Re: Where do universal rights begin?



On Dec 10, 11:47 am, "OD" <Ya...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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,

Why are not trying to distort my position?
I had made it clear that "universal rirights" are only "universal" to
the extent that people have determined to accept it.

but not Mrs. Roosevelt.

Sounds like you don't know Mrs. Roosevelt was making an "if"
statement. Let me help.
Please read her statement again.

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

See whether it has the same meaning as the following,statement where
the "if" is explicit.
"If these rights have little or no meaning there, they have little
meaning anywhere."


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.  

"Implemented"? I did not even use the word in my response to your
posts.

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?

What are you tallking about? I gave you the example of Rampart whose
residents had rejected those rights locally. Their rejection locally
also meant they rejected the universality of those right.



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.

It is not for me to say what American citizens of Rampart should or
should not fight, would or would not fight. Similary, it is not for me
to say whether they should or should not fight, would or would not
fight. I have no idea about their choices in both cases.


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.

Including those from Rampart?

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.

If someone decides to work at a small place near his home and
successful, one can conclude that he has determined that those rights
are meaningful locally from his action. If he chooses not to, one can
then conclude tht he has determined that those rights are not
meaningful locally from his inaction. If those rights are not
meaningful locally, then there is no reason to beleive those rights as
universal.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.