The Glade 4.0

Damn, I hope I get some good Gov't hand-outs after I get fired for insubordination at the performance review.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

This is where I think your logic is flawed.

You appear to be advocating that a communities rights should not be interfered with by another community. Yet, I gave 2 examples of communities that have their communal rights interfered with by other communities, there are of course other examples of communities interfering with communal rights in both directions.

I don't see how my belief that marriage should extend to all individuals without regard to their race, sex, creed, color, or sexual orientation is in divergence with my belief that rights are inherent. Nor do I understand how my belief that people should wear whatever clothing they desire is at odds with my beliefs about rights. Perhaps I need you to explain how the two are linked. Your not still operating under the unfounded assumption that I subscribe in any manner to the concept of "communal rights", are you?

What do I understand your "examples" to show is the logical incoherence of your belief that rights can be determined by "the community". It highlights extremely well (thank you for bringing it up, by the way) many of the reasons why a belief in "communal rights" is self-contradictory at best.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Non-geographically defined community is not. Its a fan club.

Ah, I think I misunderstood your post then. I thought you were forwarding that as an opinion.

Historically, this is not subjective at all. Interpretive? Sure. Generally and historically speaking, however, there must be a shared identity to qualify as the community.

Technology de-localizes the idea of community, so I'd personally identify, for the purposes of a discussion of rights (which is the topic at hand), the smallest entity that determines/enforces (depending upon one's viewpoint) rights for its population. In the modern context, I think one cannot argue that is anything but a nation, maybe as small as a state.


Edit:

This means that while, say, Catholicism is a community, it is a moot distinction given the topic at hand: establishment of rights.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Examples off the top of my head, both current and past.

The European Union, NATO, United Nations, "Soviet Block Countries", Allies, Axis

Regulatory bodies do not make a community. Do you feel like you're brought together by NAFTA with Mexicans?

How about New Zealanders by ANZUS?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I am sincerely confused. Did you miss this?


I am really trying to understand, sorry if it comes across differently.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Basically yes Vindi.

I thought you were stating how you thought community rights worked and I missed the part (or it didn't register) about how you don't believe rights are communally derived.

Got it. Much less confused now.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Weren't you the one complaining about appeals to history? Anyway, "shared identity"?

Humanity? Women? Caucasians? Africans? Soccer players? Engineers? Red headed people? Amputees?

All share parts of their identity. Again, what determines an "adequate" level of similarity for a "community"? What makes "community" necessary as a block for establishing rights? Why are you excluding Catholicism? What is your basis and justification for this, and how is it not a subjective justification?

That's fine, if that's how you want to define it, for your own views. But you must admit this is subjective. If it is subjective, you should admit that others can define it more broadly, or more narrowly.

Appeals to history have to do with a proof or logical position. I'm not stating a logical position in regards to word usage, I'm using common usage, dictionary usage, and etymology. I suppose, since I haven't directly cited those 3 definitions, you could claim appeal to authority if you wanted, but appeal to history is invalid.



Do any of those group determine rights? If not, none of them are within the realm of context of the discussion at hand, and are thereby irrelevant to this particular topic.



That would again, be both interpretive and irrelevant. Does "humanity," to use your example (and assuming a belief in communal rights) get together and decide what rights exist? Does "humanity" then somehow make policy based upon that?



Ask Aizle, he's the one who believes in communal rights.



Because it doesn't determine rights (at least not anymore) for its "community."



See above for basis. As to justification? Because when one is having a conversation or debate about a topic, one excludes irrelevancies as being... irrelevant. Now, were this to be several hundred years ago in which the Church set law and determined rights, we would not exclude them in a discussion about rights; however, in a modern context they do not actively do this, so including them in discussions rights is improper.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I do not believe subjective is the word you want to be using, assuming you want to be correct. Interpretive would be the word you want, based on your usage here.

Subjective in the context of word choice means that I get to determine the definition. I do not. I can interpret the definition differently, but core meanings stay the same.

Regardless, this de-rail aside, you have yet to posit, now that you've entered the debate, any benefits to communal rights perspectives. You've also failed to demonstrate how any sort of alleged "global community" creates/enforces rights.

Finally, neither you nor Aizle seem to be able to reconcile inconsistencies in viewpoint regarding forcing a particular set of "rights" or "morality" on another.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

OMG yawn.



Why not? Specifically, you are arguing against there being a "world community". This is humanity. You are saying that the "world community" does not determine rights, because there is no world community, because communities have shared identity, and humanity isn't a community despite having shared identity because it doesn't determine rights.

It's a circular argument.



Yes.



Then why are you limiting his construct based on subjective reasoning if you are outside it?



What? Yes it does. And as you allude - used to. Did the nature of rights change as the world secularized?



I think I see where you are going with this. Am I correct in that you are attempting to follow Aizle's construct, and within that construct trying to somehow define what "majorities" make rights?

It seems clear, the way he's defined it, that the international community, as representatives of the individual populations, qualify. There are international laws establishing human rights. It seems that you are allowing for a "nation" to establish rights for the populace, but will not somehow allow, within his construct, for groups of nations. Why is this?

You appear to be defining "community" to be no larger than a nation. Call it interpretation if you like - I really don't care. Regardless, it is not an objective fact.



The UN has quite clearly agreed on international human rights, and enforce it through member militaries.

As to benefits, that doesn't really affect the nature of rights. If rights are a construct, then it just is. Benefits or drawbacks are what they are.



What's inconsistent about it? If might makes right, then might makes morality.

That's your response? Why should I take the rest of your post seriously if you can't deign to actually make literate responses.[/quote]



Not at all. You're attempting to extend "community" to species. Are all wolves part of a community? What about something closer to humans, say, chimps? Are all chimps part of one community?

Discussion of viewpoints on rights are divided in exactly that way: arguing against inherent rights, natural rights, or whathaveyou, one must create communal divides. In so doing, one precludes (to date) the idea of a world community, as there is no creation of rights at that level, no individual identifies first with the "world community," and no true enforcement exists at that level.

Don't get mad at me for an issue inherent to communal rights... in order for there to be communal rights at a level that is X-large, a governing community must exist to establish them. If no such community exists at the X-large size, rights must be communally established at a smaller size. That's all I'm saying.



Uh... demonstrate this, as I'm relatively sure this is wholly untrue.



I really don't know what you're trying to convey with these two points? I'm not limiting any "construct." I'm discussing the nature of communal rights.

The Catholic Church does not determine rights for its adherents. It doesn't determine whether you can smoke in your home, or shoot an intruder in your house without the obligation to retreat. It doesn't determine whether you select your nation's leadership or whether you have reproductive rights. Just because at one time it did make some of these determinations does not make it a valid "community" to discuss the establishment of communal rights in a contemporary sense.




What I'm trying to learn is 1) why Aizle (and others) believe that communal rights and not inherent rights exist, 2) regardless of (1), why Aizle (and others) believe their belief in communal rights is superior to a belief in inherent rights, and 3) determine how Aizle personally can reconcile a belief in communal rights while simultaneously advocate the destruction of another community for his own moral satisfaction.



No enforcement body exists. Generally, given that we have allowed the practical reality of both "might makes rights" and the idea that violation/usurpation of rights (killing someone) leaves them equally violated, regardless of inherent v. not-inherent, protection/enforcement of rights becomes the crux of the issue. Well, that and policy creation. That's the whole point of debating inherent v. communal rights in the first place: to discuss implications in regards to enforcement and policy creation.

As such, until a global enforcement mechanism exists, I don't believe one can reasonably claim any such "rights" are truly being created at the level of a global community. One could counter-claim, I suppose, that an enforcement mechanism exists but is imperfect, such as the justice system not solving every crime or something. That would be a reasonable claim to make, however, given that groups such as North Korea, the Taliban, and others continue to defy basic WHO, UN, Geneva Convention "rights," on a daily basis, I'd argue that the "might" has not signicantly unified the world into any recognizeable "community."

Furthermore, if one believes in and advocates communal rights, while simultaneously advocating for any sort of equality, they logically should not advocate the overthrow of one community's rights/values in favor of another. Again, they might take personal umbrage at a perceived moral violation taking place, but advocating policy that vacates one community in favor of another is merely advocacy of enforced authority, or tyranny.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Might makes rights (not right) is given, and as such moot. Might in no way makes morality.

What is inconsistent is that out of one side of your mouth you're advocating that "communities make rights for their members" and out of the other you're saying "I don't like that this community over here has declined to give all the rights I think they should give to all of its members, so I'm going to FORCE them to do so."

Unless "you only get to choose as long as I agree with your choice" is your moral viewpoint, that isn't a consistent outlook.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I admit to being a little confused here DFK.

I thought you were solidly in the camp that rights are absolute, so it seems odd that you were concede that rights are defined by might.

Also, in what way do you think morality is absolute and not also defined by might?

The argument could be made that R. Buckminster Fuller did.

_________________

I believe Obama has communicated that he leans in that direction too, but honestly all I've heard from him is what the media releases, so I may be wrong.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Under the construct of "man creates rights", I agree with this.



No - not necessarily. You keep saying this, but it is not necessarily true. Aizle certainly doesn't believe that. The UN is nothing more than a "community" of nations. Our country is nothing more than a community of states. A state is nothing more than a community of smaller municipalities, and so on. The smaller you go, the more in common the people have, but at no point does taking another step up make it suddenly invalid.

The UN has certainly established agreed to rights, and enforces them (perhaps not as effectively as it would like).



Why would I be mad? Regardless, you're drawing that line in such a way that could easily be contested.



See above.



The nature of communal rights is pretty straight forward. They are established by [insert group of people here]. They are enforced by the same. It doesn't matter the group, so long as that group is organized enough to make the rules and enforce them. Size only matters in a historical sense, in that a community hasn't existed that's bigger. 2 million years from now, I expect sizes of communities to be larger. The concept can scale with size, provided the group is organized enough to create the rules and enforce them.



He stated this fairly clearly a few posts back.



I'm not sure he's said that, and I certainly haven't heard anyone else say that. All he's said is that's what he believes. In fact, the only person I've heard say their beliefs are superior is Elmo.



He didn't say that. However, let's assume two communities: one of protestants and one of cannibals. Both have different views on moral activities. If I was to operate under the assumption that humans make "rights", then both communities are within their rights and are "moral". This is because each community would establish their own morality and rights. When these two communities clash, and the dust settles, the winner would ultimately be able to force their wishes on the others. This would be amoral to the loser up until they were fully assimilated. Then, they would embrace and support the new order.



Perhaps - however, the community (of nations) still made the rights. They just can't enforce them. Theoretically, you can go either way. Practically speaking, you can create whatever you want but it's not particularly important until it can be enforced.



But, one could then counter again that the rights are created in the areas where the entity is strong enough to enforce them. For example, if the US declared that no slaves should exist anywhere, but could only enforce that in the US, then under the construct those rights would exist in the US only. Likewise, the UN rights would exist in some places, but not North Korea.



Unless, of course, it is within their moral construct to do so. Who are you to judge a community as immoral just because their morality tells them to attack others?

If a community establishes rights, it establishes morality. They are different, and separate, but IMO must originate from the same process.



First, I'm not advocating anything. Second, functionally, it depends on the views and the morals of the stronger entity. If the populace (who creates the rules and morals for itself) believes it to be right to attack the weaker opponent, then that's what will happen. Is it right? Depends on which side of the spear you're on.



If the stronger entity or the majority defines the rights, then they ultimately get to reject those rights "chosen" by the weaker group. See marriage "rights" in the US.

Why not? Saying that communities make rights for their members in no way precludes one community absorbing another and making it grant different rights.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."