re: What is the source of our rights?

quote:

---

4commies

---

quote:

---

I think we need new social constructs.

---

quote:

---

We lower our expectations for the strongest and dumbest members of society. They also happen to be the most powerful and most dangerous.

---

I went back home over the weekend. I do not think I did it right. I was on the North Shore for 4 days and didn't gain a single pound.

Anyway, the wife and I listened to a good debate on the way home. At least we both enjoyed it and what else is there to do on a 13 hour drive.

You may not like the topic, but it rings true in human society.

You say we cater our expectations to the strongest and dumbest. I disagree with dumbest. Replace with most dangerous. Throughout history, everything we have. Every nation. Every society. Every building. Every road. Everything has been built by those who were the strongest as well as the most dangerous at the time. Either they built it, or they had others build it for them.

These have been men. Societies expect that from them. Societies expect men to build, to protect, to provide.

Question is...

What does society expect from women?

There is no right or wrong answer. Just answers.

quote:

---

Neither question means anything since those same people tried something totally different than what they ended up doing and none of the three ended up in official "American" documents.

An important part of our history? Yes

Means anything to our rights currently? No.

---

That's retarded.

First of all, there were five authors, not three.

Secondly, the DOI was originally titled, "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America" and was adopted by the 2nd Continental Congress.

It was, by definition, a document adopted by the United States who had already been fighting for independence for over a year. The war wasn't over, but the US was already acting independently of Britain—indeed, that was the whole point.

Thomas Paine's Common Sense (which remains one of the best selling American titles even today) was written and began to be read aloud at taverns and distributed among the people in January 1776 (six months before the DOI was written), and it used the same language and idea that rights were derived from God.

Now, it's not important to me that anyone admit that the founders recognized the God part. Some of them were Christians, some were deists...that's not the important part.

The important part is that it is very clear that they grounded rights in something that transcends human minds. Nature, reason, God, whatever. It's very clear that they regarded rights as something that existed independent and transcendent of government.

I'm not interested in the logical problems of positing transcendent rights sans a Mind for them to exist in in the context of this discussion. But if the only grounding for rights is government then there are no such things as inalienable rights. Only force.

Maybe somebody can twist themselves up into enough of a pretzel to make the argument that the Bill of Rights are just arbitrary suggestions rather than statements of inaleinable rights, but I can't imagine it from the outset.

Lighten up. That was tongue in cheek (but it's also factual).

quote:

---

So if men in western society decided that women would have no more rights and would be kept in cages, let out only for sex and to breed, what basis would you have to say they were wrong?

---

If that's what the people with the best weapons decide, that's what will happen.

quote:

---

I can't decide which is worse: spending 4 days on the north shore or being in the car for 13 hours

---

We did go into the city proper. The Croatianfest was happening this past weekend on the West Bank. The wife is a former Yugoslavian who came here as a refugee in the 90's. She wanted to see what it was all about.

quote:

---

What was the debate?

---

What expectations does western society have for men vs women. Panel pretty much agreed on expectations of men, but did not even come close on expectations of women.

quote:

---

Society? The people in charge expect women to uncritically obey and support the men.

---

Do not forget that women are a part of society, so are they also part of this expectation?

Divide on expectations of women was predictably between the men and the women as well as woman to woman.

I found it funny that men and women share the same expectations for what men's roles are, but men and women do not share the same for women. Heck, the women on the panel could not even agree with what society expects from women.

Disclaimer...panel was extremely small. 3 men/3 women. Would love to see a larger example of opinions.

quote:

---

If that's what the people with the best weapons decide, that's what will happen.

---

I glossed over that to begin with, but that's not the truth.

Women do not have the grip strength or the upper body strength to carry and load the weapons to a degree necessary for them to defeat men, regardless of whether they have access to them or not.

Same reason women are advised to really think about carrying weapons on them (not just guns but mace or something else) because they are so frequently disarmed and have the weapons used against them.

All things equal, equal access to the same weapons, women are not going to defeat men, and it wouldn't even be close. And that's why it's never happened in the history of the world. As far as I know, there isn't a single instance of women engaging in a revolution and subjugating men, yet there are instances of the converse of that in the world right now, like in the Middle East.

Afghanistan literally started rolling back women's rights within 48 hours of the US withdrawing, for example.

quote:

---

I'll answer those questions when you tell me what they have to do with anything I posted.

---

It was a more tactile example than your attempts at absurd examples.

Women have been denied the most basic rights over the majority of the existence of America. You don't need t use an absurd example (being put in cages) when we have tactile examples of men using force to deny them these rights that people claim come from a god.

quote:

---

Women couldn't stop them if they decided that, you know. Because men have a monopoly on force, and if rights aren't grounded in anything transcendent then they just reduce back to force, and quickly.

---

Men used force to deny women the right to vote.

Men then used force to give women the right to vote.

quote:

---

What is a right?

---

Whatever any society agrees for what is acceptable behavior as long as they have the will and capability to guarantee.

Our version of the rights guaranteed to a proper society was written into our constitution. It is up to us to ensure those rights are not lost by our inattention or cowardice.

A right not worthy of vigorous defense is merely a random thought.

quote:

---

First of all, there were five authors, not three.

---

Wasn't talking about authors.
1) life
2) liberty
3) pursuit of happiness
Three!

quote:

---

Secondly, the DOI was originally titled, "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America" and was adopted by the 2nd Continental Congress.

It was, by definition, a document adopted by the United States who had already been fighting for independence for over a year. The war wasn't over, but the US was already acting independently of Britain—indeed, that was the whole point.

---

All great and all, but Constitution still trumps all. Even those three broadly defined rights.

quote:

---

and it used the same language and idea that rights were derived from God

---

Of course, it always helps to add some sort of divine right to human actions.

quote:

---

The important part is that it is very clear that they grounded rights in something that transcends human minds. Nature, reason, God, whatever. It's very clear that they regarded rights as something that existed independent and transcendent of government

---

I try to get onboard with this and was actually there for many years. It is very clear that rights are fluid. They do change. Not with the whims of god, nature or anything else other than the desires of man.

quote:

---

I'm not interested in the logical problems of positing transcendent rights sans a Mind for them to exist in in the context of this discussion. But if the only grounding for rights is government then there are no such things as inalienable rights. Only force

---

Fully onboard with this.

quote:

---

Maybe somebody can twist themselves up into enough of a pretzel to make the argument that the Bill of Rights are just arbitrary suggestions rather than statements of inaleinable rights, but I can't imagine it from the outset.

---

Many do seem like suggestions today. Like petitioning to practice freedom of gathering. Like roadblocks to being able to protect ourselves in the most efficient way possible. The cautious eye even sees the groundwork to tear down freedom of religion these days.

No pretzel twisting needed. Just observation skills.