|
I hate that Orwellian terminology (wrongthink) is misguidedly used to label progressive liberal ideas such as human rights and equality.
|
Posted byrojimboo#7480on May 4, 2019, 3:52:35 PM
|
"
rojimboo wrote:
I hate that Orwellian terminology (wrongthink) is misguidedly used to label progressive liberal ideas such as human rights and equality.
We talking equality of opportunity or outcome?
You gotta make it clear man, else people might assume your leaving the definition open and using the forefront of human rights with which all western based nations agree to push something.
I agree with the human rights charter so i must also agree with equal....wait a minute.
"
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
R.I.P. #metoo
"
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
R.I.P. affirmative action
"
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
R.I.P concept of oppressive patriarchy
I actually had a dispute about article 25 with my father, i was contemplating why women and children get a specific section dedicated to them and men don't have a section granting them special status. Not that i fundamentally disagree with the notion that mothers and children are the cornerstone of society and should be protected above all else, i just found it odd for a "human rights charter" to make this distinction and not aknowledge men in a similar fashion somewhere else.
I always see a statue of maria with baby jesus in my mind when i read this article though, it's hard ingrained in our society and like i said, for good reason.
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
|
Posted byBoem#2861on May 4, 2019, 4:29:25 PMOn Probation
|
"
Boem wrote:
"
rojimboo wrote:
I hate that Orwellian terminology (wrongthink) is misguidedly used to label progressive liberal ideas such as human rights and equality.
We talking equality of opportunity or outcome?
You gotta make it clear man, else people might assume your leaving the definition open and using the forefront of human rights with which all western based nations agree to push something.
I agree with the human rights charter so i must also agree with equal....wait a minute.
"
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
R.I.P. #metoo
"
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
R.I.P. affirmative action
"
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
R.I.P concept of oppressive patriarchy
I actually had a dispute about article 25 with my father, i was contemplating why women and children get a specific section dedicated to them and men don't have a section granting them special status. Not that i fundamentally disagree with the notion that mothers and children are the cornerstone of society and should be protected above all else, i just found it odd for a "human rights charter" to make this distinction and not aknowledge men in a similar fashion somewhere else.
I always see a statue of maria with baby jesus in my mind when i read this article though, it's hard ingrained in our society and like i said, for good reason.
Peace,
-Boem-
Not sure I would argue against any of that, though I fail to see how #metoo is RIPPED because of that article in the human rights act. It's up to the courts to decide, not the mob.
What I was trying to say (shortly, and badly I now see) is that the "We should have a straight Pride day" crowd for instance, which elevates a group of people already in the majority and all the benefits that it bestows, to something respectable and somehow 'equal' because of the absolute definition of equality.
If things were truly equal, minorities wouldn't be persecuted for who they are. The majority doesn't need defending. It never has.
But something tells me I will be lectured on how 'wrongthink' this all is, to actually aspire to equality and human rights. And they will use Orwellian terms to lecture me!! ARggggghh!
|
Posted byrojimboo#7480on May 4, 2019, 4:53:40 PM
|
"
rojimboo wrote:
Not sure I would argue against any of that, though I fail to see how #metoo is RIPPED because of that article in the human rights act. It's up to the courts to decide, not the mob.
What I was trying to say (shortly, and badly I now see) is that the "We should have a straight Pride day" crowd for instance, which elevates a group of people already in the majority and all the benefits that it bestows, to something respectable and somehow 'equal' because of the absolute definition of equality.
If things were truly equal, minorities wouldn't be persecuted for who they are. The majority doesn't need defending. It never has.
But something tells me I will be lectured on how 'wrongthink' this all is, to actually aspire to equality and human rights. And they will use Orwellian terms to lecture me!! ARggggghh!
You know people's live have been socially destroyed by metoo right?
I linked article 11 and 12 for a reason.
And please, define majority for me. What majority we talking about here that is so homogeneous that they experience no obstacles in their life to overcome?
Also i asked a question, equality of opportunity or outcome?
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
|
Posted byBoem#2861on May 4, 2019, 5:17:43 PMOn Probation
|
"
Boem wrote:
"
rojimboo wrote:
Not sure I would argue against any of that, though I fail to see how #metoo is RIPPED because of that article in the human rights act. It's up to the courts to decide, not the mob.
What I was trying to say (shortly, and badly I now see) is that the "We should have a straight Pride day" crowd for instance, which elevates a group of people already in the majority and all the benefits that it bestows, to something respectable and somehow 'equal' because of the absolute definition of equality.
If things were truly equal, minorities wouldn't be persecuted for who they are. The majority doesn't need defending. It never has.
But something tells me I will be lectured on how 'wrongthink' this all is, to actually aspire to equality and human rights. And they will use Orwellian terms to lecture me!! ARggggghh!
You know people's live have been socially destroyed by metoo right?
THat's why there are laws against slander.
"
And please, define majority for me.
Straight vs gay people.
"
What majority we talking about here that is so homogeneous that they experience no obstacles in their life to overcome?
Strawman, never said that.
Just that people in the majority, don't encounter many of the obstacles minorities.
It's just the way of the world, always has been. The majority bullies the minority to no end. Which is why the strong need to defend the less strong minority.
"
Also i asked a question, equality of opportunity or outcome?
I don't know what you're saying. With regard to what?
Ok I read the wikipedia article about equality of opportunity, and I would be a proponent of the substantive variation model of equality of opportunity, i.e. if a candidate for a job had been unfairly disadvantaged in the past, I would likely support a quota system.
Depends who and what though, but in general it would make sense for me.
As to equality of outcomes, what do you mean? In terms of...? Political theory?
As a Finnish person, I would probably also champion equality of outcomes in terms of politics, due to supporting things like progressive taxation and a welfare state and free higher education for all.
Heh, you learn something new everyday.
|
Posted byrojimboo#7480on May 4, 2019, 5:41:40 PM
|
"
rojimboo wrote:
1)I used "socially destroyed" for a reason, some people's life where ruined by a charge of rape that was never factually backed up.
As for the "law against slander" it's kind of hard to press charges against anonymous accounts or groups using social media as cover for their actions.
You know about the Brett Kavanaugh case?
Serious impacts to his life, no substantial facts or evidence put forward by the person making the claim.
2) straight vs gay? When did straight people hold a meeting to surpress gays? If anything i would throw that ball in the religious camp and something to all my knowledge that is rightfully decreasing.(let's pretend ignorance about islamic states for the sake of argument)
I don't know about you, but i don't run up to people and ask their sexual orientation, i just see people and what they do in their bedroom is of no concern to me.
What about gay people pretending to be straight? Are they part of the oppressors or the oppressed? Are they banking on priviliges and insulting gays by doing so?
How does this stuff work exactly where the world is divided in neat boxes.
You realize that's why i asked the "homogeneous majority" question right.
How about individuals just being strong and not some groups?
Your bassicaly saying if i got this right that no straight man can ever have a more difficult life then a gay man because he is part of the majority?
Like, i hope your not, but i wonder what else such a mental dualistic framework is usefull for.
3) So you are for equality of outcome, you would rather have a women to fill a position by inforced quota's even if a man is available that would be better at the task at hand. (or change it around, a man when a women has better credentials for a position)
You don't see how society at large loses out if you fill positions with less capable people then are available in the market by enforcing quota's on institutions?
Disadvantaged in the past is something i would like some more nuance in though, what we talking about here? Was he poor, where his ancestors enslaved, did he get beaten as a kid or bullied, how about ignored by his parents, his grandparents gassed, emotionally damaged?
(if it's not yet clear, just showing how stupendous it would be to enforce or write law around this notion that would not spiral out of control depending on person in charge)
Everybody alive was disadvantaged at one point in time.
My view is quite easy, it's not about the cards you get in life but how you play them. And that's a game everybody can play against himself, maximize your cards.
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
|
Posted byBoem#2861on May 4, 2019, 6:28:51 PMOn Probation
|
"
Boem wrote:
"
rojimboo wrote:
1)I used "socially destroyed" for a reason, some people's life where ruined by a charge of rape that was never factually backed up.
As for the "law against slander" it's kind of hard to press charges against anonymous accounts or groups using social media as cover for their actions.
You know about the Brett Kavanaugh case?
Serious impacts to his life, no substantial facts or evidence put forward by the person making the claim.
2) straight vs gay? When did straight people hold a meeting to surpress gays? If anything i would throw that ball in the religious camp and something to all my knowledge that is rightfully decreasing.(let's pretend ignorance about islamic states for the sake of argument)
I don't know about you, but i don't run up to people and ask their sexual orientation, i just see people and what they do in their bedroom is of no concern to me.
What about gay people pretending to be straight? Are they part of the oppressors or the oppressed? Are they banking on priviliges and insulting gays by doing so?
How does this stuff work exactly where the world is divided in neat boxes.
You realize that's why i asked the "homogeneous majority" question right.
How about individuals just being strong and not some groups?
Your bassicaly saying if i got this right that no straight man can ever have a more difficult life then a gay man because he is part of the majority?
Like, i hope your not, but i wonder what else such a mental dualistic framework is usefull for.
3) So you are for equality of outcome, you would rather have a women to fill a position by inforced quota's even if a man is available that would be better at the task at hand. (or change it around, a man when a women has better credentials for a position)
You don't see how society at large loses out if you fill positions with less capable people then are available in the market by enforcing quota's on institutions?
Disadvantaged in the past is something i would like some more nuance in though, what we talking about here? Was he poor, where his ancestors enslaved, did he get beaten as a kid or bullied, how about ignored by his parents, his grandparents gassed, emotionally damaged?
(if it's not yet clear, just showing how stupendous it would be to enforce or write law around this notion that would not spiral out of control depending on person in charge)
Everybody alive was disadvantaged at one point in time.
My view is quite easy, it's not about the cards you get in life but how you play them. And that's a game everybody can play against himself, maximize your cards.
Peace,
-Boem-
I forgot why we were on this tangent, but I'll allow it for some amusement.
1) You mean Kavanaugh who is a Supreme court judge now after defending himself succesfully in court? I.e. he won? One of the most powerful men in the country? How was he destroyed, exactly?
2)
"
Your bassicaly saying if i got this right that no straight man can ever have a more difficult life then a gay man because he is part of the majority?
Like, i hope your not, but i wonder what else such a mental dualistic framework is usefull for.
Strawman.
What I'm saying is that gay people have ADDITIONAL obstacles due to the society they live in.
3) Actually the whole quota thing is part of the substantive model of equality of opportunity, nothing to do with equality of outcomes, but yeah.
To clarify, I would rather there be no quotas but for that to happen equality of opportunity needs to occur and be possible.
One kid is privileged, goes to private schools, performs better and gets into a top university, the other is born into poverty with horrific public schooling yet could make the grades for university if his background is taken into consideration.
I don't know much about the procedures in the States, but I imagine demonstrating your income level be below a certain amount is required at the very least.
The quotas are only there because of your messed up situation in the first place.
|
Posted byrojimboo#7480on May 4, 2019, 6:42:56 PM
|
|
How gracious of you /tips hat
1) i was simply mentioning the kavanaugh case because it is a high profile one.
Are you saying he was not socially effected by the accusations simply because he won and has a solid job ?_?
Can you imagine having your picture all over the nation with rape accusation next to it and being publicly discussed in all of the news-papers.
But that doesn't mater because he is well of?
I don't understand that kind of empathy, sorry.
2) give me some examples of rights not afforded to gay people or obstacles put in their path by the state because they are gay.
Or we talking emotional and social distress that somehow outweighs that of a straight man in todays society? And how are we quantifying this exactly?
I'm curious how you back up your claim. Are some people bigots against gay people, for sure but that's nothing new. Just like tall people have a different life experience compared to little people.
Society as far as i am concerned is pretty tolerant against all sorts of people nowadays and only seems to be improving in that regard so i don't see any reason to sound the alarm.
It was most definetly worse in the past.(though if you go back far enough, it was a non-issue historically)
3) and the substantive model is considered "unstable" because it has to many factors to account for and an ever broadening of the definition of disadvantage.
As for the whole rich kid vs poor kid, both are capable to enter based on merit. The difference is that the poor kid will have to get a loan while the rich kid does not.
Like i said people have different hands to play in life and an argument could be made that the poor kid will value things more highly in comparison to the rich kid and as a result will outperform him because of motivation and higher necessity.
We can make up many cases both pro rich kid and pro poor kid. Facts remain that nothing prevents the poor kid from entering a higher education if he shows merit.
And if there is enough merit, people can even open the door for him with funds and other tools that exist to attract people that show promise.
And if he succeeds, his kid is going to be a rich kid.
Also i'm from the EU, so i don't know what your referring to in the last sentence.
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
|
Posted byBoem#2861on May 4, 2019, 7:26:14 PMOn Probation
|
"
rojimboo wrote:
"
Boem wrote:
And please, define majority for me.
Straight vs gay people.
"
What majority we talking about here that is so homogeneous that they experience no obstacles in their life to overcome?
Strawman, never said that.
Just that people in the majority, don't encounter many of the obstacles minorities.
It's just the way of the world, always has been. The majority bullies the minority to no end. Which is why the strong need to defend the less strong minority.
Jimbo, you're forgetting a very important truth, which is: human beings do not live regionally, or nationally, or globally. They live locally.
I grew up white in the Detroit area. I was the minority. Most of my high school class happened to be Muslims, ethnically from Central Asia.
I could get in my car right now and drive less than ten miles to a room full of people where gay people are the majority. The Tool Box, I think it's called. In that space, I'd be the minority.
Females are the majority of just about every nation. Yet — to take a shot in the dark — you probably believe males have the upper hand. I'd ask you to take that idea to a male nurse or a male teacher.
Minority and majority are situational. The same group can be oppressed here and oppressor there. And you can get some very unpleasant results when a group that believes they are an oppressed minority happens to be the majority, and the group they view as their oppressor is the minority. For instance, 1930's Germany.
There was only one correct set of answers to Boem's questions:
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." — Ayn Rand
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on May 4, 2019, 7:44:32 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on May 4, 2019, 7:38:42 PM
|
"
Boem wrote:
How gracious of you /tips hat
1) i was simply mentioning the kavanaugh case because it is a high profile one.
Are you saying he was not socially effected by the accusations simply because he won and has a solid job ?_?
Can you imagine having your picture all over the nation with rape accusation next to it and being publicly discussed in all of the news-papers.
But that doesn't mater because he is well of?
I don't understand that kind of empathy, sorry.
If he wanted to, he could sue the woman making the rape accusation for all she is worth. But he hasn't done that. Maybe there is more to the story....? In any case, he's a frigging awful bigoted religious judge who never should have gotten in.
"
2) give me some examples of rights not afforded to gay people or obstacles put in their path by the state because they are gay.
Or we talking emotional and social distress that somehow outweighs that of a straight man in todays society? And how are we quantifying this exactly?
I'm curious how you back up your claim. Are some people bigots against gay people, for sure but that's nothing new. Just like tall people have a different life experience compared to little people.
Society as far as i am concerned is pretty tolerant against all sorts of people nowadays and only seems to be improving in that regard so i don't see any reason to sound the alarm.
Employers who are prejudiced can decide not to give you the job etc., and everyday prejudice can lead to increased stress and mental health problems, violent prejudice in some countries can manifest against gay people etc.
There are quite a few examples, but overcoming these obstacles shouldn't be a necessity, the obstacles shouldn't be there in the first place, because they exist in the mind of the prejudiced, i.e. it's their fault not vice versa.
"
3) and the substantive model is considered "unstable" because it has to many factors to account for and an ever broadening of the definition of disadvantage.
As for the whole rich kid vs poor kid, both are capable to enter based on merit. The difference is that the poor kid will have to get a loan while the rich kid does not.
Like i said people have different hands to play in life and an argument could be made that the poor kid will value things more highly in comparison to the rich kid and as a result will outperform him because of motivation and higher necessity.
We can make up many cases both pro rich kid and pro poor kid. Facts remain that nothing prevents the poor kid from entering a higher education if he shows merit.
And if there is enough merit, people can even open the door for him with funds and other tools that exist to attract people that show promise.
And if he succeeds, his kid is going to be a rich kid.
Even you acknowledge it's an uphill struggle for the impoverished kid.
Take it a little further. Make it equal opportunity for him, and the priviledged kid.
That is all.
|
Posted byrojimboo#7480on May 4, 2019, 7:40:12 PM
|
