41–50 of 60 posts
I expect this post the become massive, as questions like this are so large a kind of bike-shedding exercise goes on, but my own 2c: I think religious rights should have never evolved the way it did. Religion is clearly different from creed color, etc, it also includes belief, personality, motivation etc. Instead of becoming power real estate for established religions to fight over (do 'cults', or atheist institutions…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theoretically beautiful, like most utopian visions. The reality is that most places that the UN is involved in are human rights hellholes.
And to answer OP's original question... Right to Birth Control: we're never going to agree on abortion but can we at least get this? A long time ago women would usually stop getting their periods after 20...because they were constantly pregnant until 50 when menopause started. Having larger amount of children might very well be unsustainable in a world with less jobs and that demands a lifetime of learning (by both s…
Rights exist because they are insisted upon and asserted by the people, not because a government or a document declares that they exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This goes directly against personal freedom though, especially points 2-4. What if you were abused by your parents and/or had some other issues with them, and you haven't had any contact with them for 30 years? Should you still pay them after they get over the age of 65? In general, the whole idea is upsetting to me, over here in EU we pay massive taxes but they guarantee people in need are taken care off, "garnishin…
It's a difference in conception...in Europe, the idea of "positive freedom" is more prevalent...we care about being able to actually do things in all cases, even if we are in a bad situation. You have a right to education, health care, political participation etc., and part of that right is to be able to actually do it (i.e., "I could if I chose not to work today, but then I can't eat"). Property is a means to freedo…
This doesn't exist in the US anymore, maybe for a long time. People think it does, but it does not.
>> "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant.
People like to think this too, but it doesn't work out that way for most people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a difference in conception...in Europe, the idea of "positive freedom" is more prevalent...we care about being able to actually do things in all cases, even if we are in a bad situation. You have a right to education, health care, political participation etc., and part of that right is to be able to actually do it (i.e., "I could if I chose not to work today, but then I can't eat"). Property is a means to freedo…
A 2.5% annual wealth tax that goes to the nearest 20 families who are less well-off, split equally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, given that a jpg is just a very large number, I infer from your framing thst you are in favor of legalizing: - leaking someone's private medical records - sending weapons designs to a foreign power - selling photos of child abuse Correct?
All three actions you listed can remain illegal, while owning the information(or to keep with the analogy "a very large number") should be fully legal. It's not illegal to have a case full of medical records, but stealing them or releasing them without permission is illegal, no?
I expect this post the become massive, as questions like this are so large a kind of bike-shedding exercise goes on, but my own 2c: I think religious rights should have never evolved the way it did. Religion is clearly different from creed color, etc, it also includes belief, personality, motivation etc. Instead of becoming power real estate for established religions to fight over (do 'cults', or atheist institutions…
In the US they pretty much do have the same rights.
In fact, some believers wrap their belief structures in an established religious structure, it seems, just so they have those protections.
One specific concern about this:
Don't like gays? sorry bub, go to jail. Have a religious basis to not like gays? protected! I choose this contentious example to show that any belief protected by religious rights, should also be protected when otherwise having no religious basis; and also why some beliefs shouldn't be protected, even if religiously based.
When all beliefs not barred are permitted, there will be a lot more motivation to bar specific kinds of belief - at the moment, the established religions can push exceptions for their specific beliefs. Put another way - if religion isn't special, then either racist belief is as valid for a neo-nazi as it is a church, or that belief is an invalid for a church as a neo-nazi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US they pretty much do have the same rights.
the same rights in terms of outcome? They don't literally use the same legislature, because AFAIK flat-earth beliefs do not qualify for religious protection. In fact, some believers wrap their belief structures in an established religious structure, it seems, just so they have those protections. One specific concern about this: Don't like gays? sorry bub, go to jail. Have a religious basis to not like gays? protected…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the same rights in terms of outcome? They don't literally use the same legislature, because AFAIK flat-earth beliefs do not qualify for religious protection. In fact, some believers wrap their belief structures in an established religious structure, it seems, just so they have those protections. One specific concern about this: Don't like gays? sorry bub, go to jail. Have a religious basis to not like gays? protected…
Note that I said in the US, where we have openly racist groups that do not claim to be religious organizations.