Originally posted by @philokaliaI am not suggesting that anyone codifies rights and freedoms in hypocritical and worthless ways.
I suggest not codifying "rights" and "freedoms" in the exceedingly hypocritical and worthless ways which they are codified in Europe & N. America, and to not restrict people while convincing them that you are actually giving them more liberty.
Originally posted by @philokaliaIf this is not rooted firmly in - and codified in terms of - a robust system of explicit rights and freedoms, and limits thereof, then your suggestion is rendered meaningless, and whatever personal definition of "rightful rulers" and "just laws" you might happen to have is only a kind of self-righteous waffle.
The people who decide the fate of the nation are the rightful rulers of those nations, and their duty is to uphold the just laws of the land and safeguard the welfare of the people.
(1) "Muh Rights" refers to the dumb, repetitious, and boring way by which most people continuously invoke some nebulous of "rights" that can mean anything they feel that they are entitled to.
(2) Yes, you are lying or you have a cognitive disorder.
(3) So you want only meaningfully codified rights & freedoms.
So what are htey? What do they mean? What are the limitations on them?
I have been very forthcoming with what I believe, and what you have done is attack the fact that I have attacked your concepts of Muh Rights.
That has pretty much run its course as it has been boiled down to my criticisms still standing here...
What are your rights and your codes you want to have? And why are they meaningful?
Originally posted by @philokaliaIs the "Muh" word intended as a to-be-scorned regional accent thing or a mocking speech impediment thing?
"Muh Rights" refers to the dumb, repetitious, and boring way by which most people continuously invoke some nebulous of "rights" that can mean anything they feel that they are entitled to.
Originally posted by @philokaliaYou are mistaken.
Yes, you are lying or you have a cognitive disorder.
Originally posted by @philokaliaYes, "justice" is meaningless without "codified rights & freedoms".
So you want only meaningfully codified rights & freedoms.
So what are they? What do they mean? What are the limitations on them?
The limitations on them would be moulded by the nitty-gritty of the culture and democratic mechanisms and would not be uniform.
Originally posted by @philokaliaReligious freedom. Freedom of thought. Freedom of the press. The right to a fair trial. Right to free speech. Freedom of association and a right to assemble. People should have the right to petition their government and hold authorities to account. There should be academic and economic freedom. The right to own land and property. Freedom of movement... all in the cultural context that they exist. If they protect citizens from those with power, then they get their meaning from that.
What are your rights and your codes you want to have? And why are they meaningful?
Originally posted by @philokalia...nebulous "rights" that can mean anything they feel that they are entitled to
"Muh Rights" refers to the dumb, repetitious, and boring way by which most people continuously invoke some nebulous of "rights" that can mean anything they feel that they are entitled to.
In which post have I advocated this?
(1) Right, it initially made fun of Southern / ghetto English, but it has gone on to be a general catch all for the way that stupid people talk.
We've all known the people who, reagrdless of region, speak like someone who never reads books.
This is in stark contrast to everyone who, like a modern human, reads & writes more words in a day than they speak. They naturally enunciate everything and sound like educated people.
The "Muh rights" theme is particularly poignant because it makes fun of boomers & Republicans as well as all of the other people by making them out to be completely out of touch with intellectual trends.
(2) You literally just listed things like "Religious freedom. Freedom of thought. The right to a fair trial. Right to free spech." etc.
You didn't define anything.
I pointed out how these things RARELY are what they are said to be as a poignant criticism.
I asked you to define them, because that is really the hard part.
What you are basically doing is enumerating things that sound good without giving ANY substance.
What if I said:
"I believe that EVERYONE should be able to live in a middle 5,000 foot home witha ir conditioning, high speed internet, and unlimited consumer electronics -- and once a week you just go to the co-op farm and after 3 hours of labor you have enough food to last you for the week..."
It sound snice, but it is utterly pointless and contentless. It's just an exercise of the imagination.
I think it is really fascinating that people honestly still discuss politics from the same angle that they did in the 90s or the 00s when the issues have shifted completely, and the bulk of our problems today have grown from the ideological inadequacies of the 90s and 00s.
People talk about "Freedom of Speech" like it is actually relevant in terms like the King of England is going to descend from his throne and put you in the gaol for criticizing his tax on wheat.
It's like they haven't paid attention to the things that have been happening int he past two decades, nor have they seen the polarization of America and the radicalization of the Western far left.
You aren't even talking about the right set of ideas.
Nobody is actually saying "Let's have a townhall meeting where everyone speaks and we reach some kind of consensus." Nobody is suggesting that we all sit & respect & listen to each other.
The President of the US had people being physically assaulted at his campaign rallies by far leftists.
And grandpa FMF is out there thinking the discussion is still about Muh Rights and failing to see what is in front of him.
And that is why you need to list your definitions meticulously for me, and why I need to point out to you why you are being foolish, naive, and childish for still believing that schoolboy tripe as relevant or part of a real model of how things work.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI don't think I am "stupid people", nor do I feel the need to defend the ideas of any people that I think are "stupid people".
Right, it initially made fun of Southern / ghetto English, but it has gone on to be a general catch all for the way that stupid people talk.
Originally posted by @philokaliaYou have the right to say something utterly pointless and contentless like this as far as I am concerned. It makes no difference to me and you saying it makes no difference to the people in the country where I live, Indonesia. Perhaps it is an argument you try to use on Koreans.
What if I said:
"I believe that EVERYONE should be able to live in a middle 5,000 foot home witha ir conditioning, high speed internet, and unlimited consumer electronics -- and once a week you just go to the co-op farm and after 3 hours of labor you have enough food to last you for the week..."
It sound snice, but it is utterly pointless and contentless. It's just an exercise of the imagination.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI read this twice. It just seems like emotional gabbling.
I think it is really fascinating that people honestly still discuss politics from the same angle that they did in the 90s or the 00s when the issues have shifted completely, and the bulk of our problems today have grown from the ideological inadequacies of the 90s and 00s.
People talk about "Freedom of Speech" like it is actually relevant in terms li ...[text shortened]... for still believing that schoolboy tripe as relevant or part of a real model of how things work.
Originally posted by @philokaliafoolish, naive, and childish [...] schoolboy tripe
And that is why you need to list your definitions meticulously for me, and why I need to point out to you why you are being foolish, naive, and childish for still believing that schoolboy tripe as relevant or part of a real model of how things work.
You seem pretty upset. Was there a particular post of mine that triggered this?
Originally posted by @philokaliaReligious freedom would be the right to believe in whatever deity you want and worship that deity in association with others with same beliefs as long as doing so does not abrogate the rights and freedoms of others or exhort others to harm or coerce others or to break laws that are designed to guard public safety and other cultural norms. The freedom of thought would mean that a citizen could not be punished or repressed or harmed or coerced on account of what ideas and thoughts and beliefs they have. These principles and arrangements are to protect ordinary citizens from those in power and from each other.
You literally just listed things like "Religious freedom. Freedom of thought