Re: Where do universal rights begin?

Well, how come her husband. President Roosevelt, still let racial
segregation continue during his presidency? Mind to explain? So her
words is really meaningless, don't you agree? It's just like CCP also
talk about "democracy" but it is also meaningless.
CCP...Roosevelt...then now OD... How interesting!


On Dec 9, 9:47 pm, "OD" <Ya...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:04 am, "OD" <Ya...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
On Dec 8, 12:40 pm, "OD" <Ya...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:43 am, "OD" <Ya...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No, by being able to work for those rights you are contributing to
those rights being universally implemented, not to the determining
of those rights.

I see that you edited out the question of "where." Good try. But you
are not fooling anyone.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Put it in, take it out, it
changes nothing about the point I'm making.

Watch.

No, by being able to work for those rights LOCALLY you are
contributing to those rights being universally implemented, not to
the determining of those rights.

I've put in the where and it changed nothing.

Confucius: "Shown one corner, deduces the other three corners."
You look at the issue from the positive side. However, Eleanor framed
the issue from the negative side. That is, lfrom the view point of
local failure. Let us look at her words again. Here they are,

"Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning
anywhere."

In another words:
"If these rights have little or no meaning there, they have little
meaning anywhere."

Please satisfy yourself that the two sentences are of the same
meaning. Now a real location:
"If these rights have little or no meaning in Rampart, they have
little meaning anywhere."

Rampart is a town near Los Angeles where the policemen were known to
frame and kill suspect intentionally. Yet, when police brutality was
exposed, local residents marched in support of the policemen. Would it
be fair to say that those residents were rejecting the universality of
those rights with their action?

Yes.  Now would you say that those people have to determined for the world
that those rights are not "universal rights" for the people of this world?
If you say yes, you've invalidated the term "universal rights".  Which was
your purpose from the very beginning wasn't it?  If the CCP doesn't consider
something to be a right, such as say the freedom of the press, then it isn't
a universal right in your book, is it?  Isn't that what you've been trying
to say?  Well, Mrs. Roosevelt didn't feel that way.  She believed in
universal rights.  You do not.  How can you say your views are compatible
when you don't even believe in universal rights?





So? Whether something is simple and easily understood is a not a
matter of proclaiming. I can proclaim quantum mechanis as simple and
easily understood. However, wherher it is so is to be determined by
people's actions. In this case, how do I do and how others are doing
in such Quantum Mechanics 101. Again, as long as there is no god
decreeing something as simple and easily understood, it is remain to
be determined. Not a matter of you saying so or I saying so. Hence
the same question: Where do rights begin? Where are those rights
simpliest and easiest too understand?

You realize you are arguing against Mrs. Roosevelt here, don't you?
Which was my whole point. Your views and hers are inconsistent.

No. My view is consistent with hers.
Please read what she wrote again: "Unless these rights have meaning
there, they have little meaning anywhere."
If she was not contradicting herself, one have o accept the following.
Whether those rights are "simple and easily understood" cognitively
speaking and whether those rights "have meaning" in the real world are
two differetn things. She knew the difference. You don't or you refue
to accept the difference.

You've again created another false argument.  Mrs. Roosevelt wasn't creating
that dichotomy, you are.  It's not between whether rights are understood and
being worked for, but between those people who are working for them and
those who are not, or more importantly, being prevented from working for
them.  Mrs. Roosevelt was not giving a call for people to "determine" what
universal rights are, she was calling on people to work for universal rights
that have already been determined.  Obviously.  If Mrs. Roosevelt felt
universal rights still needed to be determined she wouldn't have listed
those rights.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where do universal rights begin?
    ... that those rights are not "universal rights" for the people of this ... "Unless these rights have meaning there, ... Chinese people will fight for them sooner or later. ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: Where do universal rights begin?
    ... that those rights are not "universal rights" for the people of this ... Chinese people will fight for them sooner or later. ... "Unless these rights have meaning there, ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: Where do universal rights begin?
    ... By that argument then no rights exist. ... "If these rights have little or no meaning there, ... also meant they rejected the universality of those right. ... Another distinction between Mrs. Roosevelt and yourself. ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: I think New Jersey got this one right
    ... the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to ... constitution," the court stated in its 4-3 ruling. ... Are you suggesting that a document's meaning can never change from the ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Abianchen himself? Hey Psycho Xangdi (aka Dragon, etc), didnt you lie that abianchen is "Thai gi
    ... Hey Psycho Xangdi, didn't you lie ... those rights being universally implemented, ... "If these rights have little or no meaning there, ... you've invalidated the term "universal rights". ...
    (soc.culture.china)