Jump to content
Slee Mayo

Security Orb Creators and Owners

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

And yet you said that if Scylla steals your car, it would be a "stupid fiction" to claim that you own it. Sounds pretty "might makes right" to me.

I'm just going to leave the idea of human rights being dismissed as "arrogance" to stand alone. I can't say anything to make it sound worse than it does by itself.
 

I said that me owning the car is a stupid fiction if I cant enforce it, whether thats by me doing something or a government body doing something. If I have something and you can walk away with it with no consequence then your concept of ownership is meaningless.

This is the point I am trying to make and people seem to fail to grasp. Concepts are all well and good but if they arent enforced they are meaningless and worthless

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

believing your ethical code supersedes others

You keep avoiding saying which of the Universal Rights in that declaration you disagree with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

The arrogance is believing your ethical code supersedes others


And yet your weird belief that human rights don't exist, thus superseding literally every person on the planet, is the height of modesty.


My personal ethical code involves not eating meat and mocking Goreans at every possible opportunity. Inherent human rights are far wider ranging, and the arrogance is in attempting to deny they even exist.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

As are quite a few others attempting to pretend that "Universal Human Rights" or anything similar .... actually exist beyond our belief that they do.

They're a nice idea and helpful when trying to make lives better - and that's all they are.

Have you not seen the improvement in the lives of gays and women in some countries due to viewing them as humans who should have the same rights as all other humans?  People of color too.  And disabled people, we used to shove them into institutions or leave them on the street to rot in poverty.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

Have you not seen the improvement in the lives of gays and women in some countries due to viewing them as humans who should have the same rights as all other humans?  People of color too. 

and where there have been improvements it has had nothing to do with the un it has had to do with the people in that country voting in politicians that would change the status and its applicable to that country only. Go to iran with your male wife and tell them its your universal human right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

This is the point I am trying to make and people seem to fail to grasp. Concepts are all well and good but if they arent enforced they are meaningless and worthless

Some are enforced now. But they never would have been had we not changed hearts and minds, raised consciousness via education and sorting out all those "concepts" you don't like.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

No, but the point is the difference between the intactness of the principle, which remains even when the principle itself is violated. Sometimes rights are violated beyond recompense, as you most definitely know. It still doesn't compromise them as principles, and simply intensifies the wrong that was done.



 

Precisely. It intensifies, it does not negate. And if you care to dig a little deeper you might see what I see. If not....

I might still respect you in the morning. Maybe. I'll think about it. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

I said that me owning the car is a stupid fiction if I cant enforce it, whether thats by me doing something or a government body doing something. If I have something and you can walk away with it with no consequence then your concept of ownership is meaningless.

This is the point I am trying to make and people seem to fail to grasp. Concepts are all well and good but if they arent enforced they are meaningless and worthless

 

In other words, that might makes right, because if you can't enforce your ownership of the car by force, then your ownership does not exist. That is what you are saying. You are saying it very explicitly and defending it in every post. I don't understand why you're so averse to whittling it down to a mere three words. It's much punchier.

But on a slight tangent...if it's all meaningless, and it's arrogant to impose human rights on people, and it's just words, and it means nothing if it's not enforced...

...does that mean it's actually OK for me to make mankini jokes?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

That's nice.

You missed the entire point - bravo.

As are quite a few others attempting to pretend that "Universal Human Rights" or anything similar .... actually exist beyond our belief that they do.

They're a nice idea and helpful when trying to make lives better - and that's all they are.

This post right here.

More than 1 in 4 countries don't even respect the most fundamental human right of all in their legal system - the right to life itself. That list includes the three largest economies on the planet. Many of the others are respected even less, there's nothing unalienable or sacrosanct about them. They are an ideal to aim for, and a product of the modern era, nothing more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amina Sopwith said:

In other words, that might makes right, because if you can't enforce your ownership of the car by force, then your ownership does not exist. That is what you are saying. You are saying it very explicitly and defending it in every post. I don't understand why you're so averse to whittling it down to a mere three words. It's much punchier.

But on a slight tangent...if it's all meaningless, and it's arrogant to impose human rights on people, and it's just words, and it means nothing if it's not enforced...

...does that mean it's actually OK for me to make mankini jokes?

Mankini's surely are their own joke?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

Have you not seen the improvement in the lives of gays and women in some countries due to viewing them as humans who should have the same rights as all other humans?  People of color too.  And disabled people, we used to shove them into institutions or leave them on the street to rot in poverty.

Point blank: You're not only barking up the wrong tree in trying that crap with me but you're showing me that you're too emotionally invested in your own argument to be able to digest what I have said.

Congratulations - you've wasted my time more than long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Precisely. It intensifies, it does not negate. And if you care to dig a little deeper you might see what I see. If not....

Yes, that is my point. The right is not negated, in the sense that it exists as a principle as much as it did before. Nobody has claimed that rights cannot be violated in extreme.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

Point blank: You're not only barking up the wrong tree in trying that crap with me but you're showing me that you're too emotionally invested in your own argument to be able to digest what I have said.

Congratulations - you've wasted my time more than long enough.

Buh-Byee

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amina Sopwith said:

In other words, that might makes right, because if you can't enforce your ownership of the car by force, then your ownership does not exist. That is what you are saying. You are saying it very explicitly and defending it in every post. I don't understand why you're so averse to whittling it down to a mere three words. It's much punchier.

But on a slight tangent...if it's all meaningless, and it's arrogant to impose human rights on people, and it's just words, and it means nothing if it's not enforced...

...does that mean it's actually OK for me to make mankini jokes?

You are also missing the point still ownership of property is only a right if you have means of enforcing it. That doesnt equate to me saying ethically might makes right. The whole argument I am having here can be boiled down to "There are ethics which are concepts, there are things you can enforce. The only thing that matters in day to day life is what you can enforce the concepts are merely an ephemeral wish list. You cannot claim the ethics are what we have. You can only claim the enforceable is what we have" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

Mankini's surely are their own joke?

I don't know, when I tried it you accused me of being sexist. Do I take from this that you have an inherent human right not to experience sexism? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Yes, that is my point. The right is not negated, in the sense that it exists as a principle as much as it did before. Nobody has claimed that rights cannot be violated in extreme.

Sighs see you said it there

The right exists in principle

well you can eat principles, principles dont protect you from bullets knives, baseball bats or small wombats called gerald" A principle is merely a nice to have and until you accept its merely an aspiration and not an absolute right you think you have I will continue to shout at you

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

and where there have been improvements it has had nothing to do with the un it has had to do with the people in that country voting in politicians that would change the status and its applicable to that country only. Go to iran with your male wife and tell them its your universal human right

Well yes, we had to actually demonstrate human rights in our own countries before advocating this approach to those countries still oppressing others.  You've consistently labeled those who want respect for all as imperialists and the like,  so are you saying we should let all these oppressed people in other countries suffer?  

Currently there are many programs assisting other countries in advancing human rights. For example, schools for girls where girls are denied education comes to mind.

Edited by Kiera Clutterbuck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

You are also missing the point still ownership of property is only a right if you have means of enforcing it. That doesnt equate to me saying ethically might makes right. The whole argument I am having here can be boiled down to "There are ethics which are concepts, there are things you can enforce. The only thing that matters in day to day life is what you can enforce the concepts are merely an ephemeral wish list. You cannot claim the ethics are what we have. You can only claim the enforceable is what we have" 

Which is exactly the same as "might makes right". Because, if Scylla steals your car, it is apparently a "stupid fiction" to claim that you still own it.

Principles still exist intact as principles even if they are violated in the extreme. "Taken away" in this context does not mean "cease to exist as a principle", it means "not upheld in this instance". 

You really can't think of any examples in human history where human rights have been grossly violated and the victims had no means of defence?
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Yes, that is my point. The right is not negated, in the sense that it exists as a principle as much as it did before. Nobody has claimed that rights cannot be violated in extreme.

Just when you were getting warm... you take a wrong turn. 

Darn.

I tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amina Sopwith said:

Which is exactly the same as "might makes right". Because, if Scylla steals your car, it is apparently a "stupid fiction" to claim that you still own it.

Principles still exist intact as principles even if they are violated in the extreme. "Taken away" in this context does not mean "cease to exist as a principle", it means "not upheld in this instance". 

You really can't think of any examples in human history where human rights have been grossly violated and the victims had no means of defence?
 

sighs how many times do I need to explain this

PRINCIPLES ARE WORTHLESS HOT AIR

the whole of my point, I really dont care what you think your human rights are. They cease when they meet reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

The right exists in principle

well you can eat principles, principles dont protect you from bullets knives, baseball bats or

Does action exist without some sort of thinking or principle beforehand? Why are you separating the two?  To trash human rights I guess. You don't seem to get that the notion of human rights has caused great changes in the world already.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

Sighs see you said it there

The right exists in principle

well you can eat principles, principles dont protect you from bullets knives, baseball bats or small wombats called gerald" A principle is merely a nice to have and until you accept its merely an aspiration and not an absolute right you think you have I will continue to shout at you

 

No, it is, yet again, your inability to understand that a human right is not a tangible "thing", or something that relies upon "might makes right". Your inability to grasp the difference between "taken away" as "violated" and "taken away" as "ceases to exist as a principle." 

A right exists inherently, in and of itself, and there will be no attempts to "enforce" it at all, if we don't accept that it exists intact as a principle, in the first place. Otherwise, why bother creating any infrastructures to try to prevent or penalise rape or murder? 


In the words of a rather influential American: we hold these truths to be self evident. If you don't hold a few basic truths about humanity to be self evident, I can't help you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

PRINCIPLES ARE WORTHLESS HOT AIR

And I return to my original comment: Gosh.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...