Saudi court INCREASES punishment of Rape Victim

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

As a human being, she is born with the same inherent rights as any other human being anywhere.

And I'm saying the "rights" we in the civilized world have grown accustomed to are NOT universal. The only universal truths are eat something or go hungry, old age follows youth, and taxes. There is no guarantee of happiness, justice, or success.

 

[mtrycrafts]

And I'm saying the "rights" we in the civilized world have grown accustomed to are NOT universal. The only universal truths are eat something or go hungry, old age follows youth, and taxes. There is no guarantee of happiness, justice, or success.

I am not sure if taxes are a 'universal truth.'

 

[highfihoney]

And I'm saying the "rights" we in the civilized world have grown accustomed to are NOT universal. The only universal truths are eat something or go hungry, old age follows youth, and taxes. There is no guarantee of happiness, justice, or success.

Ya got that right,im not a world traveler or anything but i have been to a few countries that i like to call "mud holes" & their idea of rights is nothing like we expect.

In many countries women are nothing more than cattle.

 

[Davemcc]

And I'm saying the "rights" we in the civilized world have grown accustomed to are NOT universal. The only universal truths are eat something or go hungry, old age follows youth, and taxes. There is no guarantee of happiness, justice, or success.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that rights are inherent. This is not to say that they cannot be abrogated by the force of the state.

 

[Tomorrow]

I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that rights are inherent. This is not to say that they cannot be abrogated by the force of the state.

As much as I enjoy your POV and generally agree with you, Dave....not so much this time. What right or rights are inherent to all humans? Be specific. And when did they start? With civilization? (That would be the granting of rights by the state.)

We're like any animal. We struggle to survive. We came into agreement with a few others way back a few tens of thousands of years ago (in community) in an effort to enhance our drive to survive. You could maybe make a case that you have an inherent right to struggle to survive. That's all I can see as possibly valid...but that's really only a biological mandate.

 

[Davemcc]

I admit, it's been a while since I've read my Smith, Locke, Jefferson, et alia, but I will try to explain what I mean. Bear in mind it's just my opinion. When I say rights are inherent, it means you are endowed with them at birth and all humans have had these rights since the dawn of man, whether or not they were recognized as such. Rights are not granted by the state. If they were granted by the state, they would be priviledges. While the state may not recognize your right to life and may take your life against your will, it would still be a case of the state taking away your right to life, regardless of the process the state used to decide that act.

So your cavemen struggling to survive expressed that inherent right to life, and to live free and pursue his own interests, even if he didn't know that that was what he was doing. The point at which the state emerges and denies man his ability to live or to be free is the point at which these inherent rights are violated. The state is a collection of people whose purpose is to regulate the peaceful, social interaction of people. Yet the concept of state has expanded it's mandate and appropriated the power to determine who should live, die, be free or in the case of Islamic governments, the power to determine all aspects of people's lives. But this is simply a case of might makes right and denies their citizens in modern times even the most basic of rights as expressed by the cavemen.

I wish I could say this all more eloquently, but I'm in a self-imposed political exile. Like the old axiom, use it or lose it, I have lost some of my ability to express things as clearly and succinctly as I once could.

 

[highfihoney]

All those savages need to get their heads right is a week at camp stickdeath

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elj2m1x-oEk

 

[Tomorrow]

I admit, it's been a while since I've read my Smith, Locke, Jefferson, et alia, but I will try to explain what I mean. Bear in mind it's just my opinion. When I say rights are inherent, it means you are endowed with them at birth and all humans have had these rights since the dawn of man, whether or not they were recognized as such. Rights are not granted by the state. If they were granted by the state, they would be priviledges. While the state may not recognize your right to life and may take your life against your will, it would still be a case of the state taking away your right to life, regardless of the process the state used to decide that act.

So your cavemen struggling to survive expressed that inherent right to life, and to live free and pursue his own interests, even if he didn't know that that was what he was doing. The point at which the state emerges and denies man his ability to live or to be free is the point at which these inherent rights are violated. The state is a collection of people whose purpose is to regulate the peaceful, social interaction of people. Yet the concept of state has expanded it's mandate and appropriated the power to determine who should live, die, be free or in the case of Islamic governments, the power to determine all aspects of people's lives. But this is simply a case of might makes right and denies their citizens in modern times even the most basic of rights as expressed by the cavemen.

I wish I could say this all more eloquently, but I'm in a self-imposed political exile. Like the old axiom, use it or lose it, I have lost some of my ability to express things as clearly and succinctly as I once could.

Well...I'm most concerned about this last paragraph. Did you sell your soul to the devil or Johnd or someone? Unless you were getting too personally involved or worked up over threads, there is no need for you to withhold your respected opinions.

Concerning your POV on this issue of rights and priveleges...the minute we came out of the caves (sorry stratman) and slapped hands on a mutual aid and defense agreement with other cavemen, the community or state issued proclamations, large and small, that granted both. There is nothing inherent to any individual except as granted in those agreements that continue to be used to define our countries and cultures. Being free to follow one's pursuits, pre-civilization, meant ducking spears, running from bears, hunting javelina, and attempting to kidnap the "other" ones....the ones with the funny chests and hidden genitals. No...no inherent rights. The only mandate was survival of the fittest.

 

[Davemcc]

Well...I'm most concerned about this last paragraph. Did you sell your soul to the devil or Johnd or someone? Unless you were getting too personally involved or worked up over threads, there is no need for you to withhold your respected opinions.

No, my political exile is on a larger scale, i.e. civic, provincial and federal politics. There simply isn't any political party that I can actively support. I choose "none of the above" because I won't sell my soul. But I can't help being who I am and on that note, the simplest expression of my view of rights is one that should be familiar to most Americans.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

The only part of this I can't share is a belief in a creator, but even without that I think the principle still holds true. I also don't think that it applies any less to those in other countries even if their governments institutionally violate these "unalienable rights". It sure seems harder to defend 231 years after the fact.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Please note the very first word: "we". as in "we the people of the United States of America". Not "People in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia". If King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz wants to treat his female royal subjects like walking birth canals he most certainly will, because he has a very powerful military/police force which exist to enforce his will upon others.

 

[pzaur]

I just want to say that if a society cannot and WILL not respect a woman because she is a woman, then the individuals who are giving out these decrees should be given a punishment 100 times over what ever they have ordered.

It sounds like these men are pissed because a woman gave birth to THEM. After that, the women had the audacity to raise, nurture, and then be abused by these same men. Absolute garbage.

I understand the different society, different values angle that is here. But, woman don't have smaller brains and they certainly can be incredibly brilliant as any individual on this planet or more.

-pat

 

[Davemcc]

Please note the very first word: "we". as in "we the people of the United States of America". Not "People in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia".

In my own case and in my own opinion, I could just as easily say "I hold these truths to be self-evident" and that "I believe all Men are created equal, even those born by chance into a geographic region dominated by repressive, tyrannical regimes." I certainly don't take offense that your view is different.

If King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz wants to treat his female royal subjects like walking birth canals he most certainly will, because he has a very powerful military/police force which exist to enforce his will upon others.

So you see my point. Regardless of whether she has inherent rights or is chattel, it is the coercive, violent FORCE of the state that denies her even the simplest benefits of civilized society and determines her situation in life. The state has usurp her own authority over her own basic human functions by force of arms.

 

[Tomorrow]

The state has usurp her own authority over her own basic human functions by force of arms.

It has always been thus....and in every state to one degree or another.

 

[Davemcc]

It has always been thus....and in every state to one degree or another.

It is true, but it isn't right. The degree to which a government can refrain from imposing it's will on it's citizens daily lives is the degree to which a society can be considered civilized.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

It is true, but it isn't right. The degree to which a government can refrain from imposing it's will on it's citizens daily lives is the degree to which a society can be considered civilized.

Well then, I guess we're frackin barbarians. We need a license to cut hair.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

The state has usurp her own authority over her own basic human functions by force of arms.

No, she never had authority. If she wanted to usurp the government and succeed, then she would authority.... but only so much as she could enforce. Its a very simple 'weak take from strong' system. Only us enlightened folk have moved on to 'rich take from the poor'. Poor can become rich and rich can become poor, but the rich will always have more than the poor.

 

[Davemcc]

Well then, I guess we're frackin barbarians. We need a license to cut hair.

Which beats having the religious police imprison you and the courts sentence you to flogging for shaving your face.

Which beats killing women for displaying their hair in public instead of being covered from head to foot at all times in public.

 

[Adam]

Which beats having the religious police imprison you and the courts sentence you to flogging for shaving your face.

Kinda makes me wonder if they had things figured out a few hundred years ago. Why? Well, I gotta shave for work or I look unprofessional (unless I grow a beard). Now, you know a group of guys were all "screw this" and decided that they didn't want to put up with having to shave all the time, nor did they want other guys who did shave make them look bad for slacking off. So...bam...it's illegal to shave. Brilliant, I tell you. Brilliant.

Now, if I could just pass a law to make it illegal to drive to work, I might be set. I guess that I gotta go into the desert (luckily, that's about a 30-second walk for me) and find myself, then come back and proclaim it. Hmmm. Talk to you all in about a year...

 

[Davemcc]

No, she never had authority. If she wanted to usurp the government and succeed, then she would authority.... but only so much as she could enforce. Its a very simple 'weak take from strong' system. Only us enlightened folk have moved on to 'rich take from the poor'. Poor can become rich and rich can become poor, but the rich will always have more than the poor.

I will not deny that the "might makes right" system is operative "over there". But I cannot concede that it is right, or proper, for humans to live that way.

Going back to Tomorrow's animals struggling to survive example, humans are separated from animals by the critical faculty of reason, to think abstractly. By virtue of this extraordinary faculty, humans should not live like animals. We should strive against this base animal nature to live like, well...human beings. In the animal world, might makes right is the operative paradigm. If humans cannot rise above that level, that makes them little more than animals failing to rise above their basest instincts. In this respect, Highfihoney makes a lot of sense.

As reasoning creatures, we have the ability to analyze others' actions, individually, collectively or culturally. We also have the ability to pass judgement on these actions. While you may set your threshold of acceptable conduct at might makes right, the basest of animal instincts, I prefer to hold humans to a higher standard, befitting of a reasoning species. Just because we cannot alter or affect the actions of others, does not mean that we have to accept it as befitting a rational human existence. We can hold up the moral/rational bar and measure others to that standard even if they perpetually fail. If we fail to hold this standard and the bar falls to the lowest common level, then our reason has failed us and we will live as animals ourselves.

Force, the oppression of the weak by the strong, is most certainly the operative standard in many cultures. I have not nor will I deny it. Given that we have the ability to see it for what it is, we can deny it's rational/moral legitimacy even if we cannot prevent its de facto or de jure existence.

 

[highfihoney]

If we fail to hold this standard and the bar falls to the lowest common level, then our reason has failed us and we will live as animals ourselves.

This copied sentence is without a doubt, in my mind, the single most well thought out sentence ive ever read on the internet,anywhere.

Sad part is that its 100% true,people who live & act like animals weather overseas or home grown, only do so because they are taught by other animals & allowed to act as such by so called "sane" people.

As long as the rest of the modern world allows these animals to act in savage ways,under the guise of personal freedom,there will be no advance in their culture,only advances in destructiveness will be seen from any of them.