PSA: There's no such thing as trans-rights, womens-rights, etc. There only human-rights belonging equally to every individual without exception. Any other category is asinine and counter-productive.
Rights aren't established by legislating every conceivable minority group and identity class which exists, but by removing any such category of distinction from the law. If you are a human being, you have all the rights that every other human being possesses. End of story. Your genitals and skin colour are irrelevant.
Rights aren't established by legislating every conceivable minority group and identity class which exists, but by removing any such category of distinction from the law. If you are a human being, you have all the rights that every other human being possesses. End of story. Your genitals and skin colour are irrelevant.
@toiletpaper It's crazy that this went from the opinion the majority of progressives shared, to a fringe opinion someone will call you a nazi for.
@toiletpaper I don't understand what "trans rights" trans people need that they don't have yet.
The right to force everyone not to "misgender" them? The right to get non-necessary surgeries using public funds? The right for children to make big decisions about their bodies without their parents consent?
None of those things should be rights if you ask me.
The right to force everyone not to "misgender" them? The right to get non-necessary surgeries using public funds? The right for children to make big decisions about their bodies without their parents consent?
None of those things should be rights if you ask me.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 3
@toiletpaper i suspect this isn't universal enough
There are children's rights and women's rights though. Minors are a protected class, this makes a lot of sense. The rights women are asking for today include having autonomy over medical decisions like abortions and being able to exclude men.
It doesn't seem long ago that these subgroups weren't worth mentioning explicitly in broader discussions about human rights, since they were so obvious...but here we are.
It doesn't seem long ago that these subgroups weren't worth mentioning explicitly in broader discussions about human rights, since they were so obvious...but here we are.
@mittimithai @softwarepagan @toiletpaper That's because such "rights" are there to destroy the family in favor of the regime.
@mittimithai @softwarepagan
You make a good point about children's rights. I think it's generally the consensus that rights come with responsibilities, and that as such they are limited to adults. There're a lot of perspectives about what category non-adult humans are in, or what rights (if any) they may have as opposed to property. Also, where a society chooses to draw the line to distinguish child from adult is somewhat arbitrary unless delineated by some clear biological signal such as puberty. If speaking of emotional or intellectual maturity, I dare say the vast majority of society would still be considered infantile by that metric.
In terms of women's rights related to reproductive decisions, that's really just a subset of "bodily autonomy" in my opinion. If you have "bodily autonomy", then you have all the necessary rights to safeguard your choice.
The pro-life camp to my knowledge is basing their argument almost entirely off a narrow interpretation of the wholly buybull, and simultaneously disregarding it's actual content (eg. Exodus 21:22-23, Numbers 3:15, Numbers 5:20-27).
You make a good point about children's rights. I think it's generally the consensus that rights come with responsibilities, and that as such they are limited to adults. There're a lot of perspectives about what category non-adult humans are in, or what rights (if any) they may have as opposed to property. Also, where a society chooses to draw the line to distinguish child from adult is somewhat arbitrary unless delineated by some clear biological signal such as puberty. If speaking of emotional or intellectual maturity, I dare say the vast majority of society would still be considered infantile by that metric.
In terms of women's rights related to reproductive decisions, that's really just a subset of "bodily autonomy" in my opinion. If you have "bodily autonomy", then you have all the necessary rights to safeguard your choice.
The pro-life camp to my knowledge is basing their argument almost entirely off a narrow interpretation of the wholly buybull, and simultaneously disregarding it's actual content (eg. Exodus 21:22-23, Numbers 3:15, Numbers 5:20-27).
@EvilSandmich @mittimithai @softwarepagan
The way I conceive of it, rights are a function of respecting each others' dissent. If a person cannot say "no" in respect to their own person and property without receiving reprisals from the other party, then consent is impossible. So the first and foremost right/responsibility is to take "no" for an answer. As such any further rights in society are really just a function of consent between it's members to accept reciprocal limitations on their behaviour in order to prevent the need for violence (ie. self-defence).
The exception to that would be "need", in that I think there should be some room to claim that every individual has a right to satisfy their basic needs. Defining what those needs are though, and what conditions duly satisfy that right in an equitable fashion without conflicting with rights to property, is a rather big can of worms. By way of example, it's that question which is at the heart of the capitalism/socialism debate.
The way I conceive of it, rights are a function of respecting each others' dissent. If a person cannot say "no" in respect to their own person and property without receiving reprisals from the other party, then consent is impossible. So the first and foremost right/responsibility is to take "no" for an answer. As such any further rights in society are really just a function of consent between it's members to accept reciprocal limitations on their behaviour in order to prevent the need for violence (ie. self-defence).
The exception to that would be "need", in that I think there should be some room to claim that every individual has a right to satisfy their basic needs. Defining what those needs are though, and what conditions duly satisfy that right in an equitable fashion without conflicting with rights to property, is a rather big can of worms. By way of example, it's that question which is at the heart of the capitalism/socialism debate.
So, if there are rights, how does the existence of a right (to life and liberty, for example), implicitly exclude women, children, or faggots? Why is that right so flawed in its generality that a government has to step in and declare separate, defined sets of narrowly written rights, for specific groups?
There is only one answer to my question. One answer only:
More government control.
The "granting" of rights by government inherently gives them control of your rights, and the ability to strip you of those rights.
This is why in the USA, the Founders at least got that part correct; "Your Unalienable Rights, granted by your Creator". Government was meant to be the watchman of your rights - not the grantor.
Every single "right" on the books right now that was granted by government, is an act of Treason, within the United States.
I specify because I don't know what other countries have on their books, for the most part.
A government which can grant your rights, can take your rights.
There is only one answer to my question. One answer only:
More government control.
The "granting" of rights by government inherently gives them control of your rights, and the ability to strip you of those rights.
This is why in the USA, the Founders at least got that part correct; "Your Unalienable Rights, granted by your Creator". Government was meant to be the watchman of your rights - not the grantor.
Every single "right" on the books right now that was granted by government, is an act of Treason, within the United States.
I specify because I don't know what other countries have on their books, for the most part.
A government which can grant your rights, can take your rights.
@BattleDwarfGimli @mittimithai @softwarepagan
> The "granting" of rights by government
That's a non-sequitur. If rights are equal, then they belong exclusively to individuals, not groups. One cannot delegate a right they do not themselves possess. So any claim of a group having rights superior to an individual is purely a smoke screen for tyranny. It makes no sense. At base rights are simply agreements which individuals make with each other to avoid the need for violence in self-defence.
> The "granting" of rights by government
That's a non-sequitur. If rights are equal, then they belong exclusively to individuals, not groups. One cannot delegate a right they do not themselves possess. So any claim of a group having rights superior to an individual is purely a smoke screen for tyranny. It makes no sense. At base rights are simply agreements which individuals make with each other to avoid the need for violence in self-defence.