire world can only have a very vague concept of generally agreed upon societal principles.

...plus supporting evidence to your fearful arguement for the "United Nations telling (autocratically so) you how to behave."

I would only need supporting evidence if I said I thought that was going to happen. I didn't say that. I responded to your comment...

A far as 'should' - that decision is not for you, as an individual to decide, but of the greater society, and one that already has been accepted and from a declared foundation, continues to evolve into a strong and legally binding implementation.

... by saying that I reject the idea that a global society can or should dictate how I live my life, or even how my country behaves.

And "fearful" doesn't apply because I don't actually have any fear of this happening, given that the UN is a largely powerless, symbolic entity. If the UN can accomplish anything, it should focus its attention on the real problem areas (such as most of Africa and the Middle East, and much of Asia) before they start getting into particulars of how mostly civilized countries already behave.

 

[Whiskey16]

I would only need supporting evidence if I said I thought that was going to happen. I didn't say that [United Nations telling (autocratically so) you how to behave]...

You did say so, as I will support:

Americans have a strong desire for self-government and little interest in other countries telling us how to behave....

I reject the idea that a global society can or should dictate how I live my life, or even how my country behaves

Charles, you raised this ideological fear into this thread.

In fairness, I am awaiting support, in justifying documentation, your presented position of the global society 'dictating' upon you.

You misattribute your tyrannical construct to myself:

Well, this is the crux of the disagreement -- you think that the United Nations gets to tell me how I must behave, and I say the UN can kiss my proverbial ass.

I never eluded to nor stated such an autocratic thing.

I responded to your comment...

No, you did not, as no such content of mine exists.

Charles, you have been the sole author of that positional scenario and incorrectly misrepresent it upon me.

This has moved from a discussion into an argument, because none appreciate their effort to construct and present posts, only to have snippets taken out of context, opposing fabrications misattributed to them, all with following contextual clarifications to be mostly ignored and dismissed.

For a refresher, I won't bother to re-quote my past posts. Rather, I will again try to concisely rephrase the crux of my position in the positive hope for adequate re-examination and acceptance:

I have been consistently clear in this thread upon how the practice of protective rights come into social being. From that of evolving social change and then social pressure upon entities to accept and then abide by adopted moral decrees. In relation to our global society, I have presented the USA and many other states being among the original draftees and who have pushed for universal human rights, from post-WWII founding declarations into the ever progressing and more widely adopted laws and treaties. Charles, despite your recorded fear, nothing has been 'dictated' upon the self-governing USA to 'tell you how to behave,' as the USA and all other participating sovereign states have voluntarily ratified into domestic law what you are apparently so driven against.

Many of us are rather confounded for what and why you may remain at odds against the reality of sovereign states ratifying human rights law upon their own self-governing will. That reality is a great disconnect to your opposing stance of them dictatorially 'being told how to behave.'

Charles, now will you support your ideological fear against "the United Nations gets to tell me how I must behave?"

Though, as quoted at the top of this post, in contrarian denial (Charles: 'I didn't say that'), you claim never to have presented any such position (Charles: 'other countries telling us how to behave'), and therefore use that denial of ownership as cause to not bother providing support for what you misdirect upon myself for 'thinking...' (Charles: 'you think that the United Nations gets to tell me how I must behave').

Help me, I am at a bit of a discussional loss here.

From a lack of differentiation between the acceptance of declared human rights principles to the ratification of practiced laws by individual states, and onto semantic games to deny the 'notion,' practice, and presence of a global society, and to argue against the existence of universal concepts as per that of human rights... We're now at this latest speed-bump.

Charles, if you cannot support your latest position, that you deny having presented, and yet misrepresent upon me, then I would appreciate a retraction.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You did say so, as I will support:

You're just repeating what you already quoted. There's a difference between me saying "entity X does not have the right to tell me to do Y" and saying "I'm afraid entity X will try to tell me to do Y".

I said the former, not the latter. You brought up and continue to bring up this idea of me being "fearful", which has nothing to do with anything I've written.

Charles, you raised this ideological fear into this thread.

If that were the case, you'd be able to provide a quote where I expressed "fear" of the United Nations, which I have not done. In fact, I've repeatedly and clearly stated that I consider the UN a paper tiger, which is the opposite of saying I'm afraid of them. For example:

And how exactly do you propose to make this "legally binding" on any country that chooses to ignore it? The UN is completely toothless; the very idea of suggesting that they could "bind" anything is immediately dismissible.

You misattribute your tyrannical construct to myself:
I never eluded to nor stated such an autocratic thing.

Misattribute? I directly quoted you. Here it is again:

A far as 'should' - that decision is not for you, as an individual to decide, but of the greater society, and one that already has been accepted and from a declared foundation, continues to evolve into a strong and legally binding implementation.

Emphasis mine. The context of "should" in this case is my response to wolfe about what rights people "should" have. All my response was saying is that I think that as an American it is up to my fellow Americans to make that decision for our nation, not a bunch of strangers in other countries, many of which don't even allow their own government to be criticized. And that as an individual, I ultimately decide for myself what I think human rights should be -- I'm still afforded that freedom, at least for the moment.

Many of us are rather confounded for what and why you may remain at odds against the reality of sovereign states ratifying human rights law upon their own self-governing will.

This is the second time you've used the phrase "many of us", yet I don't see anyone here but you expressing any confusion over my position. You brought up the UN in the first place, and since then, nearly every response you've made to me has been full of belittling comments, accusations of my being "fearful", arguments over who said what and when, and demands for retractions and concessions.

If you want to convince me to respect the UN or care about its ideas about human rights, this isn't the way to do it. You're just needlessly cluttering the thread with off-topic meta-discussion.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you want to convince me to respect the UN or care about its ideas about human rights, this isn't the way to do it. You're just needlessly cluttering the thread with off-topic meta-discussion.

The question that interests me is why. I believe that nobody can be truly happy in this world because there is everywhere injustice to others, that our innate longing for the good causes us pain and that pain long suffered and frustrated, the absence of speedy justice, causes rage.

It is this rage, I think, that causes self righteousness, authoritarianism, and a willingness to put on the One Ring, to assume that the end justifies any means. In the journey to mastery of the self one must fact the temptations that Christ faced, to condemn the lawbreakers or to forgive out of conscious understanding that love is its only reward. The seeker of justice must die on the cross in the knowledge that others can't be brought to the light by force. Only one person is ever able to change the world and that change happens only by changing oneself.

 

[Whiskey16]

This is the second time you've used the phrase "many of us", yet I don't see anyone here but you expressing any confusion over my position.

To better serve your positioning, you are again caught argumentatively misrepresenting this discussion and disingenuously neglecting much of this thread. To deny your claim, here is contradicting evidence by one who remains free to post:

I think there's some semantic confusion here. The word "universal" in this context means that all people have or should have these rights, not that everyone agrees on it or follows it. It means these rights should be respected regardless of race, creed, color, age, gender, or national origin.

And, if it really is used to change the behavior of certain nations, then I see no reason to be so critical of the concept of it, unless in disagreeing with specific aspects of it.

Charles, what specific aspects are you at odds with amongst the laws that your state has, under free self-governance, ratified into its own?

I said the former, not the latter. You brought up and continue to bring up this idea of me being "fearful", which has nothing to do with anything I've written.
..
If that were the case, you'd be able to provide a quote where I expressed "fear" of the United Nations, which I have not done.

You continue to disown statements that you are on the record for presenting:

Americans have a strong desire for self-government and little interest in other countries telling us how to behave....

I reject the idea that a global society can or should dictate how I live my life, or even how my country behaves

Well, this is the crux of the disagreement -- you think that the United Nations gets to tell me how I must behave, and I say the UN can kiss my proverbial ass.

As you indignantly continue to ignore, I never eluded to nor stated such an autocratic thing. Freedom for sovereign states to ratify treaties or not may no longer be misrepresented by you as 'dictatorial'. This ideological fear is of your own construction, all the while you misattribute it to myself and dismiss recognition of my repeated clarifications that contradict your argumentatively incorrect assessment:

Misattribute? I directly quoted you. Here it is again:

"A far as 'should' - that decision is not for you, as an individual to decide, but of the greater society, and one that already has been accepted and from a declared foundation, continues to evolve into a strong and legally binding implementation."

I stand by that statement. You, as an individual do not have dictatorial nor veto powers upon what your state and society representatively chooses to legislate. It is you who disingenuously keeps cherry picking quotations of mine, misrepresenting them, and opting to ignore my following clarifications that soundly contradict your misperceptions.

Charles, here are key points that you continually ignore:

For a refresher, I won't bother to re-quote my past posts. Rather, I will again try to concisely rephrase the crux of my position in the positive hope for adequate re-examination and acceptance:

I have been consistently clear in this thread upon how the practice of protective rights come into social being. From that of evolving social change and then social pressure upon entities to accept and then abide by adopted moral decrees. In relation to our global society, I have presented the USA and many other states being among the original draftees and who have pushed for universal human rights, from post-WWII founding declarations into the ever progressing and more widely adopted laws and treaties. Charles, despite your recorded fear, nothing has been 'dictated' upon the self-governing USA to 'tell you how to behave,' as the USA and all other participating sovereign states have voluntarily ratified into domestic law what you are apparently so driven against.

Many of us are rather confounded for what and why you may remain at odds against the reality of sovereign states ratifying human rights law upon their own self-governing will. That reality is a great disconnect to your opposing stance of them dictatorially 'being told how to behave.'

Charles, again you ignore presented content and its context all to remain firm with now excessively argumentative misrepresentation that the intended universality of human rights is invalidated and false as not EVERY state has yet ratified the still evolving laws and treaties concerning those ideals.
..
Over time, with the evolution of our global society and progressing representative politics within states, more, and more states will ratify treaties concerning human rights, most of which the USA already has.

As far as the global society, the UN, and your USA, you are sourly incorrect to deny US responsibility and recognition to its membership and ratification of international bodies and treaties.
..
External bodies telling you how to behave? The USA freely chose to enter such laws into jurisdiction of its own! The USA was a contributing author and cheerleader for many of them!

Charles, you're so ideologically out to lunch as to twist this into some conspiracist fable of a dark foreign entity autocratically imposing its will upon your freedom loving souls....Black helicopters soon to swoop down too? You personally do what you wish, yet it appears your government has poorly represented you as an individual. As an individual who lacks supporting evidence for your cause, you may not jump around in this thread to deny existence of what is and how your own state is already bound to law it chose to accept and ratify. Your state was a primary author of the aforementioned founding universal principles for human rights.

Behave? US courts already tell you so as they domestically enforce international law ratified by your state.

With your ideological drive against myself and the United Nations, your frustration is evidently incorrectly misdirected away from your state (the USA) for insufficiently representing your ideals and failing to personally reaching out for your individual approval to ratified human rights treaties into domestic law. As an individual, you are part of a greater society, a level in which is your state, a representative democracy where you demand a greater say. The problem here is apparently not that of a bullish United Nations, but your disproportionate view of inadequate representation in your own country.

All my response was saying is that I think that as an American it is up to my fellow Americans to make that decision for our nation, not a bunch of strangers in other countries...

Charles, the position that you are on the record for presenting, flip-flopping in denial over presenting, and misattribute to myself, is a position of opposition to external bodies 'dictating' how you and your state may behave. Your characterisation in invalid:

• You fail to present evidential support for such external bodies imposing laws upon the USA.
  [*]Your state is a prime draftee and donour for these principles and laws.
• You fail to recognise that such a sovereignty quelling imposition is not present as your state has freely ratified the laws that you apparently have dire angst against.

You're just needlessly cluttering the thread with off-topic meta-discussion.

:thumbsdown: That barb is intellectually insulting. In a thread concerning rights among human civilisation, I am most certainly, not.

I've tried to be patient, but you persist in the personal attacks and insults -- nearly every paragraph in this post is a personal comment about me, rather than a discussion of the actual issues. This continues a trend that you've repeated in other threads here in the DC, and if it does not cease immediately, I will have you removed. --ck

 

[woolfe9998]

Are we born with love? Is it part of our essence, our particular state of humanness? Is it part of our natural being or is it learned? I would argue that we are born with it, but it may take certain social conditions to fully flourish... and I would equate this with natural rights.

I think whether something is inherent within us or is decided upon by groups means a great deal. Why do you think the ancients talked about the cosmos when discussing morality?

I think we're born with the capacity for love, and numerous other emotions. We're born with the capacity for hate as well, and with some instinct to do violence. If being born with a capacity for love equates to natural rights, what does it mean that we're born with these negative and destructive emotions as well? IF we have an instinct to kill, do we have a natural right to do so?

Humans are born with all kinds of conflicting predispositions. We use our sentience and social agreement in an attempt to contain the negative instincts.

 

[cwjerome]

I think we're born with the capacity for love, and numerous other emotions. We're born with the capacity for hate as well, and with some instinct to do violence. If being born with a capacity for love equates to natural rights, what does it mean that we're born with these negative and destructive emotions as well? IF we have an instinct to kill, do we have a natural right to do so?

Humans are born with all kinds of conflicting predispositions. We use our sentience and social agreement in an attempt to contain the negative instincts.

The point I was making was that we are born with abstracts that are with us, in us, whether or not a group or society decides we have them or decides to recognize them.

The fact that we are born with the faculty of choice on an abstract level means we are born as moral creatures. Since a right is simply a moral precept, I do not see anything wrong with being born with some certain rights as a condition of this particular human morality. The way I look at it only a truly amoral person, someone who doesn't believe in a right or wrong and dispenses with ethics altogether, can really argue against the idea of natural rights (or any rights for that matter).

I as mentioned, I believe in the concept of natural rights... that human beings are born with certain inherent rights because of their humanity or nature. Now I cannot guarantee that our slightly varying western notions of natural rights are in fact 100% correct, but I believe that those concepts are the best thing going based on good evidence and reasoning. Will it change over time... perhaps, as our understandings of ourselves and the world evolves and our reasoning and evidence gets better. But the "discovery" of natural rights was a monumental breakthrough for humanity and the initial concepts ("life, liberty, and pursuit of...") were pretty darn good.

I'll go back to a thought experiment I alluded to earlier. Do you believe that a human being has inherent worth and dignity? Do you believe that this worth and dignity are present in a person as a condition of their particular human nature, regardless of the thoughts and opinions of anyone else?

Or do they have dignity and worth only because someone else thinks they do? If you believe this is true, think long and hard about the 2nd and 3rd order of effects of that belief. You might not like what you see.

I believe a person on a deserted island 1000 miles from anyone and whose existence isn't known by anyone still has inherent worth and dignity and therefore has natural rights. So does the sex slave in the Philippines, regardless if her captors recognize them or not. Both have many qualities about them because they are human beings, not because a legal authority gives them those qualities.