(femanists) Put up against the wall & shot

Frito wrote: »

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?

I was citing victim culture, rather than disabilities per say (although there's been an explosion of newly recognized disabilities in recent years).

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is the entire point of this discussion, is it not? To question those 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.

This isn't actually a discussion about social welfare, you know.

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).

Define 'human rights'. Apparently Internet access is one nowadays.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Where did I say rights should always be conditional?

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: »

You're implying here that responsibilities should be associated with rights.

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.

I am talking about your above implication, where you imply that responsibilities - not 'conditions' in general - should be associated with rights.

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: »

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.

You keeping trying to shift the goalposts away from 'burdens and responsibilities' to, more generally, 'conditional' - here is what I said:

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.

You claimed:

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.

Can you give an example, where there are rights where - as you claim, in your words - "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?')

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You keeping trying to shift the goalposts away from 'burdens and responsibilities' to, more generally, 'conditional'

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.

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.

...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.

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.

I never claimed 'all', and that I'm having to repeat that again suggests that you're ignoring that.

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.

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 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 moralizing comes when you imply rights without responsibilities are a bad thing, as you seemed to 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:

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.

Anything that is socially enforced isn't a responsibility/requirement, as it can safely be ignored, I also didn't say there are no rights without responsibilities, and 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.

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: »

I never claimed 'all', and that I'm having to repeat that again suggests that you're ignoring that.

Actually you said:

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.

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?

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'.

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 moralizing comes when you imply rights without responsibilities are a bad thing, as you seemed to here:

And indeed they can be a bad thing. Given the example given only a post or so ago, do you wish to deny this?

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:

Outside of your head, where does my quote imply anything of the sort?

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.

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.

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.

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.