I Hate Paying School Taxes When I Have No Kids...

[grantmeaname]

They aren't created by humans because a document written by humans says that god thinks they're important. Does that seem circular to anyone else?

[bUU]

That's your opinion.   LOL!!  :  )

And what's your's, specifically, with regard to the means by which one can definitively recognize that which are fundamental rights?

That's not the definition of fundamental rights.

How can you prove what you claim is a fundamental right actually is?

Fundamental rights are in no way inherent to the universe. They are ideas created by humans just like any other law or right. Any distinction you choose to make is arbitrary.

While I'm certainly open to hearing the previous posters' equivocations, they haven't yet presented anything that would refute what you've said here.

which wasn't an all-inclusive list

Which leads back to the matter of how to recognize that which is the all-inclusive list.

They aren't created by humans because a document written by humans says that god thinks they're important. Does that seem circular to anyone else?

Very much so.

[renbutler]

They aren't created by humans because a document written by humans says that god thinks they're important. Does that seem circular to anyone else?

I didn't say they were fundamental rights because the Declaration of Independence says they are.

I simply said that I agree with the rights and their origin as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

I try to carefully word my posts, so I encourage you to carefully read and respond to them, should you choose to do either.

[Russ]

I try to carefully word my posts, so I encourage you to carefully read and respond to them, should you choose to do either.

I don't think anybody is purposely misinterpreting your posts dude

[mpbaker22]

I try to carefully word my posts, so I encourage you to carefully read and respond to them, should you choose to do either.

I don't think anybody is purposely misinterpreting your posts dude

Then why are people responding to what his posts are not?

[bUU]

Just speculating, by maybe because he has not yet provided a comprehensive statement on the topic. Specifically, I haven't seen him fully outline what the fundamental human rights are, nor outline how one can tell the difference between what is and isn't such in the absolute. I can respect the decision not to, though: Doing so might reveal aspects of the underlying perspective that would not be well-regarded by some, such as a reliance on a specific religious code, or on personal fiat instead of something more widely-supported.

[Russ]

Then why are people responding to what his posts are not?

I said they weren't doing it purposely, not that it hasn't happened.

I try to carefully word my posts, so I encourage you to carefully read and respond to them, should you choose to do either.

;-)

[grantmeaname]

Then why are people responding to what his posts are not?

I said that fundamental rights are a human idea. He cited another human idea in support of the notion that they're not, and I said as much when I responded. There's no responding to things that 'his posts are not', and there's no misunderstanding here. There's disagreement.

[grantmeaname]

I didn't say they were fundamental rights because the Declaration of Independence says they are.

I simply said that I agree with the rights and their origin as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

I try to carefully word my posts, so I encourage you to carefully read and respond to them, should you choose to do either.

Didn't seem very careful to me, since you avoided addressing the question under discussion (i.e., where do fundamental rights come from and what makes them not human) in origin, except obliquely through reference to the document. You didn't really address the question in a way that I found satisfying, so I asked you to expand on your position. As buu notes, you seem oddly unwilling to do that.

[Sofa King]

Don't feed the troll, folks.

LOL!!!!!

[renbutler]

I try to carefully word my posts, so I encourage you to carefully read and respond to them, should you choose to do either.

I don't think anybody is purposely misinterpreting your posts dude

I didn't say they were doing purposely. I said they were doing it carelessly.

But your post is another good example, so thanks, I guess... :)

[renbutler]

Just speculating, by maybe because he has not yet provided a comprehensive statement on the topic. Specifically, I haven't seen him fully outline what the fundamental human rights are, nor outline how one can tell the difference between what is and isn't such in the absolute. I can respect the decision not to, though: Doing so might reveal aspects of the underlying perspective that would not be well-regarded by some, such as a reliance on a specific religious code, or on personal fiat instead of something more widely-supported.

Didn't seem very careful to me, since you avoided addressing the question under discussion (i.e., where do fundamental rights come from and what makes them not human) in origin, except obliquely through reference to the document. You didn't really address the question in a way that I found satisfying, so I asked you to expand on your position. As buu notes, you seem oddly unwilling to do that.

This is a thread about school taxes and having kids.

Any commentary that I have regarding fundamental human rights has been rightly limited to those topics. I don't owe either of you any comprehensive statement about anything, particularly something off the current topic.

So, perhaps you guys should just stop guessing why I do things, or asking me to do things far outside the scope of the topic. Fair enough?

[renbutler]

I said that fundamental rights are a human idea. He cited another human idea in support of the notion that they're not, and I said as much when I responded. There's no responding to things that 'his posts are not', and there's no misunderstanding here. There's disagreement.

That is false, and I've already pointed out how that's false.

I simply pointed to the document as something that I agree with.

I don't know why you continue reading so much more into that. It doesn't make sense to me why you want to do that.

[bUU]

This is a thread about school taxes and having kids.

Evidently not just that, anymore, but I respect your right to dodge/evade/avoid/skirt? the core question that has come up that is the basis on which the questions raised in this thread could be answered.

[hoodedfalcon]

I understand that these things that people call rights are entrenched in our legal system and laws and policies have been established to protect and enforce these things that have been dubbed "fundamental human rights." I think we, as humans, are the ones that have exalted these to the status of "fundamental" or even "rights." They are lofty ideals, but they do not exist outside of our very human ability to identify them, enumerate them, and make laws about them. I understand this is probably an unpopular position to take, and it is solely my opinion, but that is the way I see it, whether it's about having babies or being free or pursuing happiness.

Is anyone here familiar with Foucault?  Here is a quote that sums up my feelings quite well:
"Freedom is practice; . . . the freedom of men is never assured by the laws and the institutions that are intended to guarantee them. That is why almost all of these laws and institutions are quite capable of being turned around. Not because they are ambiguous, but simply because ‘freedom’ is what must be exercised . . . I think it can never be inherent in the structure of things to (itself) guarantee the exercise of freedom. The guarantee of freedom is freedom” 

[bUU]

Freedom is important but let's not get lost: It isn't some kind of over-arching aspect of society that trumps all the others. Freedom sits alongside justice and dignity and worth and peace and protection/security and health/well-being and so on. While many specific freedoms can be enumerated, there are a number of other aspects that are every bit as important as freedom, and indeed many of the things we're talking about in this thread are those aspects of society.

[hoodedfalcon]

Freedom is important but let's not get lost: It isn't some kind of over-arching aspect of society that trumps all the others. Freedom sits alongside justice and dignity and worth and peace and protection/security and health/well-being and so on. While many specific freedoms can be enumerated, there are a number of other aspects that are every bit as important as freedom, and indeed many of the things we're talking about in this thread are those aspects of society.

Oh, I agree that there are plenty of other things that are just as important as freedom. I don't think any of these things necessarily trump any others. I guess my point is more about the concept of something as fundamental, and the act of practicing that "right." Freedom is a practice. Liberty is a practice. Justice is a practice, etc. Perhaps the distinction is more esoteric than necessary for this particular conversation. I will hush now. :)

[Sofa King]

totally random tangent but i'm curious.  when a woman is pregnant do you believe the fetus's fundamental rights supercede the mother's?  ie mother needs cancer treatment which would end up terminating the pregnancy.  whose rights in those scenarios are more important

Supercede? Absolutely not. I do not believe the child's right to life trumps the mother's in any way. If this occurs, the mother and (if involved) the father, in consultation with the doctor, should have the sole discretion to determine the desired course of action.

So what about women for whom going through a pregnancy would result in severe psychological trauma, only to be exasperated by the long term effects of pregnancy and childbirth?  Severe tokophobia for example.   Why is cancer any different from being forced to endure unwanted physical pains for 9 months followed by permanent dis-figuration?  Not everyone thinks of pregnancy and childbirth the way you do .  . .

I concur.

[renbutler]

This is a thread about school taxes and having kids.

Evidently not just that, anymore, but I respect your right to dodge the core question that has come up that is the basis on which the questions raised in this thread could be answered.

"Dodge" was an intentionally weighted (and, ultimately incorrect) word to use. But thank you for "respecting my right."

LOL

[bUU]

I've tried some other words on for size, but it really doesn't matter. The answer to the question will shed a clear light on the nature of the matter, but you're truly under no obligation to make your perspective that explicit.

[grantmeaname]

Any commentary that I have regarding fundamental human rights has been rightly limited to those topics. I don't owe either of you any comprehensive statement about anything, particularly something off the current topic.

So, perhaps you guys should just stop guessing why I do things, or asking me to do things far outside the scope of the topic. Fair enough?

You brought up a shadowy, ill-defined topic, refused to exactly explain your position on the topic, got pissed off when we guessed your position incorrectly after you refused to provide, and now despite your frustration that we couldn't guess what you meant don't want to discuss it any further. That hardly seems fair.

[renbutler]

Pissed off? Frustrated?

Me laughing at the notion --> :D

You were imagining me as a caricature of angry, seething Internet user with fist shaking.

I used to get worked up about things I read on the Internet, but that was a long time ago. And I generally feel better about my whole Internet experience these days. I highly recommend the change for all who find themselves taking the Internet too seriously.

[wepner]

Other than making no clear definitive statements or not committing to single position, how do you suggest we make the same change to our internet experience as you have?

[renbutler]

Answer: Not taking obvious bait like that.

Got any other softballs?

;)

[wepner]

I give up.

[grantmeaname]

You were imagining me as a caricature of angry, seething Internet user with fist shaking.

I word things carefully, so be sure to read them carefully. You're forbidden from using synonyms to words I use unless they're other words that I also meant. In this case, they're not, but I'm not going to explain why.

[Simple Abundant Living]

This thread makes me happy some chose not to reproduce.

[renbutler]

You were imagining me as a caricature of angry, seething Internet user with fist shaking.

I word things carefully, so be sure to read them carefully. You're forbidden from using synonyms to words I use unless they're other words that I also meant. In this case, they're not, but I'm not going to explain why.

As far as satire goes, I've seen better. :)

[Sofa King]

I used to get worked up about things I read on the Internet, but that was a long time ago. And I generally feel better about my whole Internet experience these days. I highly recommend the change for all who find themselves taking the Internet too seriously.

I concur.

[hybrid]

Well damn, this is 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

[wepner]

I used to get worked up about things I read on the Internet, but that was a long time ago. And I generally feel better about my whole Internet experience these days. I highly recommend the change for all who find themselves taking the Internet too seriously.

I concur.

I feel like this is a key piece of evidence in a conspiracy that I don't fully understand...

[Sofa King]

LOL!!