Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Basic Human Rights


Ouroboros

Recommended Posts

I am saying that the history of humanity is towards objective morality. Again, what I hear him saying is objective morality wanders with respect to society.

So you are saying that we have reached the objective morality. If history of humanity is that morality is changing towards the big objective morality, how do you know if that's the one we have arrived at or if we're still working towards it? Are the rights to medical care, food, shelter, and work part of the objective morality or are they not?

 

Again, although this is true, it doesn't asssign any value to the trend. From what I gather, he is saying that things may turn the other direction, towards 4000 years of objective immorality, that being just as likely by chance.

I didn't see anything that suggested that he did say that. He said it will continue evolving, not devolving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon my anger, but it angers me to hear defeatism somehow advocated....with emphasis on intellectualism. Maybe that's not your personal standard and I should just look at the statement rather than point a finger at the one making the assertion.

 

The fact is, IMO, pure luck and chance give a dismal meaning to life....and my anger promotes me to fight against the opinion.

 

 

 

I think I detect in this "anger" yet another defense mechanism against facing the reality of things.

 

For every one person who has money, wealth, status - whatever it takes to get the A team medical treatment in this country - are there not easily thousands of people who also deserve to be in that place? You can't know for a fact that every poor and lower middle class person who needs health care but can't afford it deserves somehow to have limited or no access due the their own character and choices.

 

Why should the wealthy get to live longer and the poor not? How is it that some end up wealthy with access to health care and others do not?

 

I'm curious to hear your opinion about this - since you supposedly have an explanation that better fits reality than luck and chance.

 

I'm at a loss with you OB to acknowledge the practical meaning asserted in the Bible, hey, that selfish human nature has anything to do with it? How do you explain that even there is even a push towards human rights in the middle of great need? If it's all just luck and chance, why doesn't society choose less objective morality in times of great need. Why are we still pushing for these "reforms" during great global need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying that we have reached the objective morality. If history of humanity is that morality is changing towards the big objective morality, how do you know if that's the one we have arrived at or if we're still working towards it? Are the rights to medical care, food, shelter, and work part of the objective morality or are they not?

 

No, what is objective morality......Heaven? I don't have an answer other than faith that I making the correct decisions to provide "life" to my neighbor.

 

I didn't see anything that suggested that he did say that. He said it will continue evolving, not devolving

 

Have him give you his personal belief....if he has the gonads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss with you OB to acknowledge the practical meaning asserted in the Bible, hey, that selfish human nature has anything to do with it? How do you explain that even there is even a push towards human rights in the middle of great need? If it's all just luck and chance, why doesn't society choose less objective morality in times of great need. Why are we still pushing for these "reforms" during great global need?

Swarm behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying that we have reached the objective morality. If history of humanity is that morality is changing towards the big objective morality, how do you know if that's the one we have arrived at or if we're still working towards it? Are the rights to medical care, food, shelter, and work part of the objective morality or are they not?

 

No, what is objective morality......Heaven? I don't have an answer other than faith that I making the correct decisions to provide "life" to my neighbor.

Aren't you supposed to give your coat and food even to your enemy? Right here. Right now. It's 2,000 year old command that still hasn't been established.

 

Have him give you his personal belief....if he has the gonads.

It wasn't his belief. I pointed out that you misread what he said, or read in more stuff than what was said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, pray for me, I sound like a liberal.

I know people when I grew up who suggested that Jesus was the first communist. Give to the poor. Care for those in need. Love thy neighbor and even help your enemy. Etc... Isn't that what the communist utopia is all about? All people being equally cared for and with equal rights? No greed. No harm. No corruption. No sorrow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon my anger, but it angers me to hear defeatism somehow advocated....with emphasis on intellectualism. Maybe that's not your personal standard and I should just look at the statement rather than point a finger at the one making the assertion.

 

The fact is, IMO, pure luck and chance give a dismal meaning to life....and my anger promotes me to fight against the opinion.

 

 

 

I think I detect in this "anger" yet another defense mechanism against facing the reality of things.

 

For every one person who has money, wealth, status - whatever it takes to get the A team medical treatment in this country - are there not easily thousands of people who also deserve to be in that place? You can't know for a fact that every poor and lower middle class person who needs health care but can't afford it deserves somehow to have limited or no access due the their own character and choices.

 

Why should the wealthy get to live longer and the poor not? How is it that some end up wealthy with access to health care and others do not?

 

I'm curious to hear your opinion about this - since you supposedly have an explanation that better fits reality than luck and chance.

 

I'm at a loss with you OB to acknowledge the practical meaning asserted in the Bible, hey, that selfish human nature has anything to do with it? How do you explain that even there is even a push towards human rights in the middle of great need? If it's all just luck and chance, why doesn't society choose less objective morality in times of great need. Why are we still pushing for these "reforms" during great global need?

 

I understand quite clearly the meanings asserted in the Bible. I mean really, End. C'mon. I've never been a slacker with Biblical studies. But just because the Bible makes assertions doesn't mean the bible is correct. What statements in the Bible are worthy of believing with regard to basic human rights? And why should I believe those statements?

 

You just asserted that selfish human nature has something to do with it. What do you mean by that? how does this fit into your worldview? How does it apply to this discussion? I don't see how statement "people can be selfish" and "it is by luck that some people get health care and others cannot" are in any way incompatible. It doesn't argue against the truthfulness of anything I've said.

 

I think your use of the phrase "objective morality" is quite different from the generally understood meaning of it. If you mean that morality is moving toward some pre-planned goal, then you might be right. If you have actual evidence for this belief, then it might be interesting to see it.

 

 

How do I explain there is a push for human rights? People. That's my explanation. People who think they can make a difference speak to the injustices in the world and work to right them. There is no need to introduce a god into the mix, a mystical moral goal or anything other than the general human desire for people to treat other people with dignity - regardless of race, creed or socio-economic status. Why does there have to be an invisible puppet master involved? Where's the evidence for such an entity?

 

And, since you see the greatest instances of injustice when times are hard, why wouldn't you see people pushing for justice when more injustice is being perpetrated? Once again, where is the need to assert a goal-directed morality coming from some third party entity (non-human)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss with you OB to acknowledge the practical meaning asserted in the Bible, hey, that selfish human nature has anything to do with it? How do you explain that even there is even a push towards human rights in the middle of great need? If it's all just luck and chance, why doesn't society choose less objective morality in times of great need. Why are we still pushing for these "reforms" during great global need?

Swarm behavior.

Provided you see it in nature doesn't exclude Cause, but may rather confirm it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss with you OB to acknowledge the practical meaning asserted in the Bible, hey, that selfish human nature has anything to do with it? How do you explain that even there is even a push towards human rights in the middle of great need? If it's all just luck and chance, why doesn't society choose less objective morality in times of great need. Why are we still pushing for these "reforms" during great global need?

Swarm behavior.

Provided you see it in nature doesn't exclude Cause, but may rather confirm it.

Swarm as God? Volksgeist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't you supposed to give your coat and food even to your enemy? Right here. Right now. It's 2,000 year old command that still hasn't been established.

 

Yes, to be "complete or finished" is, I think, the better translation. Moving towards perfection. Should I pull some verses?

 

 

It wasn't his belief. I pointed out that you misread what he said, or read in more stuff than what was said.

 

I don't believe that Hans. His hero is House. It's all a game about promoting a self worth through giving people what they desire to hear by stating facts without meaning. Sure, deviations from morality happen, but they correct themselves back to moral. All worship House. Perhaps even a self grandizing delusion at his age. You know deep down I would share my food and beer with you Chris, but not my wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is, I think, we all want a good life for folks, but can't figure out how to manifest that physically, and are unwilling to sacrifice enough, have grace enough, etc, to get'r done. We're finger pointing, defending philosphies, blaming, inventing, you name it, trying to find the answer..... If we were obedient to that sacrifice and grace in unity, then things would work. I mean you hear of these big money folks touting giving more, but do they give enough to do without? to bleed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
You know deep down I would share my food and beer with you Chris, but not my wife.

That last part would be up to your wife. What does she look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know deep down I would share my food and beer with you Chris, but not my wife.

That last part would be up to your wife. What does she look like?

 

Brunette, 5'8", 135#s, long legs. I married my trophy wife first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is, I think, we all want a good life for folks, but can't figure out how to manifest that physically, and are unwilling to sacrifice enough, have grace enough, etc, to get'r done. We're finger pointing, defending philosphies, blaming, inventing, you name it, trying to find the answer..... If we were obedient to that sacrifice and grace in unity, then things would work. I mean you hear of these big money folks touting giving more, but do they give enough to do without? to bleed?

Okay. Without the religious language I don't think I disagree with your statements here.

 

We all want a good life.

 

We cant figure out how to manifest that physically. Sure. If by that you mean things like how to pay for it, what buildings to build, what kind of treatment to provide and for whom then we are in agreement.

 

We are unwilling to sacrifice for it. Yes. The cost and the effect on our ability to have a good life are concerns for people. A major hurdle to overcome.

 

Unity. A consensus among Americans to enact and perfect a system of access to affordable health care for everyone would certainly be required.

 

If we determine how much cost we could live with and could work together to implement and monitor whichever health system is adopted, it's success could be assured.

 

So, what exactly did I say that was so all fired stupid, seeing as we have agreement about these things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean you hear of these big money folks touting giving more, but do they give enough to do without? to bleed?

 

They should all have to try to make it on some bare minimum. I would really like to see this happen, if only temporarily, but have no idea how it could be implemented.

 

They ought to have just barely enough to pay their mortgage, gas, food and light bill - like I do. Most of them haven't the faintest idea what that is like. They live in a different world altogether. They can't relate at all. I have seen this from personal experience.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is, I think, we all want a good life for folks, but can't figure out how to manifest that physically, and are unwilling to sacrifice enough, have grace enough, etc, to get'r done. We're finger pointing, defending philosphies, blaming, inventing, you name it, trying to find the answer..... If we were obedient to that sacrifice and grace in unity, then things would work. I mean you hear of these big money folks touting giving more, but do they give enough to do without? to bleed?

Okay. Without the religious language I don't think I disagree with your statements here.

 

We all want a good life.

 

We cant figure out how to manifest that physically. Sure. If by that you mean things like how to pay for it, what buildings to build, what kind of treatment to provide and for whom then we are in agreement.

 

We are unwilling to sacrifice for it. Yes. The cost and the effect on our ability to have a good life are concerns for people. A major hurdle to overcome.

 

Unity. A consensus among Americans to enact and perfect a system of access to affordable health care for everyone would certainly be required.

 

If we determine how much cost we could live with and could work together to implement and monitor whichever health system is adopted, it's success could be assured.

 

So, what exactly did I say that was so all fired stupid, seeing as we have agreement about these things?

 

 

It just sounded like you were whining about being unable to do anything about it and then just that the whole thing was good luck or bad luck. I honestly don't know why that explanation trigged me to anger. Literally, when I read or hear people's responses sometimes, even at church, I think in my head....no, no, no, that is not right....and then I add bonehead at the end for my own satisfaction....lol. Where the condescending arrogance comes from is probably my old dad. The apple doesn't roll far from the tree is particularly relevant in my case. Anyway, please take it with a grain of salt and accept that I am mostly an ass, but not too bad a guy on occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Literally, when I read or hear people's responses sometimes, even at church, I think in my head....no, no, no, that is not right....and then I add bonehead at the end for my own satisfaction....lol. Where the condescending arrogance comes from is probably my old dad. The apple doesn't roll far from the tree is particularly relevant in my case.

Sounds like you already have a predisposition for being a perfect atheist... :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
I married my trophy wife first.

I got a trophy wife too. It wasn't first place, but......

 

So what do you want me to say about either the subject or morality? WWHD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. Without the religious language I don't think I disagree with your statements here.

 

We all want a good life.

 

We cant figure out how to manifest that physically. Sure. If by that you mean things like how to pay for it, what buildings to build, what kind of treatment to provide and for whom then we are in agreement.

 

We are unwilling to sacrifice for it. Yes. The cost and the effect on our ability to have a good life are concerns for people. A major hurdle to overcome.

 

Unity. A consensus among Americans to enact and perfect a system of access to affordable health care for everyone would certainly be required.

 

If we determine how much cost we could live with and could work together to implement and monitor whichever health system is adopted, it's success could be assured.

 

So, what exactly did I say that was so all fired stupid, seeing as we have agreement about these things?

 

 

It just sounded like you were whining about being unable to do anything about it and then just that the whole thing was good luck or bad luck. I honestly don't know why that explanation trigged me to anger. Literally, when I read or hear people's responses sometimes, even at church, I think in my head....no, no, no, that is not right....and then I add bonehead at the end for my own satisfaction....lol. Where the condescending arrogance comes from is probably my old dad. The apple doesn't roll far from the tree is particularly relevant in my case. Anyway, please take it with a grain of salt and accept that I am mostly an ass, but not too bad a guy on occasion.

 

I have no problem with anybody disagreeing with me, it's just good to know about what when it happens.

 

We all have things that set us off. I can understand that. It's no problem.

 

I have health insurance. With a sky high deductible but my employer pays the premiums. But I know I am one calamity or one temperamental boss's tantrum (hypothetically - I actually have good bosses) away from having no health insurance and no way to pay my bills. Plus I have had to go without health insurance in the past. Talk about playing Russian Rouelette with your health!

 

So, while not whining, I am pretty close to that issue. And I know that people have been ruined financially by health issues and had their hopes for the future dashed because they had to pay for expensive treatments.

 

This isn't the difference between being able to afford a 2011 Mercedes and a used 1999 Chevy Malibu. It's the difference between getting treatment that impacts your longevity and the quality of your life. What makes an affluent person worthy of living longer and living better while a poorer person does not get that privilege? That is why health care has become a question of rights. The capability of providing health care is present and stowed behind door number 1, but the key that opens that door is available based on factors outside the control of most people below a certain income bracket.

 

And no one has shown me that the primary determinant between who gets handed that key is something other than what we colloquially call luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Healthcare is certainly not a "right", but if you're against giving up 1.5% of your income every year to give everyone health insurance, then you're a fucking asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a trophy wife too. It wasn't first place, but......

 

Lol, ....preachin to the choir...

 

 

So what do you want me to say about either the subject or morality? WWHD?

 

WWHD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

What Would House Do, of course!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Would House Do, of course!

LOL.....I missed that. His antagonist role is to stick it out to the bitter end. Hopefully in your case, you have been hardened like Pharoah and will get a pass for compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

So anyway, end3, what can I tell you regarding the OP?

 

Are human rights nothing but a fad or cultural shift? Can we even say that the right to pursuit happiness or liberty are solid rights? Are they some eternal truths beyond reproach?

I don't want you to get mad, but I observe that rights have always been bestowed by writ or consensus and don't exist in a vacuum. Even the Bible condoned the rights of slave owners, but today even the most backward Christian doesn't endorse slavery, so societal views are always in flux regarding rights and mores, religions notwithstanding. The society (eventually) of necessity modifies its religions to fit the times and conditions, not the other way around.

 

Access to healthcare is currently at the forefront of things we as a society are considering to be basic to decent living. I think we're at the tipping point and about to have a consensus that everyone has a right to reasonable access to healthcare. I'm not prepared to see this as a "slippery slope" where we must now start to seriously consider new cars, flat screen televisions, ice cream and Internet access as inalienable rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.