KanryDrago Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: The really annoying thing about this conversation is that it's kept from going in-world, and buzzing Kanry's land at 150m in an F-15 (which I haven't actually bought yet) while dropping a load of Amnesty International brochures. I could do with some fuel for my stoves so drop all you want 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 minute ago, KanryDrago said: I could do with some fuel for my stoves so drop all you want I'll just leave this here . . . https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Soviet-anti-aircraft-missile-system-ZRK2K12-Mesh/17581084 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiera Clutterbuck Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Kanray do you believe in the concept of "might makes right", like in evolution? Is that the only ethics that seems plausible to you? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, AyelaNewLife said: I mean ideally, there wouldn't be a conflict between the two aims. Parcels existing as three-dimensional cubes rather than two-dimensional slices of land, for example, would allow the plane to fly harmlessly overhead while you'd remain completely private and undetected in your house. But that would require a pretty hefty rework of the basic building blocks of SL, so sadly no chance of that happening. I believe that's exactly how parcel privacy works - if it's turned on and you're within the "ground envelope" (i.e. the area that non-explicit ban lines work on) someone above that area can't see you even if they're on the same plot. There's a bug which means it only works properly like that if there's at least one entry in the parcel ban list though. It was discussed at length in the Linden Homes threads. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanryDrago Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said: Kanray do you believe in the concept of "might makes right", like in evolution? Is that the only ethics that seems plausible to you? Where have I said that? I have made two observations Its not a right if someone can take it away from you arbitrarily and you cant enforce it.....with reference to governments You cannot claim ethics as a basis for human rights because cultures have different ethics. For example being gay in some cultures will get you executed, in others its celebrated. Is it therefore a human right to be openly gay? One cultures ethics says no, anothers say yes. Ethics are a terrible thing to try and base human rights on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiera Clutterbuck Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, KanryDrago said: You cannot claim ethics as a basis for human rights because cultures have different ethics. For example being gay in some cultures will get you executed, in others its celebrated. Is it therefore a human right to be openly gay? One cultures ethics says no, anothers say yes. Ethics are a terrible thing to try and base human rights on You cannot NOT base human rights on ethics: "Human rights are moral principles or norms[1] that describe certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected as natural and legal rights in municipal and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as inalienable,[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings",[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights The fact that some countries can't accept the fact that, for example, women and gays should have the same rights as everyone else is irrelevant. All you can really say about these countries is that they do not believe in human rights at this time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Gregoire Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: to what you regard as your property That is just it. I don't regard it as my property. I regard it as what it is, a space on the servers rented, directly or indirectly, from LL in which I should be able to feel safe. And if feeling safe means not allowing any access to anyone else, then that is what it means. As a renter, I do have certain rights granted to me by LL via the land tools LL has provided and the rules LL has set forth to govern the use of that space which are not quite the same rules as those that apply to mainland or Linden Homes. ETA: Before I left for almost 5 years, I did rent on mainland and I've had First Land etc. The only thing I haven't ever had is a Linden Home and that isn't ever going to happen. Subletting is against LL's rules and that is the only way I'll ever have one now. Edited July 21, 2019 by Selene Gregoire proper punctuation... more or less 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amina Sopwith Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 27 minutes ago, KanryDrago said: Its not a right if someone can take it away from you arbitrarily and you cant enforce it.....with reference to governments And you don't see how this can be translated as "might makes right"? 28 minutes ago, KanryDrago said: You cannot claim ethics as a basis for human rights because cultures have different ethics. For example being gay in some cultures will get you executed, in others its celebrated. Is it therefore a human right to be openly gay? One cultures ethics says no, anothers say yes. Ethics are a terrible thing to try and base human rights on If this is the example you're going to use, it isn't a problem with "ethics", it's a problem of not separating church (by which I mean organised religion) and state...which is itself a violation of ethics and human rights, since people should quite obviously be free to choose which religion, if any, they choose to follow. (You would think that if anyone could instantly smite the unworthy and enforce all rights, it would be God, but He seems happy to take a relatively hands-off approach in this regard, or at least move in mysterious ways.) And white Western men in suits can still be the Taliban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanryDrago Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 13 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said: You cannot NOT base human rights on ethics: "Human rights are moral principles or norms[1] that describe certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected as natural and legal rights in municipal and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as inalienable,[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings",[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights The fact that some countries can't accept the fact that, for example, women and gays should have the same rights as everyone else is irrelevant. All you can really say about these countries is that they do not believe in human rights at this time. Inalienable This is what it means not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; Now quote all the so called human rights that fall under that definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Gregoire Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 (edited) *waves hand in air* Oh! Oh! I know one! Breathe! *runs for cover* Note I did not say "breathe clean air". Edited July 21, 2019 by Selene Gregoire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanryDrago Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 17 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said: You cannot NOT base human rights on ethics: "Human rights are moral principles or norms[1] that describe certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected as natural and legal rights in municipal and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as inalienable,[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings",[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights The fact that some countries can't accept the fact that, for example, women and gays should have the same rights as everyone else is irrelevant. All you can really say about these countries is that they do not believe in human rights at this time. And frankly I dont agree with what you claim are moral principals because you are a westerner and I have no doubt you think people of the book morals apply ( think ten commandments) Well sorry I dont subscribe to a lot of those and I am a westerner too. Your moral principles are not necessarily mine so how dare you suggest that there are universal human rights when at least half the globe do not ascribe to your so called moral principles. Western imperialism at its finest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amina Sopwith Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 16 minutes ago, KanryDrago said: Inalienable This is what it means not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; Now quote all the so called human rights that fall under that definition Because it doesn't mean "can't be violated"! It means the right itself can't be taken away! In other words, it doesn't mean you can't ever be raped! It means nobody will ever be justified in raping you! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanryDrago Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Amina Sopwith said: Because it doesn't mean "can't be violated"! It means the right itself can't be taken away! In other words, it doesn't mean you can't ever be raped! It means nobody will ever be justified in raping you! Well now you see you are wrong your right not to be raped, killed or tortured can definitely be taken away. Where in that definition does it say anything about being justified? Clue it doesnt. To be an inalienable human right it has to be something that is incapable of being removed. The american governement for example regularly kills people, tortures people and prison rape is regarded as merely part of your punishment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amina Sopwith Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 14 minutes ago, KanryDrago said: Well now you see you are wrong your right not to be raped, killed or tortured can definitely be taken away. Where in that definition does it say anything about being justified? Clue it doesnt. To be an inalienable human right it has to be something that is incapable of being removed. The american governement for example regularly kills people, tortures people and prison rape is regarded as merely part of your punishment AAAAARGH. You're fixating on the "incapable of being removed" and you can't understand the difference between "removal" as "violation of the right" and "removal" as "not having the right at all". Violation is not removal. I have the right not to be raped. Someone might violate that right, they might even get away with it (probably), but they haven't actually removed the right, they've just violated it. I've still got the right not be raped even while it's happening. On the topic of capital punishment, which I oppose fiercely, I can get that we may sometimes be uncertain as to what rights exactly are, and how they may conflict with each other, and have to have ongoing discussions about them. That's why high courts exist and why the law is sometimes an ass. But this doesn't mean that the rights don't exist at all - merely that we are not always certain how to determine them, or their reach. But a human right cannot be "taken away" in the sense that you can't stop having it. It may be VIOLATED, for which you can use the term "taken away" if you wish, but you need to understand that it isn't the same as ceasing to exist as an inherent entitlement. I do not know how to explain this any more clearly. I really don't. Can anyone help me? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanryDrago Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Just now, Amina Sopwith said: AAAAARGH. You're fixating on the "incapable of being removed" and you can't understand the difference between "removal" as "violation of the right" and "removal" as "not having the right at all". Violation is not removal. I have the right not to be raped. Someone might violate that right, they might even get away with it (probably), but they haven't actually removed the right, they've just violated it. I've still got the right not be raped even while it's happening. On the topic of capital punishment, which I oppose fiercely, I can get that we may sometimes be uncertain as to what rights exactly are, and how they may conflict with each other, and have to have ongoing discussions about them. That's why high courts exist and why the law is sometimes an ass. But this doesn't mean that the rights don't exist at all - merely that we are not always certain how to determine them, or their reach. But a human right cannot be "taken away" in the sense that you can't stop having it. It may be VIOLATED, for which you can use the term "taken away" if you wish, but you need to understand that it isn't the same as ceasing to exist as an inherent entitlement. I do not know how to explain this any more clearly. I really don't. Can anyone help me? the term "Incapable of being removed" is fairly specific Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, KanryDrago said: Well now you see you are wrong your right not to be raped, killed or tortured can definitely be taken away. Where in that definition does it say anything about being justified? Clue it doesnt. To be an inalienable human right it has to be something that is incapable of being removed. The american governement for example regularly kills people, tortures people and prison rape is regarded as merely part of your punishment Kanry, I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse here, or if you're not expressing what you really mean very well. This is a nonsensical argument: a "right" does not depend upon this, or that, or another example of it being enforced, or violated: the fact that it is being enforced or violated is only discernible if there is a concept that exists apart from how it is, in any one or another situation, being treated. Let's use an analogy here. You have a car. You own it. I steal it . . . take it away. So, the concept of "ownership" is now a polite fiction, because you haven't been able to "enforce" it? Or alternately, I now "own" it, and you really have no right to complain about the fact that you've lost it, because you have no inalienable right to it: possession is 9/10s of the law, right? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 minute ago, KanryDrago said: the term "Incapable of being removed" is fairly specific THE RIGHT IS NOT BEING "REMOVED." YOU STILL HAVE THAT RIGHT!!!! It is being VIOLATED! It's an entirely different thing!!! 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiera Clutterbuck Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 13 minutes ago, KanryDrago said: And frankly I dont agree with what you claim are moral principals because you are a westerner and I have no doubt you think people of the book morals apply ( think ten commandments) Well sorry I dont subscribe to a lot of those and I am a westerner too. Your moral principles are not necessarily mine so how dare you suggest that there are universal human rights when at least half the globe do not ascribe to your so called moral principles. Western imperialism at its finest I don't think you know enough about me to say I subscribe to only Western values with my Western imperialist mindset, and approve of the ten commandments. Is there something you disagree with regarding the United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights? United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Simplified Version This simplified version of the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been created especially for young people. 1. We Are All Born Free & Equal. We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas. We should all be treated in the same way. 2. Don’t Discriminate. These rights belong to everybody, whatever our differences. 3. The Right to Life. We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety. 4. No Slavery. Nobody has any right to make us a slave. We cannot make anyone our slave. 5. No Torture. Nobody has any right to hurt us or to torture us. 6. You Have Rights No Matter Where You Go. I am a person just like you! 7. We’re All Equal Before the Law. The law is the same for everyone. It must treat us all fairly. 8. Your Human Rights Are Protected by Law. We can all ask for the law to help us when we are not treated fairly. 9. No Unfair Detainment. Nobody has the right to put us in prison without good reason and keep us there, or to send us away from our country. 10. The Right to Trial. If we are put on trial this should be in public. The people who try us should not let anyone tell them what to do. 11. We’re Always Innocent Till Proven Guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true. 12. The Right to Privacy. Nobody should try to harm our good name. Nobody has the right to come into our home, open our letters, or bother us or our family without a good reason. 13. Freedom to Move. We all have the right to go where we want in our own country and to travel as we wish. 14. The Right to Seek a Safe Place to Live. If we are frightened of being badly treated in our own country, we all have the right to run away to another country to be safe. 15. Right to a Nationality. We all have the right to belong to a country. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amina Sopwith Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 13 minutes ago, KanryDrago said: the term "Incapable of being removed" is fairly specific You are demonstrating that it is not, because you are insisting on taking it to mean "removed as an inherent entitlement for a human being" rather than "violated by an arsehole but still intact as a principle". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiera Clutterbuck Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said: Can anyone help me? I was hoping you could help hehe 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiera Clutterbuck Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 12 minutes ago, KanryDrago said: To be an inalienable human right it has to be something that is incapable of being removed. The american governement for example regularly kills people, tortures people and prison rape is regarded as merely part of your punishment Let's say I was captured by some nasty government and imprisoned because I was a feisty woman and gay to boot, and their intent was to "beat the gay" out of me or "show me I am subservient to men". They may imprison me, they may beat me, but I would still experience myself as gay and believe I was a free woman not subservient to others (I would still have those human rights no matter what others would do to me). I'm not sure where you get the idea that a right is only a right if someone can force the issue. If another is trying to take a right away it only means they are misguided and not respectful of human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanryDrago Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said: Kanry, I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse here, or if you're not expressing what you really mean very well. This is a nonsensical argument: a "right" does not depend upon this, or that, or another example of it being enforced, or violated: the fact that it is being enforced or violated is only discernible if there is a concept that exists apart from how it is, in any one or another situation, being treated. Let's use an analogy here. You have a car. You own it. I steal it . . . take it away. So, the concept of "ownership" is now a polite fiction, because you haven't been able to "enforce" it? Or alternately, I now "own" it, and you really have no right to complain about the fact that you've lost it, because you have no inalienable right to it: possession is 9/10s of the law, right? Let me be perfectly clear, because I thought I had. There is no such thing as human rights, they are a fiction created by our rulers to make us believe we have more than we have. They exist only in your mind. Yes your analogy is perfect, if you steal my car and I cant get it back off you then you own it and I don't. This stupid fiction you believe in that somehow the car is still mine even though I will never be able to drive it or see it again is just that a fiction. Unless I can enforce ownership of that car and either stop you taking it or getting it back when you do then no I do not own that car for longer than it takes you to steal it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, KanryDrago said: the term "Incapable of being removed" is fairly specific A right is not a "thing"!!! You can't point to someone and say, "Oh, look! An inalienable human right!" It is an IDEA, a PRINCIPLE. It exists regardless of whether I, or Amina, Kiera, or anyone else is actually enjoying it at that moment. We don't hold it in our hands, for god's sake: it exists universally!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanryDrago Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said: I don't think you know enough about me to say I subscribe to only Western values with my Western imperialist mindset, and approve of the ten commandments. Is there something you disagree with regarding the United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights? United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Simplified Version This simplified version of the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been created especially for young people. 1. We Are All Born Free & Equal. We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas. We should all be treated in the same way. 2. Don’t Discriminate. These rights belong to everybody, whatever our differences. 3. The Right to Life. We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety. 4. No Slavery. Nobody has any right to make us a slave. We cannot make anyone our slave. 5. No Torture. Nobody has any right to hurt us or to torture us. 6. You Have Rights No Matter Where You Go. I am a person just like you! 7. We’re All Equal Before the Law. The law is the same for everyone. It must treat us all fairly. 8. Your Human Rights Are Protected by Law. We can all ask for the law to help us when we are not treated fairly. 9. No Unfair Detainment. Nobody has the right to put us in prison without good reason and keep us there, or to send us away from our country. 10. The Right to Trial. If we are put on trial this should be in public. The people who try us should not let anyone tell them what to do. 11. We’re Always Innocent Till Proven Guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true. 12. The Right to Privacy. Nobody should try to harm our good name. Nobody has the right to come into our home, open our letters, or bother us or our family without a good reason. 13. Freedom to Move. We all have the right to go where we want in our own country and to travel as we wish. 14. The Right to Seek a Safe Place to Live. If we are frightened of being badly treated in our own country, we all have the right to run away to another country to be safe. 15. Right to a Nationality. We all have the right to belong to a country. Oh please the united nations, that band of brothers that freely handed over the muslims for execution by serb militia in srebrenica. Yes well I am so going to pay attention to what a talking shop with no fangs say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Legion Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Now we're getting into the realm of the absolutely absurd ...on all sides of this. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now