All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Celgress]

Oh boy. 'Natural law'. natural law is a typically, thinly veiled excuse to deny rights for others, no matter how much its proponents declare it a key and core part of liberty.

Please DELETE POST

[Tami]

Everyone has an opinion. That's the way it works. Speaking of which, here is some facts spoken by Warren that got Bernie Supporters hot under the collar.

So @ewarren had the audacity last night at the #CNNTownHall to tell the truth about @BernieSanders
double standard on superdelegates rules to pick the nominee and now the vile, bad faith Bernie Bros cult + bots are saying #PrimaryWarren.

Twitter Link with Video

Btw if you doubt she’s telling the truth here, well, 1) have you been in a coma for the last four years? 2) take it from the man himself

Twitter Link with Video

[Celgress]

Thanks. That makes sense.

But it looks like Celgress has a completely different view and definition of “natural law” than the view expounded in this Wiki article.

Celgress explained his view clearly I think..that for him “natural law” means human rights to things such as liberty are natural, inalienable.

Can you explain how that belief can be used to deny other people rights? On the surface such a belief is more likely to lead to people fighting against repressive societies.

Indeed, this is exactly what I mean. True Natural Law cannot be used to deny rights to anyone, only if the concept is grossly misinterpreted and abused. The Nazis abused genetic research but that doesn't mean we should stop all genetic research or throw out the concept of biological categories for different lifeforms. Much good has come from genetic research since World War II which has saved and prolonged countless lives and even helped other species.

[Celgress]

Oh, well I'm sure you're much more of an expert. Please tell me more about what black people do, I mostly just spend time being black and being around black people, so I'm not up on the vagueries of whatever YouTube and Social Media it is you believe is representative of the way we speak.

All I'm saying is not only "old white people" use the term.

Oh, and just for the record, no one on here knows exactly which ethnic group or groups I'm a member of or otherwise affiliated with. Except for an angry remark I made about Warren I don't publically air my allegiances.

[Tami]

Less than two months since we were attacked by domestic terrorists, the Trump admin is trying to cut #NJ’s access to anti-terror grants. Today the entire Garden State delegation is demanding answers from DHS on why they’re putting a 'bullseye' on Jersey’s back.

Twitter Link

[Celgress]

...The only note of caution is that ("all is a social construct") implies acceptance that society may not become more and more tolerant...actually if environmental change makes resources scarcer...society might find it necessary to reduce individual freedom to protect majority.

This is the danger, which is why it is preferable to have a concept of core human rights that can be applied equally in every situation, which can always be justified. It boggles my mind why people don't want to be guaranteed core, unassailable, human rights. Has our understanding of Natural Law or application of it been perfect over the centuries no but neither has our understanding of electricity, gravity or the spherical (roughly) nature of the Earth. Without the concept of Natural Law, there may never have been an end to slavery in this country or the civil rights movement up to and including same-sex marriage.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Twitter Link

Blue state perhaps? Maybe a city refused to play ball with ICE during a questionable raid for illegals, and this is payback.

[KOSLOX]

All I'm saying is not only "old white people" use the term.

You're right, it's been adopted by out of date lames of all stripes.

All I know is if I see someone wearing a "WOKE" shirt and a MAGA hat I'll just say, "Hello Officer" and continue about my day far away from the NARC.

[Billy Batson]

Everyone has an opinion. That's the way it works. Speaking of which, here is some facts spoken by Warren that got Bernie Supporters hot under the collar.

Twitter Link with Video

Twitter Link with Video

Warren lying again.
1st. Bernie fought to get superdelegates removed, compromised with getting them to send ballot. 2nd. He wanted superdelegates in states he won a majority to vote for him. And 3rd. He gave his votes to Clinton at the convention on 1st vote, making her the nominee.

[Billy Batson]

[Lord Falcon]

The alternative in this context is moral relativism.

Defenders of the concept of natural law/ universal rights/ higher principles would suggest that there is a misapplication, but that while this can be a method to argue for great ideas (the inherent dignity of the human, the need to take care of the environment) it has also been a way to defend rigid hierarchies (IE- the idea that it is natural that the children of the rich be the only ones who have opportunities, that races stay segregated, that women stay out of the public sphere, that all people should be in heterosexual marriages by 25, that other countries' resources are yours to plunder, etc.)

Worth pointing out here that moral relativism seems to often be confused with "everything is meaningless." Things in relativism needs other things to be relative to. We can still decide what constitutes progress and what is desirable, but we're actually thinking in a way where we understand that the value we assign a moral is precisely that - assigned.

This raises an interesting question. If Carville is unfit to be a political commentator, who has a better track record, and how do you measure that?

I would worry that the idea that rights are manmade diminishes the moral argument for whatever cause you're fighting for, because of the implication that we could decide as a society tomorrow that it's wrong.

Natural rights suggests that there is some higher moral standard, regardless of the societal standards of a particular time. The argument is that we don't really know perfectly what those rights are. There are some nuances (what is acceptable in a time of mass starvation is not acceptable in a time of plenty; legal standards may differ in a warzone environment) but these should be definable. If someone believes in natural rights and thinks this means that a very specific and brief status quo is obviously the ideal, they have a very limited understanding of history.

There is always a potential higher moral standard in relativism and in the natural rights concept. The question is one of rigidity.

I won't argue that the concept of natural rights has been and continues to be very useful as a shortcut to promoting positive causes. It simply uses a line of thinking that encourages blindspots. Ultimately, some vocal people decide what should be a right, call it a natural right, and if enough people feel strongly enough then they start going "yeah, we already have the right! You all just have to learn to start respecting it!"

Oh boy. 'Natural law'. natural law is a typically, thinly veiled excuse to deny rights for others, no matter how much its proponents declare it a key and core part of liberty.

And yet, that isn't what happens. Over and over and over and over. Natural law was also used to defend American chattel slavery. 'Natural law' is neither as fundamental or unchanging as its proponents would have you believe.

Indeed, this is exactly what I mean. True Natural Law cannot be used to deny rights to anyone, only if the concept is grossly misinterpreted and abused. The Nazis abused genetic research but that doesn't mean we should stop all genetic research or throw out the concept of biological categories for different lifeforms. Much good has come from genetic research since World War II which has saved and prolonged countless lives and even helped other species.

Many have and will continue to point out that those who fight for "natural rights" have also brought great progress to society. That's excellent, of course. But natural rights and natural law are two sides of the same coin. There is no way to separate one from the other. It's an argument about who gets to decide what's natural, with the implication that natural generally always equals good.

Aside from the historical examples of race, sex and sexuality which continue to plague us to this day, there's also the idea of the natural right to life which, when taken for enough, starts conflicting with a woman's right to choose.

I don't have a clean answer to when a fetus merits consideration as a fully human being. I suspect it's impossible to say with scientific certainty. So it becomes a philosophical question about a really emotional issue, and sometimes all I see are people screaming at each other about what a natural right is. Who's to say what's natural? We have a civilization to run! A future to build!

[Scott Taylor]

Tribalism, conflict, and territorism are also inherent in human nature. There are always fights for the best land, the best resources. Both this and morality are survival mechanisms. The only way morality can win over tribalism is if humans expand their/our definition of who we are.

That is going to be a hard sell as long as environmental stressors threaten survival of a 'tribe', as long as resources not evenly accessible, as long as a 'tribe' feels threatened.

Morality works best within the confines of a 'tribe', but until this 'tribe' encompasses all humans on the planet, it will be hard to offset the chaotic effects of tribalism.

Yes. Roddenberry basically had it right, in that lasting peace is about resources. As long as those resources are limited and proprietary, there will be reasons for tribalism as people scramble to get what they need in competition with others. Society has to find a way to make those resources so abundant that competition over them is no longer needed or it has to reduce the need for those resources (ie, if people no longer need to use freeways to get around, oil is not as important of a resource).

I do think globalism and the internet are helping the world feel smaller and less tribal in the traditional sense, but it seems that there are other types of tribes developing in the wake.

[PaulBullion]

Sheesh... sometimes you expect to read a story about another horrible Republican candidate, and then you end up just feeling sorry for the guy.

Arizona congressional candidate suspends campaign after drug overdose

His campaign website says he founded a nonprofit in 2014 called Desert Eagle Addiction Recovery "dedicated to helping individuals, especially fellow combat veterans, suffering from drug addiction."

He sounds like that rare, decent guy in the GOP and I hope he finds the strength he needs to get better.

[Malvolio]

You're right, it's been adopted by out of date lames of all stripes.

All I know is if I see someone wearing a "WOKE" shirt and a MAGA hat I'll just say, "Hello Officer" and continue about my day far away from the NARC.

I have heard many Black comedians talk about how as soon as white people start using a given slang term, Black people either change it or stop using it altogether.

[Celgress]

You're right, it's been adopted by out of date lames of all stripes....

Most white progressives (of all ages) do tend to use the term "woke" a lot, I'll give you that.