Printable View
Let's try this again. The husband makes a choice to cd (assuming it is a choice, it may not be)---he WANTS to STAY---then the wife says either quit cding or leave---therefore he is the only one making a decision here???? There is no decision by the wife? I don't get it, I guess. :doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by LA CINDY LOVE
If the wife gives the ultimatum, and husband makes a choice to continue cding but he wants to stay, then he has made his decision, now the wife must make a choice on her decision should she stay or separated.
LA CINDY LOVE
Kelli, not everyone here will agree because the posters cover the entire TG spectrum. I hope the women responding to your post will realize that for some, CDing is a choice. For others, it is not. In your case, it clearly isn't. So you and your wife need to decide whether or not you can meet half way.
If somewhere down the road it comes down to making the very painful decision to divorce, and I'm sure your wife will be distressed about this, I would be happy to talk to her. You can tell her that I won't try to "convince" her of anything. I will just listen. I don't imagine she knows of many other GGs she can discuss this with. It might also help her to know she is not the only SO who feels the way she does.
:hugs:
Kelli, here's a ponderous thought:
As long as we blame, we effectively rob ourselves of our own empowerment.
Stop blaming your wife or anyone else for the situation. Talk with her. Forgive her for her intractable stance. Forgive yourself for yours. Know that you are both forgiven.
Only then you will both truly be free to begin to seek a solution to the problem.
At the moment, both of you are stuck.
Oh that is so not so. Jewish culture changed heaps and split into many subsets. Know the name of Gods Wife, the jewish Goddess? She's right there in the archaeological record!Quote:
Originally Posted by clayfish
And wasn't the first nor the last either. But what is important is that individuals have a human right to take or leave as much of culture as they wish.Quote:
Jesus was a Jew who split from that culture.
Most of 'Scottish culture' as we now know it is very recent. I'm substantially of Highland Scottish descent on one side (along with Irish, Welsh, Cornish, English, Bohemian and Transylvanian Gypsy)Quote:
Scottish culture has thrived around the world, precisely because Scots have not forced it onto anyone else, whereas Afrikaner culture in South Africa is on the wane, precisely because Afrikaners tried to force it down the throats of people of other cultures, who saw them as oppressors.
But an individual forced to abide by their OWN cultural traditions is also oppressed when they would rather not. Look up some of the tribal initiation rights involving extreme genital modification using stone and wood tools and you'll swiftly see why people have a right to not follow their own cultural practices either!
"Lets leave religion out of it as immaterial, especially as that lesson is not so universal amongst them."
Not so! I have studied comparative theology! From the Gnostic Gospels to Zoarastrians to Siberian Animism to the worshipers of Camasotz and Quetzalcoatl. I can judge Christinaity on its tenets quite well. But that is immaterial to a discussion on human rights because A) human rights do not depend on religion but on philosophy and B) freedom of religion is just another human right bordered by the need to respect the human rights of others otherwise you cannot have true freedom of religion! Besides, religious discussion belongs in PMs or the Religion section as per forum rules!Quote:
You, Batty, have a poor perception of Christianity (and other religions) because you judge them, not according to their tenets, but according to the actions of their followers.
You prove the problem with judging everyone in a group by an example individual from a group!Quote:
Just recently, I have learned that it is my own personal inter-relationships with people that matter. Christians like Desmond Tutu and mother Theresa give the religion a good name because of their interactions with others (I have been priviledged to meet Archbishop Tutu). Christians like a couple of Ministers of the cloth I could name give the religion a bad name because of their poor iner-personal skills.
Nope, but I'd be surprised that it could after reading several different translations of the bible as well as studying the broader abrahamic faiths and their influences as well as many other faiths from around the world. Believe me I'm well familiar with many different variations of Christianity, and Bhuddism and Wicca etc.Quote:
Have you read "The Shack" by William P Young? I guarantee it will change your perceptions of of God and of Christianity.
Thats an issue with language. An unavoidable one. However so long as it is the ideas that matter rather than the words then all that matters is to convey an understanding, which to truly grasp may take many many words for some ideas.Quote:
"'... do unto others the equivalent for them as that for you which you would have them do unto you'."
The more we try to pin down an exact definiton of ANYTHING, the more we find we have to shift the goalposts. Take the present posts about the definitions of a CD, TS, TV etc. When it comes down to legal issues, I believe that less is more. A convivial approach to life, with a minimal number of rules is far easier to cope with than a manipulative approach with an over-abundance of rules.
Depends on which version, of which there are a great many!Quote:
How many words are there in the Ten Commandments?
The problem comes in with people attempting to make 'literal' limited interpretations of laws rather than trying to understand the true meaning. In which case fewer words greater problems.Quote:
More words, more loopholes ...
Easy example: All sentiences should be considered equal because all sentiences have by virtue of being sentient the capacity to think, reason, feel and object to having no autonomy. Ah but if we say that 'all men are equal' then literalists could say 'well it doesn't mean women!' even though men can mean all humans both men and women. And so inequality was justified by the loophole of too few words!
People arent always in a position, emotional, psychological or even practical, to negotiate and not everything can be up for negotiation. And if negotiation is done when one has a position of power over the other then the result wont be fair. A good reason again for a respect for equal rights prior to negotiation and throughout the negotiation process!Quote:
Getting back to our friend Kelli and his wife, they need to consider the pain they are both needlessly suffering and causing the other. Whether they are religious or not, the solution to their problem is right there in front of them, waiting for them to embrace it. They need to improve their relationship. And for both to refuse to open negotiations is to choose to suffer further. They should, instead, choose to end the suffering.
Ah but then she chose to make an ultimatum! Therefore the choice is hers! And if he may not have a choice to quit as obviously is the case for a huge proportion of CDs then her ultimatum is false! And she has made a choice but is using the ultimatum as a way to blame him and make him responsible for that choice! If she did not present the ultimatum then the CD would never be caught between the two!Quote:
Originally Posted by LA CINDY LOVE
So let us consider then what such an ultimatum truly is! It is a TEST to see if the CD is so as a hobby or an intrinsic trait DISGUISED as a test of their love that re****s in BLAME-SHIFTING for the already made DECISION to abandon the husband if the CDing is not the husbands fault! And in that blame-shifting it is truly horrific!
Imagine for a moment a wife is in a car accident. Her spine is damaged and willpower alone will not re-connect it if it turns out to be severed. Were the husband to say to the wife 'if you love me you'll be able to walk again but if you stay in that wheelchair I'm leaving you' then there would be plenty of appropriately nasty words to call the husband!
She has no power over whether her spinal nerve is permanantly severed! No amount of motivation based on fear can fix it if thats the case. So the husband is an insensitive *censored censored censored* and is balming the wife for his choice to leave!
So no, its the wife choosing to give an ultimatum which is unfair, unjust, traumatising, blame-shifting, cruel and wretched!
It is no different than the man who dumps their wheelchair-bound wife with such an ultimatum for not loving him enough to miraculously walk!
The wife has every right to ask the CD if they can stop and every right to leave by their own choice or if they just can't hack it if they can't or won't stop (cause every spouse has a right to say no!). But to blame the husband for the wives choice is nonsense!
End of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
One additional point. Every SO should know what CDing is about and understand you cannot unmake a CD. If her own happiness and relationship is on the line, do we really believe a SO is incapable of finding out the facts about crossdressers? It is clear many make no effort because they don't want to know because they have already decided that they will never accept crossdressing.
It is NOT difficult to sensibility compromise by allowing a CD private time and space to pursue his needs. This happens all the time in relationships because spouses often have hobbies and interests that are not shared with each other. What makes it so hard and causes all the grief in our cases is the SO not recognizing and accepting the CD's right to express his own femininity. Unless the SO accepts this basic right then the behavior will forever cause strife and will likely tear the relationship apart in the long run.
It is the woman's choice not to accept that men have feminine sides to their personalities. This is ground zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayfish
Just to be clear, my wife has not asked me to get out, I was merely posing a question about "what if your wife said this." Once again, I would be NOT blaming my wife for anything, if this occurred,unless you count her making a decision, and blame would be the wrong word. Maybe taking "responsibility" would be a better word.
You said it yourself in your post, about forgiving each other for our "intractable stance". In other words a stance involves a decision. That's all. I am not trying to deflect my responsibility by making a decision, nor should she deflect hers. To further illustrate, let's say (again) you decide to cd, she says get out----two decisions, not one. Or am I crazy???
I think I am beating a dead horse here, lol.
Thanks again for the perspectives.
Kelli, you are wondering whose decision it is which causes an impasse, the CDer's or the wife's; I am trying to say that in the end, when the marriage is over, is does not matter whose decision it was!
What is more important (and this is what so many of us are saying over and over again) is that spouses need to keep the lines of communication open. Only in this way will the marriage stand a chance of surviving. The process has to be on-going.
Life is a journey that we all must make are own choices. If I could have my wife back, she passed away due to an illness, I would still be asking her for her love as she always returned the question. We only realize what somethings value is fully when we lose it.
MAKE SURE YOU ARE WILLING TO BE RESPECFUL TO ALL FIRST INCLUDING YOUR SELF.
cant seem to find the rule book on life so i resort to prayer.
So very, very true. :sad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandiwvr
"... human rights do not depend on religion but on philosophy ..."
I have mentioned that I am reading "The Shack" by William P Young.
On page 137 the dialogue between Mack, the main character and Sarayu (God the Holy Spirit) goes like this ...
Mack: "... didn't Missy (his daughter, who was murdered) have a right to be protected?"
Sarayu: "No Mack. A child is protected because she is loved, not because she has a right to be protected."
Mack: "But what about ...?"
Sarayu: "Rights are where survivors go, so that they won't have to work out relationships."
And this one's for Kelli, another comment from Sarayu on page 123.
"When you choose independence over relationship, you become a danger to each other. Others become objects to be manipulated or managed for your own happiness. Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want."
Hear hear!Quote:
Originally Posted by clayfish
Wow, was that your own quote? Pretty profound.
yikes. there are too many variables to get a good read on your situation. Tell me more
????Quote:
Originally Posted by clayfish
Let me rewrite that quote so it is more realistic. Relationships leave people wide open to abuse and the selfish nature of their partners. All too often partners will manipulate or manage you under the guise of love. Those who are independent are free from manipulation and have no need to manipulate others.
You don't get it, Satrana.
Any partner who tries to manipulate or manage the other under the guise of love is not in a true relationship with their partner.
Two or more people who are inter-dependent are in true relationship with each other.
When one is truly in a relationship with another, one counts the other's needs to be more important than one's own, and vice-versa.
None seeks to dominate or control the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayfish
Guess that means that Debs and I are in a truely loving partnership ............ while both of us need each other, neither of us would do anything to harm or abuse the other and in fact would walk over the proverbial hot coals to save the other a moment or even a second of pain, either from others but more importantly fome each other :):)
Nonsense I'm afraid. Rights are what you get when you consider that all should be equal when they currently are not treated equally. It was the overthrow of the tyranny of Kings that we got formulated rights. It was under the banner of individuals being equals regardless of birthright of class that we had revolution and wars of independance.Quote:
Originally Posted by clayfish
It was a relationship of cruelty and selfishness that was one-sided in value that rights were a response too. Rights demanded and fought for. Rights died for! It was in fact the understanding of relationships, between the classes especially, that rights were the result of.
That author needs a history lesson as well as a philosphy one and a theology one!
See theres the failure. The assumption that independance = selfishness. When true independance requires recognising the equal independance of others which is anti-selfish and the extreme of respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by clayfish
To love someone enough to respect their freedom? Thats true love!
When someone is caged their presence is valueless, when free to leave their freely chosen presence is of incalculable value!
The love of a truly independant person is more valuable than that of a billion dependant people combined! Because it is truly freely given not required or demanded, not the slaking of a thirst or a psychological craving.
Beautifully said, Batty.Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
WOW............THAT was sweet.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
LA CINDY LOVE
Mack: "... didn't Missy (his daughter, who was murdered) have a right to be protected?"
Sarayu: "No Mack. A child is protected because she is loved, not because she has a right to be protected."
Mack: "But what about ...?"
Sarayu: "Rights are where survivors go, so that they won't have to work out relationships."
As I see it, you are correct in stating that "human rights" are a man-made (sorry gurls!) construct created in response to tyranny and oppression. Even today, most humans live under some form of tyranny or oppression, be it based on class (India), creed (Zimbabwe), age (paedophiles exist world-wide), gender (women, and en-femme CDs on this forum have expressed a sense of heightened fear of attack on the streets because of their sex) or whatever.
The book that I am reading is all about relationships. The message is that any one-sided "relationship", especially one which is based on cruelty or selfishness, is not really a Relationship.
"Rights are what you get when you consider that all should be equal when they currently are not treated equally. "
The Christian God-in-Trinity considers that all should be equal AND TREATS THEM EQUALLY. We could write a book on this ... how do I elaborate, briefly?
Ah. "God causes the rain to fall on the good and the evil alike."
As I recall, someone asked Billy Graham's wife how God could have allowed 9-11 to happen. I thought her answer was profound ... I must look it up. That would be another aspect ...
Here's a third. As humans, how do we decide what is good and what is evil? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Mack puts it this way,
"I guess I would say that something is good when I like it - when it makes me feel good or gives me a sense of security. Conversely, I'd say something is evil that causes me pain or costs me something I want."
It's subjective, in other words.
What I find so overwhemingly attractive about Christianity is it's inclusiveness. John 3:16 uses the word "whosoever" - no-one is excluded, for any reason! There are many, many other instances.
Christianity (as opposed to those who profess to be Christians, too many bad examples there!) is all about healing relationships, binding up wounded souls, rebuilding broken lives.
Christianity is all about service to others. Why do you think that servants are exhorted to obey their masters? And the ultimate act of service is to lay down one's life for someone else. It is the highest expression of human love.
Human rights are not about human love. They are not even about justice. Because in order to be effective, they have to be enforced through some form of judiciary. True human love is not forced upon anyone; it is freely given, without having to do so, but rather, by choosing to do so.
Matthew 5 is amazing! It runs counter to everyting that normal humans would consider to be natural behaviour. Forgive your enemies; bless those that curse you; turn the other cheek; if someone asks you for your jacket, give them your shirt as well; go the extra mile ... Every one of these is an act of human love, freely given from within, not imposed from without.
This is how we create and sustain good relationships.
As I see it, human love is a God-made construct in response to human tyranny and suffering. Everyone is capable of loving (it is reported in today's NZ Herald that one of the murderers of 3 year old Nia Glassie told the court that he loved her), which makes everyone a candidate for redemption.
The saint and the sinner, the rich and the poor, the master and the servant, the old and the young, the living and (amazingly!) even the dead.
Oh I do get it but actually having this arrangement is unusual and even if you do reach this stasis, it is unlikely to survive in the long run. I am just being pragmatic that this ideal is rare in our society, and getting rarer as we steadily away away from social/community organized behavior to independent (frequently selfish) behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by clayfish
Truth is all human beings come with a myriad of faults, it is how we deal with the faults that counts. Better to work on that model than chase after a perfect relationship.
Politically and legally they are man-made. Logically and philosophically however they are realised in the same way that mathematics are realised. We render the truth that 1 + 1 = 2 with a formula we create but the practise remains true. Now rights are logic (a formula just like the arithmatic) derived from assumed principles (precepts) so if the precepts are true and the formula without error then the result is true. In which case unless there is a flaw in the precepts or the logic then rights are a realised or discovered truth rather than an invention.Quote:
Originally Posted by clayfish
Indeed every single country on Earth has a host of human-rights abuses.Quote:
Even today, most humans live under some form of tyranny or oppression, be it based on class (India), creed (Zimbabwe), age (paedophiles exist world-wide), gender (women, and en-femme CDs on this forum have expressed a sense of heightened fear of attack on the streets because of their sex) or whatever.
When any two things effect one another they are in a relationship. They relate to the other. The bullets in a corpse relate to the cause of death, they are in a relationship. The bully that traumatises their victim to the point of being suicidal is also in a perpetrator-victim relationship. Its important to consider there are good relationships and bad, healthy and unhealthy, free and coerced. And some people may enjoy an unequal relationship even though it is technically abusive, even on either side of that inequality. But all are still relationships.Quote:
The book that I am reading is all about relationships. The message is that any one-sided "relationship", especially one which is based on cruelty or selfishness, is not really a Relationship.
"Rights are what you get when you consider that all should be equal when they currently are not treated equally. "
If you would like a theological discussion feel free to PM me or we could have a public one in our visitor messages or via my blog or the religious discussion section (though I'm not yet part of that section).Quote:
The Christian God-in-Trinity considers that all should be equal AND TREATS THEM EQUALLY. We could write a book on this ...
So I will only respond to your points about religion where they pertain to the subject at hand, that of measures of right and worng (philosophy) that relate back in some form to who gets to make crucial decisons in relationships over whom so we can keep this at the very core and heart of the subject at hand let alone obey the forum rules.
Religion is no definer of right and wrong in relationships or society because:
1. More than one religion exists.
2. No religion has utter proof of their truth
3. Spouses as well as individuals in a state may belong to different religions or different subsets of a religion or different sub-subsets ad infinitum. (eg even two Catholics or Protestants may still follow different factional thoughts within that doctrine)
Therefore not only is a freedom of religion one of the individual universal human rights as per prior discussion but also any system of right and wrong, decision, authority, morality, ethics, law etc even within a relationship must work irrespective of any one religious system so that it serves everyone, from the fundamentalist Jew to the Chaos-Majyk Neo-odinist/Wiccan/Bhuddist to the member of Anton LeVay's Church of Satan.
Your freedom of religion depends on recognising the freedom of others religions, otherwise you lose the protection of that freedom against other religions. So you cannot impose your religious tenants or religious morality over another even a spouse without losing your right to keep your own! Here we see that in the context of relationships whether between person and person or person and state Secular Ethics (which protects freedom of religion, the anti-faith secular states like Turkey and the USSR having been unethical) trumps Religious Morality as the latter is purely personal!
There is a whole field of thought found in countless cultures that has existed for many thousands of years called philosophy. Moral and ethical reasoning fall under this field. It's a fascinating subject that I'm sure you will enjoy as clearly much of the ideas your raising are philosophical ones more than theological or psychological or political ones even though they all do relate to those other fields.Quote:
Here's a third. As humans, how do we decide what is good and what is evil?
Are there ethics in war? Oh most certainly yes. An attack upon a state even from within, upon it's capacity to wage war or to unjustly oppress its subjects are clearly sabotage, espionage, insurgency, rebellion etc. Even attacks upon the police may be so counted in certain circumstances. However attacks upon civilians in order to gain political advantage via fear especially in a democracy is terrorism.Quote:
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Therefore no freedom fighter can be a terrorist simply because of what side they are on. They are only a terrorist when they attack civilians instead of soldiers, police or functions of the state (even economic targets are legitimate targets in war but civilians are not). There exists again a very clear line between acts of terrorism and acts of freedom-fighters even though many freedom fighters have been also terrorists.
The War of Independance: freedom fighting. The storming of the Bastille: freedom fighting. The Stonewall Uprising: freedom fighting. Every plane hijacking, every street bombing, every civilian hostage taking: Terrorism. There is a clear line between the acts. The targeting of civilians makes all the difference.
That is a truly pathetic measure of good and evil. Even modern advocates of Hedonism consider that the equality of others comes into the equation just for starters. Let alone that something may be good precisely because it has cost something else desirable in order to obtain or that one must suffer in some way in order to obtain it. In fact we often value more that which we must pay more for either in goods (expensive items considered better than cheap ones) or in direct personal suffering (e.g. childbirth, breaking a personal record in some sport etc).Quote:
Mack puts it this way,
"I guess I would say that something is good when I like it - when it makes me feel good or gives me a sense of security. Conversely, I'd say something is evil that causes me pain or costs me something I want."
It's subjective, in other words.
Meanwhile any argument of right and wrong that is based on a personal revelation or decision of the truth of any particular religion (ie faith) is invalid when used to judge or measure anyone who holds to a different faith or has none!
Can we find an objective measure of good and evil? If we consider equality and liberty as a starting assumption then can you find fault with that as a measure?
Whatever a person chooses to do with their liberty within their rights (remembering that each persons rights is bordered by the recognition of the rights of others) is good no matter how starnge, unpopular or contrary to the wishes of others who would rather that persons do something else with their choice. Whatever abuses a persons human rights is evil.
Can you find a better objective measure of good and evil than that? One that is any more fair to all religious faiths, to all cultures, to everyone? Certainly some become more restricted than others, for example someone who wishes to sacrifice someone to the god Camasotz would need to find a willing fully informed freelly consenting sacrifice uncoerced in any way. Cultures and faiths where imposing over the freedoms of others is considered good do suffer more as they must only apply such rules to those who consent to such rules... so to obey the witch-muder rule in the bible is a less severe constraint because it is a less central tenant to the faith than regular human sacrifice is for some faiths.. however what other system treats all such cultures and faiths so well?
And there are many other religions that do likewise, including the serving-others tenant. Ba'Hai, Bhuddism, many forms of Islam especially amongst the Sufi, many Animists beliefs etc etc etc say people should serve others and that everyone else is included. Christianity is not unique in it's inclusiveness. Nor is a faiths inclusiveness a reason for presuming it over all others is an objective measure of right and wrong. Rights however allow a Sufi to be a Sufi whether a Dervish or not and the Dervish to practice their dance and song rituals and a Christian to be a Christian whether Catholic Protestant Gnostic Marionite Coptic or even a Johannite! Their religious practice remains limited by respecting the rights of others, you can't just kill witches despite what the bible says, but nevertheless all can still hold their own faith.Quote:
What I find so overwhemingly attractive about Christianity is it's inclusiveness. John 3:16 uses the word "whosoever" - no-one is excluded, for any reason! There are many, many other instances.
LOL. Human Rights are about equality. Rights are absolutely about justice, and what form of justice does not require a judiciary, democracy or other such system of enforcement? That true human love can only exist by free human choice means it can only exist in a state that concurs with human rights! Whether or not anyone calls them human rights if love only exists where uncoerced and given with full free informed consent then it is in exact concorde with human rights!Quote:
Human rights are not about human love. They are not even about justice. Because in order to be effective, they have to be enforced through some form of judiciary. True human love is not forced upon anyone; it is freely given, without having to do so, but rather, by choosing to do so.
Sounds like your arguing FOR Human Rights there!
Ah... but... is it truly uncoerced when there is a promise of heaven and a threat of hell attached? No, that is not uncoerced. It has both carrot and stick coercion! As for the naturalness of such actions you may want to read on the experiments with monkeys regarding altruism, fairness and justice. And they aren't the only ones. Did you know for example that vampire bats will voluntarily regurgitate food to help a hungry perfect stranger? These are animals that require a certain amount of food for their own survival and to have enough energy to get their next meal. Such an altruistic act puts themselves at risk. And yet they are altruistic with utter strangers!Quote:
Matthew 5 is amazing! It runs counter to everyting that normal humans would consider to be natural behaviour. Forgive your enemies; bless those that curse you; turn the other cheek; if someone asks you for your jacket, give them your shirt as well; go the extra mile ... Every one of these is an act of human love, freely given from within, not imposed from without.
Ah but if two people sacrifice all they wish for the sake of the partner you may get a stalemate, a state of stagnation, of a lose-lose scenario. And if the relationship is unbalanced one gets all the benefit and the other all the burden. Even those vampire bats stop supporting a moocher if they regularly abuse their natural generosity.Quote:
This is how we create and sustain good relationships.
But from where comes human love is immaterial to right and wrong inside a relationship.Quote:
As I see it, human love is a God-made construct in response to human tyranny and suffering.
Umm... are you sure on that? Are you sure that everyone is capable of feelling love? Have you looked at all the neurological variations that mean people experience thoughts and emotions differently? All the forms of brain damage that alter such capacities and experiences?Quote:
Everyone is capable of loving (it is reported in today's NZ Herald that one of the murderers of 3 year old Nia Glassie told the court that he loved her), which makes everyone a candidate for redemption.
Something like 1 in 30 people (and 1 in 3 CEO's) are psychopaths, people clinically missing intuitive natural empathy for others. Literally lacking the capacity to understand the emotions of others being related to and comparable with their own emotions. While they are capable of desiring are they capable of the form of love you describe? Let alone all the other variations of people which effect how they think and feel and experience?
Politically and legally they are man-made. Logically and philosophically however they are realised in the same way that mathematics are realised. We render the truth that 1 + 1 = 2 with a formula we create but the practise remains true. Now rights are logic (a formula just like the arithmatic) derived from assumed principles (precepts) so if the precepts are true and the formula without error then the result is true. In which case unless there is a flaw in the precepts or the logic then rights are a realised or discovered truth rather than an invention.
I could go into a lengthy discussion of the philosophy of mathematics at this point, but like you, I will be brief and mention only the essentials.
Mathematics is not at all like logic. The Russell paradox, which detroyed the life's work of the mathematicians who wrote Principaea Mathematica (sp?) led these gentlemen to introduce new axiomatic treatments of set theory, which did avoid the paradox, but at a price. By the time they were finished the structure of set theory was so complicated that one could hardly identify it with logic in the sense of "The rules for correct reasoning." So it became untenable for them to argue that mathematics is nothing but logic.
In a series of proofs produced in the early 1930s, Kurt Godel proved that it is impossible to show that any mathematical system is absolutely consistent! The consequence of this asounding result is that in the last analysis, mathematics rests on faith - we hope and believe that what we are doing will not lead to any contradictions, but we are not absolutely certain of it.
In the same vein, I would challenge you to prove to me that human rights are a logic. Perhaps if you PM me with the details of your blog, we might continue there ... Certainly, I am skeptical about your claim that human rights always existed and are a discovered truth. And are they universally true?
I believe that they are an invention.
Religion is no definer of right and wrong in relationships or society
Correct. But what if religion (God) only recognized our absolute freedom to do what we like? Then society would be as it really is, extremely messy.
To draw the obvious parallel, all religions rest on faith, not on logic.
You mention freedom of religion as a basic universal human right ... I put it to you that religious persecution has ruled throughout the ages, and continues today. There is nothing to suggest to me that anything is likely to change soon ...
That true human love can only exist by free human choice means it can only exist in a state that concurs with human rights! Whether or not anyone calls them human rights if love only exists where uncoerced and given with full free informed consent then it is in exact concorde with human rights!
I am not sure if I understand you correctly here. If that state refers to a country, then your claim is easily refuted. Christ lived in a state which was being occupied by foreign, hostile forces. Christ claimed to be fully human. Mother Theresa lived and worked in India. Many Christians lived out their faith in Nazi Germany. Religions in general thrive best when they are oppressed. Not so, human rights.
But if you are referring to a human state of uncoerced love, then I would agree with you. Not all humans live in that state, though, which reinforces my thesis that the notion of any universal set of human rights will forever remian a fallacy.
is it truly uncoerced when there is a promise of heaven and a threat of hell attached?
This is another comment which deserves detailed discussion. Briefly, I would simply reply that my understanding of Christianity does not include the existence of hell; merely life after death, or no life at all.
Therefore no freedom fighter can be a terrorist simply because of what side they are on. They are only a terrorist when they attack civilians instead of soldiers, police or functions of the state (even economic targets are legitimate targets in war but civilians are not). The targeting of civilians makes all the difference.
How would you categorize the German blitzkrieg on London in 1940 or the allied bombing of Hamburg or Dresden in 1945? Or, even better - the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? Let's be more contemporary. How do you classify the recent Israeli action in the Gaza strip?
Something like 1 in 30 people (and 1 in 3 CEO's) are psychopaths, people clinically missing intuitive natural empathy for others.
That is a frightening statistic. Do you have a reference? Personally, my professional life was ****ed up by just such a CEO some years ago.
Did you know that M Scott Peck held that such people suffer from a disease, which he called "evil". It's an interesting take on the phenomenon.
It's getting late. I am looking forward to tomorrow and would rather meet it well-rested. Time for bed.
People much more qualified than I have staked careers on arguing either side of this so we shan't get a totally conclusive answer on it here :)Quote:
Originally Posted by clayfish
But as far as most maths goes its passed the repitition tests used in normal science. If there were major flaws in basic arithmatic we would have found them in our generations of shopping bills. Ah but the more complex stuff, that may indeed need further refinement. Though has it often failed? Considering we put satelites in orbit and do many other practical things based on mathematics we know that often it works because it does what we expect it to when applied to the real physical world.
Isn't that a metaphysics issue thats applicable to everyhting though? The rock-kicking attempt to refute the existentialist and bhuddist claim that no reality may genuinely exist refutes nothing because reality could be wholly hallucinatory and illusiory in every sense and respect including the rock, the kick etc. But there is a huge difference between holding something on pure faith and holding that something is currently true because it has yet to be disproved whe it is testable.Quote:
The consequence of this asounding result is that in the last analysis, mathematics rests on faith - we hope and believe that what we are doing will not lead to any contradictions, but we are not absolutely certain of it.
This is a major flaw in classical philosophical argument and mathematics as the attempts to rest on proofs is intrinsicly flawed hence why scientific method rests on inability to disprove a disprovable hypothesis. Our knowledge of all reality rests on our experience, yet we know our experience is vague and nebulous and fallible therefore all reality can be doubtable.
Even Cogito Ergo Sum "I think, therefore I am" is at least partially debatable and disputable especially considering some of the revelations coming from cognitive neuroscience using FRMI scanning!
I would suggest that we should see if we can find a disproof.Quote:
In the same vein, I would challenge you to prove to me that human rights are a logic.
I don't think there are any rules issues with me posting a link here, certainly others reading this part of the thread may find it interesting to follow any further discussion there http://caveofrationality.blogspot.com/Quote:
Perhaps if you PM me with the details of your blog, we might continue there ...
Depending on the way one looks at things all things are an invention, even memories and real-time experiences! But then we head into metaphysics. The importance of course is in the IFs. IF people are or should best be treated as equals THEN this is universally so.Quote:
Certainly, I am skeptical about your claim that human rights always existed and are a discovered truth. And are they universally true?
I believe that they are an invention.
Freedom does not neccessarily equal anarchy though. As for what God recognises, without testable evidence of the objective reality of God its a moot point though. If we try making deductions on what God must be like based only on the natural world we would conclude that God is cruel and evil by most modern human standards, very much the evil Rex Mundi of Gnosticism responsible for all manner of natural sufferings.Quote:
Correct. But what if religion (God) only recognized our absolute freedom to do what we like? Then society would be as it really is, extremely messy.
To draw the obvious parallel, all religions rest on faith, not on logic.
Plenty of periods of history have involved substantial rligious tolerance too though! There was times of peace in Palestine and Israel with Judaism Islam and Christianity coexisting!Quote:
You mention freedom of religion as a basic universal human right ... I put it to you that religious persecution has ruled throughout the ages, and continues today. There is nothing to suggest to me that anything is likely to change soon ...
And just because something occurs that does not make it good or right or justifiable that it occurs.
I meant state as in situation.Quote:
I am not sure if I understand you correctly here. If that state refers to a country, then your claim is easily refuted.
Its worth pointing out that a right and a power are different. One may have a right to something but be prevented the capacity to excercise that right, which is then an abuse of the persons rights except when it occurs because of the natural border between two peoples rights.Quote:
But if you are referring to a human state of uncoerced love, then I would agree with you. Not all humans live in that state, though, which reinforces my thesis that the notion of any universal set of human rights will forever remian a fallacy.
Oh that's often easy. The simple rule is, when a target is civilians its unethical and therfore a war crime. So some of the bombing done by all sides of WWII was a clear wrong.Quote:
How would you categorize the German blitzkrieg on London in 1940 or the allied bombing of Hamburg or Dresden in 1945? Or, even better - the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? Let's be more contemporary. How do you classify the recent Israeli action in the Gaza strip?
Now where civilian casualties may be an unavoidable consequence because of proximity to military targets then things get messy so the Isreali action in the Gaza strip cannot be dealt with as one instance but a battle-by-battle bomb-by-bomb evaluation is needed to sort the clear wrongs from the messy area. The messy stuff idealistically is still wrong as any civilian death where a possibility of civilian death is known at te time of conflict is unethical, so things usually get measured in pragmatic levels as the consequences of inaction may be worse than that of action, a determining between wrongs. A quick google of the Trolley Dilemma and Footbridge Dillema if your unaware of them can easilly illustrate how complex that kind of thing is.
I think i first heard it via a BBC or New Scientist article but have since discussed it with several psych students I know. The written test involved is pretty simple, only taking about 30 minutes. Try a search for the term 'powerpaths' which has become the popular term for many of the psychopaths who end up in high levels of business and politics.Quote:
Something like 1 in 30 people (and 1 in 3 CEO's) are psychopaths, people clinically missing intuitive natural empathy for others.
That is a frightening statistic. Do you have a reference? Personally, my professional life was ****ed up by just such a CEO some years ago.
Did you know that M Scott Peck held that such people suffer from a disease, which he called "evil". It's an interesting take on the phenomenon.
It's getting late. I am looking forward to tomorrow and would rather meet it well-rested. Time for bed.