Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
(femanists) Put up against the wall & shot
-
21-12-2014 3:09amhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc
It is worth a watch before you jump in and comment.
Yuri Bezmenov, KGB defector, tells how the russians think.
It puts russia's homosexual policy in perspective.Thay dont care how the west see them as politicaly incorrect.
The liberal PC brigade will destroy the west, russia only has to wait it out.
I would agree the west is too PC, it has got out of control.
EU law now says Fat people are disabled! Where will it end?
In a way the west has gone far,far left, way beyond anything in the soviet system.2
Comments
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc
It is worth a watch before you jump in and comment.
Yuri Bezmenov, KGB defector, tells how the russians think.
It puts russia's homosexual policy in perspective.Thay dont care how the west see them as politicaly incorrect.
The liberal PC brigade will destroy the west, russia only has to wait it out.
I would agree the west is too PC, it has got out of control.
EU law now says Fat people are disabled! Where will it end?
In a way the west has gone far,far left, way beyond anything in the soviet system.
No, it doesnt.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
shruikan2553 wrote: »Apologies, it does and it doesnt. Fatness itself isnt a disability, being impaired by it is. Although I dont really see the difference myself.0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »You don't see the difference between a physical condition which doesn't affect your ability to work and one which does?
I know a few Russians (Ukrainians, Serbians and many other Slavs have similar opinions of the West) and I'd have to agree with the view they often have which the West has gone a bit mad on 'rights without responsibility'.0 -
-
The Corinthian wrote: »There is a difference, but perhaps tellingly and increasingly people would simply be classified as having a disability or not, regardless of whether that disability really affects their day-to-day living and this classifies them as 'victims', regardless of whether that 'disability' is self produced or not.
Not sure I understand this. Do you mean that people will incorrectly label themselves as disabled-that there will be a more subjective based criteria of what disability is? As the law stands, the impairment needs to substantially restrict participation in occupational, social, cultural activities before it can be labelled a disability. Do you think this will change?0 -
Not sure I understand this. Do you mean that people will incorrectly label themselves as disabled-that there will be a more subjective based criteria of what disability is? As the law stands, the impairment needs to substantially restrict participation in occupational, social, cultural activities before it can be labelled a disability. Do you think this will change?
This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.
An extreme example would be this story; what we have is a case of a young woman who has had multiple children by multiple fathers, and is entirely dependent on the state. What's more is many will run to her defense and say she is entitled to be dependent on the state.
If she has behaved, repeatedly, irresponsibly is apparently not an issue for her or for many others. Oddly though, we don't treat her as someone who lacks responsibly though; a minor is not held responsible as an adult would be, yet a minor does not have the same rights as an adult. The same as someone deemed mentally to be unfit. Yet, she is treated in the same way as such people, yet afforded the same rights as someone who is deemed responsible.
Another interesting example was the belated introduction of the vote to women in Switzerland. Prior to this the concept was that your right to vote was tied to your duty to bare arms to protect your community. The opportunity for women to serve in the military didn't exist, thus an exception was rightly made.
However, in Switzerland, if you don't do military service, you can do civil service instead. And if neither, you will pay an extra 6% income tax until you hit your forties. There's no reason that women are exempt from this, yet they inexplicably are. Rights without responsibility again.
What these examples are meant to underline is that there's been a move in Western culture towards rights without responsibility, typically justified as some form of entitlement belonging to any group that can identify as having victim status. It's spawned an entire mentality where now increasingly everyone seeks to identify as such (e.g. Travellers being reclassified as an ethnic group) so that they can demand rights that they feel entitled to. Without any corresponding responsibility, of course.
Whether this will 'destroy the West' or not is dubious - as was pointed out the Russians have made similar claims in the past. It's even dubious at this point that it is the 'liberal PC brigade' behind it, as it's both mainstream and not new - 'PC establishment' would, at this stage, be more accurate.
However it is difficult to see a trend in rights without responsibilities or entitlement culture being a terribly positive thing in the long run.0 -
Advertisement
-
Rights are rights, they (generally, though with exceptions) aren't conditional based upon taking added burdens/responsibilities - the idea that they should be, is just moralizing.
If someone is entitled to something, and that entitlement is presently written in law, then that's just a statement of fact - whether someone should have that entitlement, is again a question of morals.
Usually these policies balance the harm from a miniscule number of people exploiting social supports, against the massive benefit society receives from having the social supports - and usually the moralizing is politically motivated, focusing exclusively on the miniscule amount of exploitation and ignoring/diminishing the benefit, in order to attack government social supports overall.
Many rights (such as human rights) should be unconditional, without any added responsibility; people should feel fully entitled to anything they legally are entitled to, and should feel entitled to anything they believe they are morally entitled to as well (this is what creates political pressure, for change). This is a good thing, this is why we have human rights, and social supports - and thus a better standard of living.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Rights are rights, they (generally, though with exceptions) aren't conditional based upon taking added burdens/responsibilities - the idea that they should be, is just moralizing.If someone is entitled to something, and that entitlement is presently written in law, then that's just a statement of fact - whether someone should have that entitlement, is again a question of morals.Usually these policies balance the harm from a miniscule number of people exploiting social supports, against the massive benefit society receives from having the social supports - and usually the moralizing is politically motivated, focusing exclusively on the miniscule amount of exploitation and ignoring/diminishing the benefit, in order to attack government social supports overall.Many rights (such as human rights) should be unconditional, without any added responsibility; people should feel fully entitled to anything they legally are entitled to, and should feel entitled to anything they believe they are morally entitled to as well (this is what creates political pressure, for change).
Also could you explain how many human rights are denied on moral grounds fits into your unconditional framework? You commit a crime, you go to prison - ergo liberty (which I suspect is a pretty basic 'human right') appears to be pretty conditional.This is a good thing, this is why we have human rights, and social supports - and thus a better standard of living.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Says who? Point is that rights were not simply rights, not so long ago. They were conditional (I gave the example of Swiss emancipation, for example), so simply arguing that this new view is right because... well... just because you think so, isn't terribly convincing.The Corinthian wrote: »That is the entire point of this discussion, is it not? To question those morals?The Corinthian wrote: »This isn't actually a discussion about social welfare, you know.The Corinthian wrote: »Define 'human rights'. Apparently Internet access is one nowadays.The Corinthian wrote: »Also could you explain how many human rights are denied on moral grounds fits into your unconditional framework? You commit a crime, you go to prison - ergo liberty (which I suspect is a pretty basic 'human right') appears to be pretty conditional.The Corinthian wrote: »Not entirely. We also get a better standard of living through social behaviour - don't litter, contribute to the community, don't do bad things to others, and so on. Rights on their own don't get you very far.0
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc
It is worth a watch before you jump in and comment.
Yuri Bezmenov, KGB defector, tells how the russians think.
It puts russia's homosexual policy in perspective.Thay dont care how the west see them as politicaly incorrect.
The liberal PC brigade will destroy the west, russia only has to wait it out.
I would agree the west is too PC, it has got out of control.
EU law now says Fat people are disabled! Where will it end?
In a way the west has gone far,far left, way beyond anything in the soviet system.
Do you realize the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more?
I'm sick of people saying our society is too PC, the PC culture has been a very good thing. In the West we have eliminated, or are in the process of eliminating racism, homophobia, gender inequality amongst others.
But sure that just makes us weak right. :rolleyes:0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »It's not me who has to do the convincing - we have plenty of unconditional rights, you need to convince people as to why they should be conditional.
You've accepted yourself just now that not all rights are unconditional (in contradiction to your earlier claim, where suggesting this was just 'moralizing') and all I've suggested is that there is a trend nowadays for people to seek more unconditional rights.
So you're asking me to convince people of something I never said and have not understood, or ignored, my actual point. You instead made a sweeping statement which you've now gone back on.
Given this, I'm hard pushed to think of any 'human right' that does not have caveats attached. Morally things like the right to life are not absolute and factors such as war, capital punishment and so on will revoke them. Indeed, can you think of any human right that does not have any caveat or condition? Not denying one may exist, just can't think of any.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Where did I say all rights should be conditional?
You've accepted yourself just now that not all rights are unconditional (in contradiction to your earlier claim, where suggesting this was just 'moralizing') and all I've suggested is that there is a trend nowadays for people to seek more unconditional rights.
So you're asking me to convince people of something I never said and have not understood, or ignored, my actual point. You instead made a sweeping statement which you've now gone back on.
Given this, I'm hard pushed to think of any 'human right' that does not have caveats attached. Morally things like the right to life are not absolute and factors such as war, capital punishment and so on will revoke them. Indeed, can you think of any human right that does not have any caveat or condition? Not denying one may exist, just can't think of any.
I shortened what I said to 'conditional' in my second post, but what I am talking about is your implication that new rights should bear added burdens/responsibilities - more specific than just any condition.0 -
I would have though all rights conferred by a society carry the responsibilities of being a (responsible) member of that society. Those who don't live up to their responsibilities loose some of those rights (like Liberty, for instance).
So the society via its laws determines what responsibilities are required in order to enjoy it's rights? Probably true to say that western society has gradually leaned towards more rights with less responsibilities over the last couple of centuries... With each generation bemoaning the lack of civic spirit in its subsequent generation.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »I never said anything about 'all' rights, so there is no contradiction there. You have to justify why rights should be conditional, based on an added burden/responsibility - on a case by case basis.
Oh, and as per my question at the end of my last post, have you thought of any rights that have no caveats or conditions attached? Didn't think so.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Where did I say rights should always be conditional?The Corinthian wrote:This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.The Corinthian wrote: »Oh, and as per my question at the end of my last post, have you thought of any rights that have no caveats or conditions attached? Didn't think so.KomradeBishop wrote: »I never said anything about 'all' rights, so there is no contradiction there. You have to justify why rights should be conditional, based on an added burden/responsibility - on a case by case basis.0
-
KomradeBishop wrote: »You're implying here that responsibilities should be associated with rights.I am talking about your above implication, where you imply that responsibilities - not 'conditions' in general - should be associated with rights.
On that note, any ideas for have you thought of any rights that have no caveats or conditions attached? The silence is deafening.0 -
Advertisement
-
I would have though all rights conferred by a society carry the responsibilities of being a (responsible) member of that society. Those who don't live up to their responsibilities loose some of those rights (like Liberty, for instance).So the society via its laws determines what responsibilities are required in order to enjoy it's rights? Probably true to say that western society has gradually leaned towards more rights with less responsibilities over the last couple of centuries... With each generation bemoaning the lack of civic spirit in its subsequent generation.0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Then by that same logic you previously also made implied that suggesting that rights should ever be conditional is just moralizing, so really you should convince people of your claim then. We can both play the 'reading in-between the lines' game.KomradeBishop wrote:Rights are rights, they (generally, though with exceptions) aren't conditional based upon taking added burdens/responsibilities - the idea that they should be, is just moralizing.
If I'm playing a 'reading in-between the lines' game, then why did you mention the bolder part here? Are you saying you weren't implying, that rights should have added burdens/responsibilities? (if so, would be good to get clarification on that, as would end this line of debate)The Corinthian wrote:This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.The Corinthian wrote: »How would you differentiate conditions from responsibilities?
On that note, any ideas for have you thought of any rights that have no caveats or conditions attached? The silence is deafening.The Corinthian wrote:This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.
You seem to be contradicting yourself there. How are you defining/differentiating responsibilities? (is it simply 'following the law?')0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Simply following the law is meeting your responsibilities, no? Can you give a real world example of what you mention here, and how it should be remedied? It's not clear.KomradeBishop wrote: »Can you give an example, where there are rights where - as you claim, in your words - "there are never any associated responsibilities"?
The right to have children without the responsibility to be able to pay for them. She chooses not to work as she does not want her children to suffer seeing her less during the day. She had 600 pounds in bus fines waived because she cannot afford to pay them. She chose not to pay her rent so she could spend the money on Christmas presents for her kids so the rent was written off.
Her right to have the lifestyle she wants for her kids has waived her responsibility towards obeying the law in these examples.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/benefits-mum-of-eight-marie-buchan-my-48372770 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »You keeping trying to shift the goalposts away from 'burdens and responsibilities' to, more generally, 'conditional'
I have never suggested that all rights should be tied to responsibilities - in fact all I've done is note how few rights are nowadays.
Then you claim I've implied that I did, which is untrue and an accusation that could be easily be levied at you.
I subsequently also asked what rights are unconditional - a challenge you've ignored.
So from what I can see you've been doing most of the goalpost shifting and avoidance here. And for what? Because you came out with a silly generalization a few posts back about how ascribing responsibility to rights is moralizing and now refuse to back down on.
Truth is that many rights come with strings attached, of which responsibilities are a common component. The right to marry comes with the fiscal and social responsibilities of marriage. The right to reproduce comes with the responsibility to care for one's offspring. Sometimes this are enforced by law, other times it is simply tradition or social convention that enforces this; more often than not it's both. That's not moralizing, but reality - although in fairness those responsibilities appear to be breaking down increasingly. Not all rights come with responsibilities (and I never implied otherwise, despite your subsequent inventions), although I'm hard pushed to think of any right that does not come with some condition.
So your generalization...KomradeBishop wrote: »Rights are rights, they (generally, though with exceptions) aren't conditional based upon taking added burdens/responsibilities - the idea that they should be, is just moralizing.
Ultimately, I don't further really fancy playing this all too familiar game with you KomradeBishop; it gets us nowhere and is frankly a waste of my time.0 -
The right to have children without the responsibility to be able to pay for them. She chooses not to work as she does not want her children to suffer seeing her less during the day. She had 600 pounds in bus fines waived because she cannot afford to pay them. She chose not to pay her rent so she could spend the money on Christmas presents for her kids so the rent was written off.
Her right to have the lifestyle she wants for her kids has waived her responsibility towards obeying the law in these examples.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/benefits-mum-of-eight-marie-buchan-my-48372770 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Okey, but there will always be some who abuse the system, but this is usually counterbalanced by the benefit those policies provide to society - what would you do about it?
I agree that there will always be some that abuse the system so the solution is to try and change the system to prevent abuse while also maintaining the benefit to those that need it. Even without going into detail about what changes could be made to the benefits system as I am sure that would only result in a very long tangent a short and simple solution would be to punish her trangressions through non financial means. Sentencing her to community service for example could be an option as it would still be a punishment without depriving the children of money they need due to her mistakes.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Okey, but there will always be some who abuse the system, but this is usually counterbalanced by the benefit those policies provide to society - what would you do about it?
After all, if she is told, and is even confirmed by the system, she has rights but no responsibilities, then naturally she's going to use it this way. She has no obligation to behave otherwise.
As to the counterbalance; at what point is that sufficient justification? Can you demonstrate it still is?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »No, you claimed that rights "aren't conditional based upon taking added burdens/responsibilities" was moralizing. You'll note that you were the one to introduce the term conditional.
I have never suggested that all rights should be tied to responsibilities - in fact all I've done is note how few rights are nowadays.
Then you claim I've implied that I did, which is untrue and an accusation that could be easily be levied at you.The Corinthian wrote: »I subsequently also asked what rights are unconditional - a challenge you've ignored.
So from what I can see you've been doing most of the goalpost shifting and avoidance here. And for what? Because you came out with a silly generalization a few posts back about how ascribing responsibility to rights is moralizing and now refuse to back down on.The Corinthian wrote: »Truth is that many rights come with strings attached, of which responsibilities are a common component. The right to marry comes with the fiscal and social responsibilities of marriage. The right to reproduce comes with the responsibility to care for one's offspring. Sometimes this are enforced by law, other times it is simply tradition or social convention that enforces this; more often than not it's both. That's not moralizing, but reality - although in fairness those responsibilities appear to be breaking down increasingly. Not all rights come with responsibilities (and I never implied otherwise, despite your subsequent inventions), although I'm hard pushed to think of any right that does not come with some condition.The Corinthian wrote:This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.The Corinthian wrote:So your generalization...
...really came down to an ill conceived load of nonsense, because some do demonstrably require you take on added burdens/responsibilities. As for what I 'implied', this was just the worst type of sidestepping imaginable.
Ultimately, I don't further really fancy playing this all too familiar game with you KomradeBishop; it gets us nowhere and is frankly a waste of my time.
Your original quote just seems to imply that, without any justification added:The Corinthian wrote:This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.
If you don't want to debate or clarify that, fine, but while you keep trying to sidestep from your own quote, I'm just going to keep reiterating and highlighting it.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »But is that abusing the system or using it as it has inadvertently become?
After all, if she is told, and is even confirmed by the system, she has rights but no responsibilities, then naturally she's going to use it this way. She has no obligation to behave otherwise.
As to the counterbalance; at what point is that sufficient justification? Can you demonstrate it still is?0 -
Advertisement
-
KomradeBishop wrote: »I never claimed 'all', and that I'm having to repeat that again suggests that you're ignoring that.KomradeBishop wrote: »It's not me who has to do the convincing - we have plenty of unconditional rights, you need to convince people as to why they should be conditional.I've clarified about 2-3 times now, that I've said 'conditional based on added responsibilities', and you're ignoring that again now, to go back to just 'conditional'.The moralizing comes when you imply rights without responsibilities are a bad thing, as you seemed to here:if you want to portray any rights without responsibilities as being a bad thing, you need to justify that on a case by case basis.
Your original quote just seems to imply that, without any justification added:If you don't want to debate or clarify that, fine, but while you keep trying to sidestep from your own quote, I'm just going to keep reiterating and highlighting it.KomradeBishop wrote: »Generally it is not possible to make a perfect non-abusable system, so there will likely always be ways to exploit/abuse it - the laws seem to be in place for dealing with her, but the judgment employed in enforcing the law in her case, seems to be poor - more a problem of enforcement really, which is another part of the system which will always have flaws.
Well, be careful what you wish for.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Actually you said:
Tell me, does the above imply somehow you were discussing some in any way or in fact that you were demanding that I convince people as to why rights in general should be conditional?KomradeBishop wrote:Sure, but again, you have to justify making rights conditional, on a case-by-case basis; saying that rights or entitlements should be paired with responsibilities, requires a justification/reason, it's not morally true all by itself, it requires a reason.
The implication in your post here:The Corinthian wrote:This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.The Corinthian wrote:Sorry, I must have ignored it because you're the only one who's ever discussed 'added responsibilities'. Why did you introduce this into the discussion?The Corinthian wrote:This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.The Corinthian wrote:And indeed they can be a bad thing. Given the example given only a post or so ago, do you wish to deny this?
Your issue doesn't seem to be about 'responsibilities', it seems to just be with poor enforcement of existing laws.The Corinthian wrote:KomradeBishop wrote:if you want to portray any rights without responsibilities as being a bad thing, you need to justify that on a case by case basis.
Your original quote just seems to imply that, without any justification added:The Corinthian wrote:This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.
Besides this being inaccurate: If you're not implying that that is a bad thing, when exactly were you trying to say?The Corinthian wrote:As I've demonstrated above, you're the one weaseling their way through their own words, so I'd get off that high horse before I fall off were I you.The Corinthian wrote:Sorry, I must have ignored it because you're the only one who's ever discussed 'added responsibilities'The Corinthian wrote:This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.The Corinthian wrote:Actually the judgments are a reflection of this moral trend towards rights without responsibility - what I discussed earlier. She's entitled to her rights, but not not accountable for her actions as she's a victim. Increasingly we''ve seen a complete disconnect between rights and responsibilities, like you, implying that the two should not be associated.
Well, be careful what you wish for.
She actually does have responsibilities, and it's an imperfect judicial system that has let her escape those responsibilities - you're never going to have a judicial system which does not allow some amount of abuse/exploitation.
There are no rights without responsibilities there, only an imperfect judicial system that lets a tiny amount of people escape some responsibilities.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »So, people simply following the law, means they are fulfilling their responsibilities? That would imply that nobody has rights without responsibilities, as everyone is held to the law.KomradeBishop wrote: »Simply following the law is meeting your responsibilities, no? Can you give a real world example of what you mention here, and how it should be remedied? It's not clear.0
-
Broadly speaking, I think so, yes. It's up to society to decide what responsibilities are required of it's citizens in order to enjoy whatever rights it bestows.Sure. Respecting your elders was once a responsibility of childen required in order to be out and about in public. Failure to live up to your responsibilities earned you a clip around the ear. That would be a non legal example, but obviously you have legal ones like national service, conscription, a requirement to vote or pay taxes; these are all responsibilities societies levy on citizens in return for membership. Say you have a right to own property; that right may carry a responsibility to ensure no one is injured on your property. Not all rights neccasarily have correlating responsibilities, but again that's something a society can decide.0
-
KomradeBishop wrote: »Okey, well by that definition, any statement about people having 'rights without associated responsibilities' is pretty much wrong - and it's not 'responsibilities' that people would have an issue with (everyone would have those), it's poor enforcement of law (completely different to responsibilities).0
-
If we value our freedoms highly, surely we would minimize governments ability to curtail these rights, by imposing added responsibilities - not the other way around?
The idea of valuing freedoms too cheaply, seems to be a moral argument without a whole lot backing it - I think there are good practical reasons for restricting some rights, in certain circumstances, but I don't think rights should automatically be counterbalanced with added responsibilities - just to provide a balance (i.e. just so people don't value them too cheaply).
There are lots of practical arguments in favour of the result you argue for though - I just think those practical arguments should be used, instead of the moral arguments that get presented (because often the moral arguments don't hold up, and can actually be used rather bluntly, to argue against practical policies that hold up better).0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »You don't see the difference between a physical condition which doesn't affect your ability to work and one which does?
=-=
Yuri Bezmenov seems to believe that idealistic leftists would become disillusioned, bitter, and adversarial when they realized the true nature of Soviet Communism, which is more of a statement against SC than of his own beliefs.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »I've explained several times that I am not talking about all rights, so the implication you take from my quote, is one that I have already corrected as not being what I was saying.This implies that you think rights without responsibilities are a bad thing
As I said, you're wasting my time.0 -
Not really; we can decide that when rights are awarded that they have associated responsibilities. Like for instance, you have a right to receive social welfare payments for up to two years, subject to the responsibility of paying PRSI for four years. I think Corinthians point is that we are increasingly conferring rights, like the right to an education, or the right to Internet access, without demanding responsibilities of our citizens at the same rate. Which I think is fair enough; the more a sciety provides its citizens, the more it should ask of them, otherwise we value our freedoms too cheaply.
Do you not think these additional rights, education and Internet, already have responsibilities impliedly attached? I fully agree with your view that as citizens we have a responsibility to follow the laws and/or rules and in many cases this is where our rights come from. I would suggest that when we get these new rights then these responsibility also attach, or at least should. If you don't fulfil your obligations then you run the risk, or should run the risk, of losing them.
But then there are a class of rights that, perhaps, should simply apply, right to a fair trial, freedom of expression etc.
MrP0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Oh, so are you are the only one who's allowed to claim that someone is implying a generalization? I'm afraid you lost your right to hide behind that defense the moment you did that to what I was saying.
Have I not repeatedly said that this was not the case? - oh, wait, you can claim implications, no one else can.
As I said, you're wasting my time.The Corinthian wrote:This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.0 -
Do you not think these additional rights, education and Internet, already have responsibilities impliedly attached? I fully agree with your view that as citizens we have a responsibility to follow the laws and/or rules and in many cases this is where our rights come from. I would suggest that when we get these new rights then these responsibility also attach, or at least should. If you don't fulfil your obligations then you run the risk, or should run the risk, of losing them.
But then there are a class of rights that, perhaps, should simply apply, right to a fair trial, freedom of expression etc.
MrP
If that is the definition of responsibility, then any statement about rights without responsibilities is meaningless and inaccurate, since everyone has to follow the law.0 -
Advertisement
-
KomradeBishop wrote: »If that isn't implying that rights without responsibilities (and obviously I'm not talking about all rights, as I've already explained that several times...) are a bad thing, then why exactly are you counterpointing the first two sentences, with the bolded part?0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »That's clearly saying that always or only seeking rights without responsibilities is a bad thing. How on Earth could you misunderstand that?0
-
KomradeBishop wrote: »What's your idea of seeking a responsibility, alongside a right then?
And how did you manage that passage you quoted? Please address that before expecting any further responses to your own questions.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I've already given examples earlier. As to your presumption that they are defined by law, that is your, flawed, presumption.The Corinthian wrote: »And how did you manage that passage you quoted? Please address that before expecting any further responses to your own questions.The Corinthian wrote:This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.
Most people on the thread so far, seem to agree with 'following the law' as being a good definition of responsibility, but since you disagree with that, it's not clear if your statement "that there are never any associated responsibilities" is accurate at all, or how the idea that there may be rights without responsibilities, is accurate.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »That definition seems to be the only coherent definition provided (by others) in the thread - your own definition is very unclear (even given previous examples).I'm not sure what you're referring to here - you mean this quote?If so: You didn't specify always/only here, so until you clarified that in your previous post above, it was open to interpretation (and, before you clarified it, my interpretation seemed reasonable) - the main thing left open to interpretation/clarification now, is your definition of 'responsibility' here.
Honestly, I don't know if you're now taking the piss or genuinely challenged. Rather than continue with this time-sink I'm just going to leave you to it and wish you a happy new year.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »It is not unclear.
Maybe the one you cited a post ago?
It was only open to interpretation if you can't read, TBH. It's perfectly clear English.
Honestly, I don't know if you're now taking the piss or genuinely challenged. Rather than continue with this time-sink I'm just going to leave you to it and wish you a happy new year.
If your definition of responsibility is so clear, can you summarize your definition? Or are you just going to cop-out/balk again by insulting posters and pointing again, to 'examples' that don't make your definition any more clear? (thus wasting time/posts, when you could just provide your definition...)
I'd be interested from other posters as well: What do other posters think Corinthian's definition of 'responsibility' is? I'd not be surprised if nobody has a clear idea (especially since many other posters seem to include 'following the law' as fitting that definition, which Corinthian has stated, does not fit his definition)
Are all posters who are unclear on your definition 'challenged'?0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »What do you mean by "destroy" the West?
Do you realize the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more?
I'm sick of people saying our society is too PC, the PC culture has been a very good thing. In the West we have eliminated, or are in the process of eliminating racism, homophobia, gender inequality amongst others.
But sure that just makes us weak right. :rolleyes:
On the surface maybe. In real life people are as racist, homopobic and sexist as ever.0 -
Cant Handle The Banter wrote: »On the surface maybe. In real life people are as racist, homopobic and sexist as ever.0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »On what basis do you make your claim?
When people feel free to really express themselves. On the surface we live in a very pc age where you're expected to be very careful not to offend anyone but dig deeper and people haven't changed.0 -
Cant Handle The Banter wrote: »When people feel free to really express themselves. On the surface we live in a very pc age where you're expected to be very careful not to offend anyone but dig deeper and people haven't changed.0
-
Advertisement
Advertisement