(April 23, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Kitan Wrote: Because they are retards.  Clearly.  

No, because they hold views which have fallen out of favor today. It takes little courage to mount the bandwagon even when the bandwagon is right.

(April 23, 2015 at 3:55 pm)Brian37 Wrote: But we are not talking about people we personally know. We are talking about the collective climate that holds human rights back.

Or in some cases about people we do  know. Somebody knows them at any rate. What constitutes human rights anyway? Human rights concepts are an innovation that didn't exist from time primeval, and they've been an evolving area of ethics since they were introduced and the nations signed up for the UN declaration in 1948. Who are we to say that every human society must subscribe to current Western thinking? The Australian Aborigines, a group whose customs our diversity and respect of culture doctrines command we keep our hands off, did not entertain any notion of gay rights. They punished homosexual behavior within a social climate where conformity to group norms far outweighed any consideration for individual wants. Every boy had to get circumcised and subincised in painful manhood rituals whether he wanted to or not.

I don't think ancient customs should be enshrined in our laws. The Aborigine groups could be charged with xenophobia as well, given their deep suspicion of all outside people. Nonetheless I don't charge them with stupidity.

(April 23, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote:

(April 23, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Kitan Wrote: Because they are retards.  Clearly.  

No, because they hold views which have fallen out of favor today. It takes little courage to mount the bandwagon even when the bandwagon is right.

(April 23, 2015 at 3:55 pm)Brian37 Wrote: But we are not talking about people we personally know. We are talking about the collective climate that holds human rights back.

Or in some cases about people we do  know. Somebody knows them at any rate. What constitutes human rights anyway? Human rights concepts are an innovation that didn't exist from time primeval, and they've been an evolving area of ethics since they were introduced and the nations signed up for the UN declaration in 1948. Who are we to say that every human society must subscribe to current Western thinking? The Australian Aborigines, a group whose customs our diversity and respect of culture doctrines command we keep our hands off, did not entertain any notion of gay rights. They punished homosexual behavior within a social climate where conformity to group norms far outweighed any consideration for individuals wants. Every boy had to get circumcised and subincised in painful manhood rituals whether he wanted to or not.

I don't think ancient customs should be enshrined in our laws. The Aborigine groups could be charged with xenophobia as well, given their deep suspicion of all outside people. Nonetheless I don't charge them with stupidity.

Outside the fact of science, like gravity and evolution, in our personal lives we make claims, and we flock to like minded people.

"Human rights" isn't a matter of POV. We can all think of groups that if everyone would follow would constitute "human rights"

Human rights isn't simply "do it my way". Human rights is simply knowing that we are the same species. 

Life is not complicated, humans over complicated  it. There is no human on this planet today that will be around 5 billion years from now. So the problem is we fail to see that. The argument isn't about labels and the reality is all the convoluted schemes humans make up are nothing more than  the ignorance that we all want to survive.

(April 23, 2015 at 2:13 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 21, 2015 at 8:43 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: If the religious right could keep their noses out of other peoples' business, we of the LGBTQ community wouldn't have to defend ourselves so fiercely.

Yet when a bakery owner wants to do just that - keep his nose out of a gay wedding - you guys want to force him to be involved.

The baker in question had no problem with the "what," a cake, it was only the "who," a gay couple he wanted to judgmentally punish.

His refusal was simply an expression of his bigoted hatred.  Your defense of someone's expression of hatred while pretending that there is a legitimate reason to protect their actions from laws designed to exclude bigotries from commerce displays your true "fruit of the vine," so to speak.

(April 23, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Kitan Wrote: To be fair to the current big three trouble makers causing the most problems in the traditions of Abraham...

One may wish to research Hinduism's patriarchy and the fact they don't even have a concept of "sexual orientation." Although they did allow for a third gender, the Hijras. As for problems, the recent civil war in Sri Lanka comes to mind, with its Hindu vs. Buddhist overtones. This war was more secular than religious, yet both religions blessed their own side. Abrahimic faiths have no monopoly on the ugly or the gory.

(April 23, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Kitan Wrote: "Human rights" isn't a matter of POV....Human rights isn't simply "do it my way". Human rights is simply knowing that we are the same species...Life is not complicated, humans over complicated  it...

Is life simple even for giraffes? I'll grant that the human rights corpus did not develop in an arbitrary manner. No human institution does, even the ones we laugh off as superstitious. Every culture has to solve difficult problems of survival and co-existence. Yet Western thinking harbors two contradictory rights currents each claiming a holiness as sacred as any Ark of the Covenant: individual rights after the Enlightenment and group rights after Multiculturalism. We see the conflict when we have to decide whether immigrants from the Sudan can practice female genital mutilations long customary and functional within their culture. Sure, functional though it sucks for the girls: It keeps the armed males off each others' jealous throats to some degree.

(April 23, 2015 at 4:51 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote:

(April 23, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Kitan Wrote: To be fair to the current big three trouble makers causing the most problems in the traditions of Abraham...

One may wish to research Hinduism's patriarchy and the fact they don't even have a concept of "sexual orientation." Although they did allow for a third gender, the Hijras. As for problems, the recent civil war in Sri Lanka comes to mind, with its Hindu vs. Buddhist overtones. This war was more secular than religious, yet both religions blessed their own side. Abrahimic faiths have no monopoly on the ugly or the gory.

(April 23, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Kitan Wrote: "Human rights" isn't a matter of POV....Human rights isn't simply "do it my way". Human rights is simply knowing that we are the same species...Life is not complicated, humans over complicated  it...

Is life simple even for giraffes? I'll grant that the human rights corpus did not develop in an arbitrary manner. No human institution does, even the ones we laugh off as superstitious. Every culture has to solve difficult problems of survival and co-existence. Yet Western thinking harbors two contradictory rights currents each claiming a holiness as sacred as any Ark of the Covenant: individual rights after the Enlightenment and group rights after Multiculturalism. We see the conflict when we have to decide whether immigrants from the Sudan can practice female genital mutilations long customary and functional within their culture. Sure, functional though it sucks for the girls: It keeps the armed males off each others' jealous throats to some degree.

Name me one human now or prior that is not made up of DNA,

(April 23, 2015 at 5:05 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Name me one human now or prior that is not made up of DNA,

And in that DNA was a gene called FOXP2 which gave us a loud, eloquent mouth...

I love when atheists like Brian beclown themselves by making claim to human rights while simultaneously denying transcendent absolutes.

(April 23, 2015 at 5:44 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: while simultaneously denying transcendent absolutes.

What's that supposed to be when it's at home? I mean other than taking a meaningless wordshit on the floor.

I tell you what a cake maker does not have to do, and that is offer the service to go out and cater for weddings. No one is forcing him to do that.

If he's going to pick and choose which weddings to go to based on what the happy couple do with their genitals, then he should stick to something he is prepared to offer to everyone equally.

If he's going to evaluate people's sexual habits upon entering his shop to buy a cake, and likes to refuse service based on his judgement of them, then he should not open a shop at all and go learn how to be a decent human being.

Christians should listen to their Christ. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It ain't rocket surgery. Would you want other people to treat you fairly, or to judge you based on non-harmful things irrelevant to the matter at hand? Well?

(April 23, 2015 at 5:44 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: I love when atheists like Brian beclown  themselves by making claim to human rights while simultaneously denying transcendent absolutes.

Moral realism vs moral anti-realism is unimportant to applied ethics and everyday ethics. So come off it.