Lawsuit threatens Remington

[deleted480308]

It’s not a “right” until you’ve entered into a social contract. Until that social structure exists, that rape is just an act. You can describe it as forceful sex with an unwilling participant, but you need the structure of society to call it an infringement of a right.

That’s not how that works. But we are repeating ourselves

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GravelRider]

That’s not how that works. But we are repeating ourselves

How does it work?

You are of the belief that humans are somehow above the natural order. In other words, humans are special and existence grants us some certain “rights.” For me, humans are no different than llamas, fish, or monkeys. The only truth is natural selection and the attempt to survive. Existence is neither a guarantee or a right and therefore there are no other rights. It’s just an action. It’s not until we create that social contract that you now have rights. Society does, in fact, grant you rights. Civilization is needed to even begin to describe the idea of “rights.”

 

[deleted480308]

How does it work?

You are of the belief that humans are somehow above the natural order. In other words, humans are special and existence grants us some certain “rights.” For me, humans are no different than llamas, fish, or monkeys. The only truth is natural selection and the attempt to survive. Existence is neither a guarantee or a right and therefore there are no other rights. It’s just an action. It’s not until we create that social contract that you now have rights. Society does, in fact, grant you rights. Civilization is needed to even begin to describe the idea of “rights.”

Again, we are repeating ourselves.

 

[pgg]

Again, you're choosing not to understand.

Human rights exist outside social contracts.

10000 years ago caveman hermit Urrffgggh had the right to make vocalized noises to express his feelings. He didn't have the right to sit in his cave and have food brought to him.

 

[vector2]

Again, you're choosing not to understand.

Human rights exist outside social contracts.

10000 years ago caveman hermit Urrffgggh had the right to make vocalized noises to express his feelings. He didn't have the right to sit in his cave and have food brought to him.

Hermit 1 had the right to grunt for precisely as long as it took the grunting to annoy Hermit 2, and for 2 to come bash 1's brains in.

Human rights are as artificial a construct or shared myth as corporations or god or state borders. These rights are a beautiful, noble, just idea which allow for a degree of cooperation that is extremely evolutionarily advantageous.....but nonetheless they are still artificial. Once you start claiming that things beyond biology are "natural," we are delving mostly into philosophical vs hard scientific territory. When you claim that human rights exist outside social contracts, which "medium" from the 30,000 ft view do these rights exist in?

 

[T-burglar]

America is too large to ever be a happy nation. We are too large and heterogenous a population. Let the bloodthirsty gun owners form their own nation. They can have the south. Weapons capable of mass murder in 60 seconds can be available to flawed humans down there. You can continue to sacrifice the blood of children to your blood god down south.

 

[deleted480308]

America is too large to ever be a happy nation. We are too large and heterogenous a population. Let the bloodthirsty gun owners form their own nation. They can have the south. Weapons capable of mass murder in 60 seconds can be available to flawed humans down there. You can continue to sacrifice the blood of children to your blood god down south.

you ok?

 

[Mikkel]

Hermit 1 had the right to grunt for precisely as long as it took the grunting to annoy Hermit 2, and for 2 to come bash 1's brains in.

Human rights are as artificial a construct or shared myth as corporations or god or state borders. These rights are a beautiful, noble, just idea which allow for a degree of cooperation that is extremely evolutionarily advantageous.....but nonetheless they are still artificial. Once you start claiming that things beyond biology are "natural," we are delving mostly into philosophical vs hard scientific territory. When you claim that human rights exist outside social contracts, which "medium" from the 30,000 ft view do these rights exist in?

Once you decide to say the words "social construct", you feel the need to apply it to every facet of morality and ethics and science.

Social constructs, according to the left:

Gender
Free speech
Self defense
Privacy
Life
Pursuit of happiness


It's post-modern relativistic garbage. "Your morality is not my morality."


It's the left's way of destroying every fundamental principle of living in America.


To what end? Destruction of freedom and institution of socialism.


You can't kill and plunder the rich, without teaching the child foot soldiers that their "moral good" is to bash in the skulls of "rich" people and take their stuff, that they would be unarmed as easy targets because their guns were already confiscated, and their life is worth less than yours because they "stole" from the poor.

 

[Mikkel]

I think it goes without saying that the National Socialists have been indoctrinatimg their acolytes through the public school system, all the way through University. Their efforts after decades of hard work are finally paying off, as you can see through the rise in popularity of National Socialists like Warren and Sanders especially among the youngest.

 

[vector2]

It's post-modern relativistic garbage. "Your morality is not my morality."

Putting aside for a moment your ridiculous caricature of what you think the other side stands for, your take that your morality must necessarily be someone else's morality is fundamentally un-American. Maybe you dont understand that ethics and the law are separate from the study of morality.

Research has shown that those on the far far right like yourself tend to see everything including morality in absolute shades of black and white, so I'm not surprised that you view your beliefs about social issues as absolute fact instead of merely your opinion.

 

[Mikkel]

Putting aside for a moment your ridiculous caricature of what you think the other side stands for, your take that your morality must necessarily be someone else's morality is fundamentally un-American. Maybe you dont understand that ethics and the law are separate from the study of morality.

Research has shown that those on the far far right like yourself tend to see everything including morality in absolute shades of black and white, so I'm not surprised that you view your beliefs about social issues as absolute fact instead of merely your opinion.

I think most people agree that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and parading an under-age transtrender at a strip club is wrong.

 

[vector2]

I think most people agree that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and parading an under-age transtrender at a strip club is wrong.

Agreed. The point is that we both came to the conclusion that murder is wrong through different ways. You might say that murder is wrong because it is a commandment laid down by god. I don't believe in absolute good or evil but I'd say murder is wrong from a secular humanist standpoint.

For the vast, vast majority of neolithic human history, slavery has been an integral part of society. Only within the past few hundred years has it become anathema to our beliefs. Same goes for premarital sex, homosexuality, racism, child labor and a bazillion other controversial things. It's inarguable that many aspects of morality are, indeed, relative.

 

[nimbus]

Once you decide to say the words "social construct", you feel the need to apply it to every facet of morality and ethics and science.

Social constructs, according to the left:

Gender
Free speech
Self defense
Privacy
Life
Pursuit of happiness


It's post-modern relativistic garbage. "Your morality is not my morality."


It's the left's way of destroying every fundamental principle of living in America.


To what end? Destruction of freedom and institution of socialism.


You can't kill and plunder the rich, without teaching the child foot soldiers that their "moral good" is to bash in the skulls of "rich" people and take their stuff, that they would be unarmed as easy targets because their guns were already confiscated, and their life is worth less than yours because they "stole" from the poor.

Speaking of social constructs, the author of “How the Irish Became White” recently died.

Noel Ignatiev - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

“Ideas and controversiesEdit

Views of raceEdit
Ignatiev viewed race distinctions and race itself as a social construct, not a scientific reality.[8][9]
Ignatiev's study of Irish immigrants in the 19th-century United States argued that an Irish triumph over nativism marks the incorporation of the Irish into the dominant group of American society. Ignatiev asserted that the Irish were not initially accepted as white by the dominant English-American population. He claimed that only through their own violence against free blacks and support of slavery did the Irish gain acceptance as white. Ignatiev defined whiteness as the access to white privilege, which according to Ignatiev gains people perceived to have "white" skin admission to certain neighborhoods, schools, and jobs. In the 19th century, whiteness was strongly associated with political power, especially suffrage. Ignatiev's book on Irish immigrants has been criticized for "conflat[ing] race and economic position" and for ignoring data that contradicts his theses.[9]
Ignatiev stated that attempts to give race a biological foundation have only led to absurdities as in the common example that a white woman could give birth to a black child, but a black woman could never give birth to a white child.[4] Ignatiev asserted that the only logical explanation for this notion is that people are members of different racial categories because society assigns people to these categories.
"New abolition" and the "white race"Edit
Ignatiev's web site and publication Race Traitordisplayed the motto "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity". In response to a letter to the site which understood the motto as meaning that the authors "hated" white people because of their "white skin", Ignatiev and the other editors responded:

We do not hate you or anyone else for the color of her skin. What we hate is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their color. It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color. When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin. We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category. Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them. In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages.[10]

In September 2002, Harvard Magazinepublished an excerpt from When Race Becomes Real: Black and White Writers Confront Their Personal Histories, edited by Bernestine Singley, about Ignatiev's role in launching Race Traitor.[3] In the excerpt, Ignatiev wrote that "[t]he goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists".[3] He wrote that the magazine's editors were frequently accused of being racists or part of a hate group, to which his "standard response" was "to draw an analogy with anti-royalism: to oppose monarchy does not mean killing the king; it means getting rid of crowns, thrones, royal titles, etc."[3] Ignatiev also wrote that "[t]he editors meant it when they replied to a reader, 'Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as "the white race" is destroyed—not "deconstructed" but destroyed'".[3]
Some conservative critics, particularly David Horowitz, saw the excerpt as an example of institutional racism against white people at Harvard, in "progressive culture" and in academia.[5] On his website, Horowitz wrote: "Suppose Frontpagemagazine.com ran a headline 'Abolish the Black Race'? What do you think the reaction would be? But at Harvard, where demonizing whites is merely the standard curriculum, an article like this can appear in a glossy magazine whose cover story is 'Whither the Art Museum?'".[5]
Toaster controversyEdit
From 1986 until 1992, Ignatiev served as a tutor (academic adviser) for Dunster House at Harvard College. In early 1992, Ignatiev objected to the university's purchase of a toaster oven for the Dunster House dining hall that would be designated for kosher use only. He insisted that cooking utensils with restricted use should be paid for by private funds. In a letter to the Harvard student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, Ignatiev wrote: "I regard anti-Semitism, like all forms of religious, ethnic and racial bigotry, as a crime against humanity and whoever calls me an anti-Semite will face a libel suit".[11]
Dunster House subsequently declined to renew Ignatiev's contract, saying that his conduct during the dispute was "unbecoming of a Harvard tutor". Dunster co-master Hetty Liem said it was the job of a tutor "to foster a sense of community and tolerance and to serve as a role model for the students" and that Ignatiev had not done so.[12]
Encyclopedia of Race and RacismEdit
In 2008, the American Jewish Committeeobjected to an encyclopedia article on Zionismthat Ignatiev wrote for The Encyclopedia of Race and Racism.[13] In the article, Ignatiev described Israel as a "racial state, where rights are assigned on the basis of ascribed descent or the approval of the superior race" and likened it to Nazi Germany and the Southern United States before the civil rights movement.[14]
The American Jewish Committee cited numerous "factual and historical inaccuracies" in Ignatiev's article. The American Jewish Committee also questioned why the encyclopedia included an entry about Zionism, stating that it was the only nationalist movement with an article in the encyclopedia.[13] Gideon Shimoni, Professor Emeritus at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, criticized the article as a "litany of errors and distortions of fact".[15]
Subsequently, the encyclopedia's publisher Gale announced the appointment of an independent committee to investigate "the factual accuracy, scholarly basis, coverage, scope, and balance of every article". In addition, Gale published a 10-part composite article, "Nationalism and Ethnicity", with a new article on Zionism and evaluations of cultural nationalism in across the globe. The composite article was free of charge to all customers.[16]In response to the findings of the independent committee, Gale has eliminated Ignatiev's article from the encyclopedia.[17]”

 

[Mikkel]

Agreed. The point is that we both came to the conclusion that murder is wrong through different ways. You might say that murder is wrong because it is a commandment laid down by god. I don't believe in absolute good or evil but I'd say murder is wrong from a secular humanist standpoint.

For the vast, vast majority of neolithic human history, slavery has been an integral part of society. Only within the past few hundred years has it become anathema to our beliefs. Same goes for premarital sex, homosexuality, racism, child labor and a bazillion other controversial things. It's inarguable that many aspects of morality are, indeed, relative.

That's weird... Hypothetically speaking, if a religion allows slavery, orders the execution of homosexuals, orders the oppression and murder of "others" ie Jews, and has no quibble with pedophilia because culturally and historically and foundationally it was ok, you're saying that's ok because morality is relative?

Or are you saying it's not ok, because your version of morality (secular humanism) is correct but the other "religion" is not?

 

[vector2]

That's weird... Hypothetically speaking, if a religion allows slavery, orders the execution of homosexuals, orders the oppression and murder of "others" ie Jews, and has no quibble with pedophilia because culturally and historically and foundationally it was ok, you're saying that's ok because morality is relative?

Or are you saying it's not ok, because your version of morality (secular humanism) is correct but the other "religion" is not?

It's not ok because the moral framework under which I operate (secular humanism) is subjectively correct in my opinion. That's essentially the point I'm making is that no moral framework is objectively more superior than another, aka moral relativism. Similarly, the point I was making to pgg is that "human rights" are not natural the way that you would say the element beryllium is natural. Human beings invented human rights and we choose to collectively give them meaning, significance, and enforceability.

 

[Mikkel]

It's not ok because the moral framework under which I operate (secular humanism) is subjectively correct in my opinion. That's essentially the point I'm making is that no moral framework is objectively more superior than another, aka moral relativism. Similarly, the point I was making to pgg is that "human rights" are not natural the way that you would say the element beryllium is natural. Human beings invented human rights and we choose to collectively give them meaning, significance, and enforceability.

But you're claiming moral superiority over billions of people even though you're saying you don't, because of semantics. You're being very intolerant of people who have a different worldview compared to you by saying you're not ok with it.

You can't and shouldn't be judging other people's actions if they have a different morality, because there's no objective superiority of your morality over someone else's morality that prescribes murder of homosexuals.

 

[BLADEMDA]

America is too large to ever be a happy nation. We are too large and heterogenous a population. Let the bloodthirsty gun owners form their own nation. They can have the south. Weapons capable of mass murder in 60 seconds can be available to flawed humans down there. You can continue to sacrifice the blood of children to your blood god down south.

Jesus is not a blood god. His teachings are clear that we answer to a higher authority for our actions. The Immorality of murder is not in question.
Have you ever wondered why mass murders/shootings are more common now than just 50 years ago? What’s changed that as a society we are seeing more immoral behavior ?

Breakdown of the family structure, lack of faith in a higher being who we must answer to, lack of personal responsibility and acceptance of violence as a norm are all factors in this problem.

 

[BLADEMDA]

But you're claiming moral superiority over billions of people even though you're saying you don't, because of semantics. You're being very intolerant of people who have a different worldview compared to you by saying you're not ok with it.

You can't and shouldn't be judging other people's actions if they have a different morality, because there's no objective superiority of your morality over someone else's morality that prescribes murder of homosexuals.

Hate the sin but love the sinner. Murder is never moral no matter how one tries to justify it. All human beings know this to be true.

 

[dpmd]

But you're claiming moral superiority over billions of people even though you're saying you don't, because of semantics. You're being very intolerant of people who have a different worldview compared to you by saying you're not ok with it.

You can't and shouldn't be judging other people's actions if they have a different morality, because there's no objective superiority of your morality over someone else's morality that prescribes murder of homosexuals.

This makes no sense. It isn't intolerant to acknowledge that one believes what they believe based on whatever they were taught or otherwise learned and decide that you disagree. It is different to claim that you have knowledge of some higher truth that makes them definitely wrong about everything. Could there be some supreme being that decides what is right and what is wrong? Sure. Many of the world's religions share certain beliefs like being kind to others, not taking what isn't yours, and others. Could that also have been created because that sort of thing helps people live together more harmoniously? Absolutely. But once you get past the vague ideas it gets trickier. Killing is bad right? Except it in most religions it isn't bad in war, it justified for certain reasons. What are the just reasons? Depends on what belief system and at what point in time. So in we pick any religion we can find times where their views on what made it justifies were different than others. Does that mean they were wrong according to the supreme being or did the supreme being change their mind at some point? Do you really think you know for sure? And if you don't know for sure you don't have to say "well we have no idea so it is fine if anyone does whatever they want". You can say "hey I understand that you believe this is ok but here is why I disagree".

 

[Mikkel]

This makes no sense. It isn't intolerant to acknowledge that one believes what they believe based on whatever they were taught or otherwise learned and decide that you disagree. It is different to claim that you have knowledge of some higher truth that makes them definitely wrong about everything. Could there be some supreme being that decides what is right and what is wrong? Sure. Many of the world's religions share certain beliefs like being kind to others, not taking what isn't yours, and others. Could that also have been created because that sort of thing helps people live together more harmoniously? Absolutely. But once you get past the vague ideas it gets trickier. Killing is bad right? Except it in most religions it isn't bad in war, it justified for certain reasons. What are the just reasons? Depends on what belief system and at what point in time. So in we pick any religion we can find times where their views on what made it justifies were different than others. Does that mean they were wrong according to the supreme being or did the supreme being change their mind at some point? Do you really think you know for sure? And if you don't know for sure you don't have to say "well we have no idea so it is fine if anyone does whatever they want". You can say "hey I understand that you believe this is ok but here is why I disagree".

Re-read the post I was commenting on and it'll help you understand what I was saying.

He was saying that there is no objective superiority of one religion over another, and I disagree. A religion that advocates for the murder of homosexuals and Jews is clearly morally inferior. Or is he saying that that religion is equal to a religion that preaches love thy neighbor?

 

[dpmd]

Re-read the post I was commenting on and it'll help you understand what I was saying.

He was saying that there is no objective superiority of one religion over another, and I disagree. A religion that advocates for the murder of homosexuals and Jews is clearly morally inferior. Or is he saying that that religion is equal to a religion that preaches love thy neighbor?

Maybe re read my post. How you know one religion is objectively right and which it is (who cares which you like better)? Also, are you speaking hypothetically about religions or are you mischaracterizing islam while glossing over the dirty past of christianity?

 

[nimbus]

Maybe re read my post. How you know one religion is objectively right and which it is (who cares which you like better)?

The only way to know is by a direct transmission from god, aka a mystical experience. And that is fraught in our society. Many of the ancient prophets would be considered whackadoos or charlatans today.

I agree that just because a religion is old or established does not make it “objectively right”. They’re just more culturally acceptable.

 

[vector2]

But you're claiming moral superiority over billions of people

No, I'm not. I know you're trying to come up with some stupid, patently transparent strawman argument, but I just said i make no claim that the moral system to which I ascribe is objectively better than anyone else's. You may think it's a semantic argument, but I suppose you're mostly saying that because you dont know the philosophic definition of an axiom, and because you're either oblivious or ignorant of the fact that one of the fundamental philosophical debates of the past 3,000 years is whether objective moral knowledge exists. .

 

[Mikkel]

Maybe re read my post. How you know one religion is objectively right and which it is (who cares which you like better)? Also, are you speaking hypothetically about religions or are you mischaracterizing islam while glossing over the dirty past of christianity?

If you step away from religion and instead focus on specific cultures, would you say certain cultures are objectively inferior because of the disregard for human life?

Is French culture superior to Aztec culture of human sacrifice?

I don't think it is helpful to name specific religions because the names are enough to ruin any objective discussion.

 

[Mikkel]

No, I'm not. I know you're trying to come up with some stupid, patently transparent strawman argument, but I just said i make no claim that the moral system to which I ascribe is objectively better than anyone else's. You may think it's a semantic argument, but I suppose you're mostly saying that because you dont know the philosophic definition of an axiom, and because you're either oblivious or ignorant of the fact that one of the fundamental philosophical debates of the past 3,000 years is whether objective moral knowledge exists. .

You said it's not ok to murder homosexuals, as in, your morality determined that someone else's morality is wrong.

Hiding behind language like "objective" allows you to not feel like you're being intolerant of people who have different morals, but at the end of the day you're saying you know right and wrong, and these other people do not.

If a black person is lynched by racist white men, I think everyone would agree that those evil racist men committed a great evil. If in their minds they viewed their actions as moral, would that change your view on "objective" moral superiority?

 

[dpmd]

If you step away from religion and instead focus on specific cultures, would you say certain cultures are objectively inferior because of the disregard for human life?

Is French culture superior to Aztec culture of human sacrifice?

I don't think it is helpful to name specific religions because the names are enough to ruin any objective discussion.

Objectively? No. In my opinion certain aspects are better or worse, but I don't claim to be all knowing enough to state it runs contrary to what some supreme being would want (and I know for sure that I am not the supreme being whose wants should be universally obeyed).

 

[Mikkel]

Objectively? No. In my opinion certain aspects are better or worse, but I don't claim to be all knowing enough to state it runs contrary to what some supreme being would want (and I know for sure that I am not the supreme being whose wants should be universally obeyed).

Was German culture circa 1941 objectively equal to American culture circa 1941?

Even outside of what a supreme being would say, wouldn't you say that a culture that collectively shunned a religious group is morally wrong?

 

[vector2]

You said it's not ok to murder homosexuals, as in, your morality determined that someone else's morality is wrong.

Hiding behind language like "objective" allows you to not feel like you're being intolerant of people who have different morals, but at the end of the day you're saying you know right and wrong, and these other people do not.

If a black person is lynched by racist white men, I think everyone would agree that those evil racist men committed a great evil. If in their minds they viewed their actions as moral, would that change your view on "objective" moral superiority?

I'm pretty certain at this point that you 100% do not know or understand the meaning of the words "objective" or "objectively." Not that surprising because you conflate opinion and fact a lot in your arguments.

Maybe to simplify it for you: "I believe red is subjectively better than violet"......as opposed to "I believe objectively that red is closer to a 680 nm wavelength than violet."

Similarly, I subjectively believe that 1800s (lack of) child labor laws are immoral, but I cannot write an objective mathematical-style proof on a chalkboard demonstrating as such.

 

[dpmd]

Was German culture circa 1941 objectively equal to American culture circa 1941?

Even outside of what a supreme being would say, wouldn't you say that a culture that collectively shunned a religious group is morally wrong?

How can you identify an objective answer to that question? Feelings and opinions absolutely come into play.

 

[Mikkel]

How can you identify an objective answer to that question? Feelings and opinions absolutely come into play.

Humans are born to experience the world in subjective reality, but without proper education, subjective prejudices will predominate.

Truth exists, and we should all strive to find it, rather than hand-wave and say that truth is subjective.

 

[pgg]

It's not ok because the moral framework under which I operate (secular humanism) is subjectively correct in my opinion. That's essentially the point I'm making is that no moral framework is objectively more superior than another, aka moral relativism. Similarly, the point I was making to pgg is that "human rights" are not natural the way that you would say the element beryllium is natural. Human beings invented human rights and we choose to collectively give them meaning, significance, and enforceability.

If you don't want to call them "rights", fine. If that word has too subjective a definition for you, fine.

Clearly, however, there are things humans (and monkeys, and deer, etc) can do without the assistance or permission of others. Make noises. Move around. Think.

And just as clearly, there are things humans (and monkeys, and deer, etc) can NOT do without the assistance or permission of others. Be brought food. Have shelter provided. Receive health care from a doctor (or veterinarian, or the Lion King monkey shaman, or whoever).

That is the blindingly obvious point I have attempting to make to you guys, before all of this subjective objective philosophical tree-falling-in-the-forest conjecture. Simply put, there is a clear difference between the UN-described "human right" of free speech and the UN-claimed "human right" of healthcare. If you can't grok the distinction between these two broad categories of Things, I don't know how else to explain it.

 

[vector2]

If you don't want to call them "rights", fine. If that word has too subjective a definition for you, fine.

Clearly, however, there are things humans (and monkeys, and deer, etc) can do without the assistance or permission of others. Make noises. Move around. Think.

And just as clearly, there are things humans (and monkeys, and deer, etc) can NOT do without the assistance or permission of others. Be brought food. Have shelter provided. Receive health care from a doctor (or veterinarian, or the Lion King monkey shaman, or whoever).

That is the blindingly obvious point I have attempting to make to you guys, before all of this subjective objective philosophical tree-falling-in-the-forest conjecture. Simply put, there is a clear difference between the UN-described "human right" of free speech and the UN-claimed "human right" of healthcare. If you can't grok the distinction between these two broad categories of Things, I don't know how else to explain it.

Putting aside for a moment the metaphysical discussion about whether rights "exist," I know what you're saying- the terminology about the thing you're talking about in philosophy is called negative vs positive rights, and as you can imagine libertarians are very strong defenders of the distinction between the two, and they champion the superiority (or sole existence of) negative rights. Intuitively I tend to agree that a negative right is much easier to understand and defend, and I do think the UNDoHR should make the distinction between "freedom to do" and "freedom to receive"

 

[BLADEMDA]

Either you believe every human being has the right to life and liberty or you don’t.

Societies, religions, cultures, etc May infringe on those rights but that does not mean those rights are not true and self evident.

The founders knew this to be true which is why slavery was so difficult to tolerate in the US Constitution.

 

[deleted171991]

Jesus is not a blood god. His teachings are clear that we answer to a higher authority for our actions. The Immorality of murder is not in question.
Have you ever wondered why mass murders/shootings are more common now than just 50 years ago? What’s changed that as a society we are seeing more immoral behavior ?

Breakdown of the family structure, lack of faith in a higher being who we must answer to, lack of personal responsibility and acceptance of violence as a norm are all factors in this problem.

Without even looking up, I would bet you that the murder rate per capita has gone down. And the only reason we have more mass murders per capita (IF true) is the media (idiots wants to become famous).

Read "Factfulness", or just watch Hans Rosling's TED presentations, and you'll see that the world is actually a much better place than it used to be, or than we think it is.

 

[deleted171991]

I think most people agree that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and parading an under-age transtrender at a strip club is wrong.

Most, not all. I wouldn't be surprised if the number is much less than 90%.

For example, we adore our military, AKA legally paid killers. Don't we? We also used to steal intellectual property (stuff protected by patents) from more developed countries back in the 18th-19th centuries (what we accuse China of today).

@vector2 is right: it's all relative.

 

[vector2]

For example, we adore our military, AKA legally paid killers. Don't we?

Prepare yourself for the incoming mental contortion which ultimately attempts to conflate modern warfare on foreign soil (which still includes special/black ops assassinations, preemptive drone strikes, "acceptable" collateral damage assessments) with the moral conditions of an individual defending himself from a home intruder.

 

[DrGasPasser]

How can you identify an objective answer to that question? Feelings and opinions absolutely come into play.

6 million dead people in the span of 5 years seems pretty objective and concrete to me.

 

[DrGasPasser]

Most, not all. I wouldn't be surprised if the number is much less than 90%.

For example, we adore our military, AKA legally paid killers. Don't we? We also used to steal intellectual property (stuff protected by patents) from more developed countries back in the 18th-19th centuries (what we accuse China of today).

@vector2 is right: it's all relative.

If you honestly think that there is a moral or semantic equivalence to be made between murder and killing on the battlefield, then I invite you to send an email to your coworkers next November 11 wishing all veterans a happy Murderer’s Day.

On the other hand, I’m flattered that you adore me.

 

[dpmd]

6 million dead people in the span of 5 years seems pretty objective and concrete to me.

My feelings certainly factor in ti the impact that number has. Do yours not?

 

[dpmd]

If you honestly think that there is a moral or semantic equivalence to be made between murder and killing on the battlefield, then I invite you to send an email to your coworkers next November 11 wishing all veterans a happy Murderer’s Day.

On the other hand, I’m flattered that you adore me.

The problem is in definitions. I think many more people agree that "murder" is wrong than agree that "killing" is wrong. For many murder is killing without a good reason but a good reason makes it something else. But what constitutes a good reason is widely variable.

 

[vector2]

6 million dead people in the span of 5 years seems pretty objective and concrete to me.

I'm struck by the irony of the number of people in general on this forum who make fun of the perceived lack of utility of a liberal arts degree, but yet there seems to be more than one college-educated physician here who doesn't have a high school student's understanding of the term "objective."

The murder of 6 million people is subjectively bad. Indeed, in my opinion, it's downright hideously, horribly atrocious. What it's not is "objectively" anything, at least inasfar as we are unable to prove that moral value judgements are physical phenomena.

Also, to answer your question more practically, there are quite a few neo-nazis today who think 1941 German culture was the superior brand, and would just as vociferously argue the point with you.

Read the following, it'll just take a few minutes

Objectivity | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

www.iep.utm.edu

 

[deleted480308]

The problem is in definitions. I think many more people agree that "murder" is wrong than agree that "killing" is wrong. For many murder is killing without a good reason but a good reason makes it something else. But what constitutes a good reason is widely variable.

Putting calls on speakerphone in coffee shops and restaurants, no longer murder

 

[dpmd]

Putting calls on speakerphone in coffee shops and restaurants, no longer murder

Lol. I file that in the category of reasons that most would never actually kill someone for but if someone did and then you found out it was why they did it you sort of understand (even if you still think they should get in some trouble for it). Like just to see him die is worse than because they took my parking spot is worse than because they were running away with my stuff they stole is worse than because they were trying to kill me

 

[DrGasPasser]

I'm struck by the irony of the number of people in general on this forum who make fun of the perceived lack of utility of a liberal arts degree, but yet there seems to be more than one college-educated physician here who doesn't have a high school student's understanding of the term "objective."

The murder of 6 million people is subjectively bad. Indeed, in my opinion, it's downright hideously, horribly atrocious. What it's not is "objectively" anything, at least inasfar as we are unable to prove that moral value judgements are physical phenomena.

Also, to answer your question more practically, there are quite a few neo-nazis today who think 1941 German culture was the superior brand, and would just as vociferously argue the point with you.

Read the following, it'll just take a few minutes

Objectivity | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

www.iep.utm.edu

Read carefully the original question - it asked if the cultures were objectively equal, not good or bad. 6 million more Jews (and gypsies) were systematically killed in Germany than the US from ~1940-1945. That was an inherent state of inequality. That also means that the odds of survival were objectively unequal for Jews in America than Germany. No feelings or opinions are needed to perform that math and measure that inequality. Whether that inequality is subjectively good for you depends on if you were a Jew or a Nazi.

 

[DrGasPasser]

The problem is in definitions. I think many more people agree that "murder" is wrong than agree that "killing" is wrong. For many murder is killing without a good reason but a good reason makes it something else. But what constitutes a good reason is widely variable.

Killing is an umbrella term to define when a life is ended, human or otherwise. Murder is a legal term with variable definitions depending on geographic location in which the killing occurred; in the US each state and the feds have different criteria for what constitutes the different types of murder versus manslaughter or negligent homicide. Murder is a form of killing, but not all killing is murder.

 

[deleted171991]

If you honestly think that there is a moral or semantic equivalence to be made between murder and killing on the battlefield, then I invite you to send an email to your coworkers next November 11 wishing all veterans a happy Murderer’s Day.

On the other hand, I’m flattered that you adore me.

I buy and eat murdered animals all the time, so I am at least an accessory to many murders. I rationalize that the military, paid from my taxes (among others), supported by me (and others), kills to defend the country. Except that there is no war IN the country, just some invented ones abroad. A perfectionist would (and many foreigners do) definitely call what our military does abroad murder, especially when it involves innocent civilians.

It's all relative. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One man's hero is another man's murderer.

Some people consider all legal executions murders. Some people believe that people are not allowed to kill. And so on... Even if one goes to the religious books, AFAIK Jesus never condoned killing people for any reason. I don't think that The Buddha did either. But one shouldn't need religion to know that killing people is wrong.

Anyway, I think the discussion was about the relativity of values (and rights).

 

[vector2]

Read carefully the original question - it asked if the cultures were objectively equal, not good or bad. 6 million more Jews (and gypsies) were systematically killed in Germany than the US from ~1940-1945. That was an inherent state of inequality. That also means that the odds of survival were objectively unequal for Jews in America than Germany. No feelings or opinions are needed to perform that math and measure that inequality. Whether that inequality is subjectively good for you depends on if you were a Jew or a Nazi.

He obviously meant "equal" in the sense of whether we are to make a value judgement of which culture was morally superior (aka the line of discussion that has been going on the entire last page). He wasn't talking about concrete numbers of people or widgets or which quantity is nominally more or less.

 

[dpmd]

Killing is an umbrella term to define when a life is ended, human or otherwise. Murder is a legal term with variable definitions depending on geographic location in which the killing occurred; in the US each state and the feds have different criteria for what constitutes the different types of murder versus manslaughter or negligent homicide. Murder is a form of killing, but not all killing is murder.

Thanks for basically repeating what I just said.

 

[DrGasPasser]

Thanks for basically repeating what I just said.

Well, I suppose that it needed some repeating since the progressives in this thread are still applying the term “murder” to eating animals.

 

[deleted171991]

Well, I suppose that it needed some repeating since the progressives in this thread are still applying the term “murder” to eating animals.

I am not a progressive. I am closest to a classical liberal, what tends to be called libertarian in this country. This is why I tend to agree with @pgg much more frequently than with @vector2.

I just love animals, even the ones I eat. And, while I am a hypocrite, I am not hypocrite enough to not even acknowledge my hypocrisy.

Do yourself a favor and read up on the practices of the meat/corn industrial complex (when compared to the traditional grass-fed free-range organic small farm). It's like comparing Auschwitz to the American dream.