Re: Where do universal rights begin?

ltlee1 wrote:
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:
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".

They, as well as all those who behave like them, were and are
rejecting the notion of "universal rights" with their actions

So then they have determined which universal rights exist and which do not?
By that argument then no rights exist. Again, something you would support,
but not Mrs. Roosevelt.

Which was your purpose from the very beginning wasn't it?

You are still confused. "Universal rights" as a concept is different
from "universal rights" as a reality. You, or anyone, sitting behind a
computer monitor saying everyone should have these rights will not
make the rights universal. However, more and more people working in
small palces close to home will.

Your arguments is all over the place. Now you are arguing about something I
never even discussed; making rights universally implemented. Your original
argument dealt with localities determining universal rights. Since you are
not sticking with that argument, am I to assume you have abandoned 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?

Wrong. I had said it before, if these rights are really universal, the
Chinese people will fight for them sooner or later. What the CCP think
or not think is totally irrelevant in the long run.

Is it your belief Chinese people have not or never will fight for these
rights? Chinese people have in the past fought for those rights. Chinese
people are currently fighting for those rights. Chinese people in the
future will continue to fight for those rights.

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?

She said the following, not me.
"Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning
anywhere."

Having less meaning doesn't mean that they haven't been determined. Do you
now admit that?


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.

Nonsense, saying a coin has two sides is not creating a dictomy.
"Universal rights" also has two sides. As a concept or ideal and as a
reality.

Beside the point.

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.

I example I have given above is inside America. No one was prevented
from working for the Rampart community.

Of course. It's in America.

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.

"Already been determined"? By whom? God?

The people everywhere.

What person in the world wishes to be denied the freedom to believe or not
believe in the religion of their choice? What person in the world wishes to
not be able to speak as they see fit? What person desires not to have equal
justice under the law? I know lot's of people that would like to deny those
things to others, I don't know of anyone that wishes to deny it to
themselves.

Obviously. If Mrs. Roosevelt felt
universal rights still needed to be determined she wouldn't have
listed
those rights.

"Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning
anywhere."
Unless these universal rights have meaning in your own backyard, these
rights have little meaning anywhere. Read, not universal. It was her
words against yours. I choose to beleive her words.

Do you believe "determined" and "meaningful" are synonyms? If so, that
could be the basis for your misunderstanding of Mrs. Roosevelt.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where do universal rights begin?
    ... President Roosevelt, still let racial ... those rights being universally implemented, ... "If these rights have little or no meaning there, ... you've invalidated the term "universal rights". ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • 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)
  • Re: Where do universal rights begin?
    ... those rights being universally implemented, ... "If these rights have little or no meaning there, ... you've invalidated the term "universal rights". ... Mrs. Roosevelt didn't feel that way. ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • 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)