"The Round Table" Discussion Forum

Ryo, in my humble opinion, if there truly is a God, physics is next to Godliness.

Everyone who has engaged in this discussion has expressed their opinions and made their cases. For the students and readers who tried to keep up in the dialogue I would like to suggest reaping the benefits of analyzing how the writers expressed themselves. This is a separate matter from which side of the debate you may support, if any.

The main thing is that you gained something as a result of the dialogues. Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs about everything; however, we should be able to express them in a respectable way which was the case here.

At this point, unless there is something left to be said, may I suggest that we go on with the next topic.

Thanks Joanna for your topic suggestion which started out as men and women rights equality.

The “Enlightenment” was the name of the philosophy that emerged in the 18th century. I wasn’t born then. I didn’t name it. The philosophy was developed by dozens of philosophers and has been in practice here for hundreds of years. This philosophy resulted in ideas like “individual rights” and “equality”, and eventually “secular humanism”. They don’t involve religion, they involve the individual rights of every human.  I’m not alone in my beliefs, even though you may be unfamiliar with them.

I guess I should let it be known that I chose to believe my opinions and beliefs because they make sense, because I’ve seen them work in practice, and because they follow the rule of “treat others the way you want them to treat you”.

So my views are based on certain established opinions which are believed by hundreds of millions of other people, are based on writings which anyone can also read for themselves and consider, and based on my observation of nations and history. Like so many others, I read the philosophers and they convinced me. If others reject those beliefs, thats ok. They have the right to disagree, as you do. Your disagreement doesn’t mean the philosophy is wrong, only that you don’t believe as I do.

I hope I’m not out of line, but I think Ryo understands what I am saying and I don’t think you do.  That’s ok too. We don’t have to agree. Any who are curious can read the same writings that convinced me and see if those writings will convince them too.

You may be right.  All good points.

Religion?  I have not nor has anyone else, I don’t believe, mentioned anything about religion—not in the sense that you may be taking it.

And that is how it should be.

It truly is true: “To be aware of one’s awareness takes a little longer.”

I would like it to be noted that all my words are of my own opinion—developed through my own experiences and ability of expression—or the lack of it. My views should not be considered to be the views of any country and/or people—they are mine, and mine alone. I take full responsibility for my opinions—blaming or crediting no other person, creed, or country.

Note: no one should consider my words as “enlightenment”. I care not to persuade anyone to even consider my words. Again, I am here not to persuade, educate, or “enlighten” no one but myself.

In America, writing “sigh” would signal one party nearing the point of “agreeing to disagree”. In person it would be rude, but in casual writing it’s considered gentle frustration. Since you can’t actually read my expressions, certain liberties are permitted when we are writing this informally. I meant it the way American’s usually mean it when we write it in an online discussion, as a hint that we seem to be at an impasse and it may be time to shake hands and just agree that we don’t agree on this.

As for other people agreeing with me, I didn’t think of any of this stuff. The original quote was from “The Declaration of Independence” which separated my nation from Great Britain in 1776. It identifies examples of basic violations of unalienable rights and defines when those violations rise to the point of justifying revolution against a lawful government.

These words are based in the writings of a great many men, such as Locke, Paine, and Jefferson. That you disagree doesn’t make me alone. This nation was built on pursuing those ideals. As I told you, when I was young we were taught these things in school. To that extent, home and community shaped me against such overreaching government controls as some think would be acceptable. If you need a reading list, I can provide a long one but most of them are very famous and can quickly be found online. To refer to the founding political theories of my nation as ‘immature’ is so arrogant that I think it is more likely you misunderstand some meaning.

It was historical fact concerning your mother, it is not less appropriate here, it related to the discussion.  How is pertinent information inappropriate? You were right, they violated her rights terribly, many paid for their crimes with prison or death. Stopping the violations and punishing the violator is about all anyone can do, unless you have a better idea.

Norway has allowed you to be silenced by an “international law” which forbids you from naming a society which allows murder? That is the opposite of how I was raised to think and a central reason the USA doesn’t subject itself to international law where it’s citizens are concerned. We were just raised not to become Quislings. No one has the right to shut your mouth against naming evil. Only evil would even want that.  

“does not bring back anyone’s “Rights” that were violated. ”- Where did those rights go? They never left anyone, they were denied. You have a right to life even if you are murdered. People tend to punish murderers not in order to bring the victim back to life but for other reasons.  No punishment ever restores the victim of crime completely, that is not the point of punishment. It is the same with rights.

An eye for an eye doesn’t relate to such an extent that I question if we are still talking about the same things.

I have played peekaboo with a baby, but I’ve also read Paines “the Rights of Man”, Lockes’ “Two Treatises of Government” (the source of the concept of Unalienable Rights) and Jeffersons’ “Declaration of the Causes and Neccesities of Taking Up Arms”.

It’s the philosophy of the “American Enlightenment” which was inspired by the “European Enlightenment” of the early 18th century, not the random ramblings of the immature.

Have you ever found yourself reacting to something as one of your biological parents would—perhaps in a way you vowed you never would—and then wondered how much of your personality you inherited? To what extent do genes predispose our person-to-person personality differences? To what extent do home and community environments shape us?

“Sigh”? So do you find the idea of not having someone else share your ideas boring or desperate?

Sighing in many parts of the world would be considered rude, arrogant, callow, etc.  I wonder how you meant it.

“not here”—Here in English baby.  ” subject to laws that I don’t care to be subjected to…” International Laws.

An arrest of a person years after a fact does not bring back anyone’s “Rights” that were violated. 

Note: so do you find a method of “a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for eye” justice and a show of equality?

Have you ever played peekaboo with a 6-month-old and wondered why the baby finds the game so delightful? The infant reacts as though, when you momentarily move behind a door, you actually disappear—only to reappear out of thin air.

Sigh. We are so very far apart. I do not think it was wrong to mention your mothers religion, that was an excellent example of an extreme violation of her unalienable rights. Those guilty who were caught, were punished. To this day those who escaped justice are being hunted. In Kansas City, almost 20 years ago, one of those criminals was killed by police coming to arrest him for his Nazi crimes. It’s not that peoples rights aren’t violated, it’s that violating them is wrong. You didn’t lose your rights by having them violated, neither did your mother. An entire body of law concerning war crimes was created after the fact and retroactively applied to the criminals because humans should not behave that way. Most people do protect each others rights.  I think you shared appropriately.

Has Norway become a nation where you can’t even name a country that allows it’s citizens to commit murder as a general right due to laws which limit your speech? I find that shocking.

I don’t mind sharing my views—my opinions—but to be race, people, religious, or country, etc., specific, would not be ethical—not here. I did mention my mother’s race (religion), and I apologize for that—it hadn’t been appropriate. I am not here to single out any person, place, etc. Plus, if I were to be as careless as to implicate any specific person or country as being violators of Human Rights, I would be subject to laws that I don’t care to be subjected to.

“This statement is clearly not true—there are too many case examples to support such an invalid and possibly immature thought”

name one. just one society anywhere that allows people to randomly murder others, to prevent their movements, or to enslave them.

Just one will do.

There is no unalienable right to vote, that was a decision made when we decided on our form of government, we were wrong not to give the vote to all adults if we were going to give the vote to any adults. We could have just as easily selected a Monarch and had no votes. The right is to self-determination, not voting. Citizens have the right to select a government, it doesn’t have to be like mine, it just has to protect the unalienable rights of it’s citizens or it’s tyranny.

Here tragically, a law actually was required to consider a certain race as human, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t human already, it means we were stomping hard on their unalienable rights. They didn’t become human when the law was passed because they were born human, the law was passed to protect their rights as humans. The law didn’t give them humanity, it prevented others from taking it.

You didn’t answer the actual question though so I’m going to assume you never needed a special law to tell you not to murder, imprison, or enslave others. 

“You needed a law to tell you not to kill someone, not to imprison them, not to enslave them?”
Was a law needed to grant woman the right to vote? Was a law needed to be passed to allow a certain race to be consider human?
Come now man—we are subject to weak and feeble thinking when we succumb to emotions that control and cloud our reasoning.

It is somewhat ironic that the country that has done its share of violating “inalienable” rights seems to be one of the loudest voices against the violation of Human Rights—I will call it “The Pot vs The Black Kettle syndrome”.

“There is no society on earth, nor any religion anywhere which would sanction a person just killing another person, imprisoning them, or enslaving them.”
This statement is clearly not true—there are too many case examples to support such an invalid and possibly immature thought—the idea of such an invalid statement would be useless to even consider trying to point out its obvious flaw.

You needed a law to tell you not to kill someone, not to imprison them, not to enslave them? We’re not talking about table manners here, politeness or civility.  Killing or enslaving is more than just uncivil. The unalienable rights demand that all humans be treated like humans and not as someones property.  What part of that isn’t selfish? I’m a human. I don’t want to be murdered or enslaved. It seems to apply to me too.

You might use your “free will” to violate the unalienable rights of others, what society doesn’t punish those who make that choice? The laws protect the unalienable rights, not create them.

By nature, humans are selfish and self-serving—we do not care about sharing or being equal—unless we have something to gain by being so. Equality comes from learning “social” skills or manners, and then usually only by strong persuasion and/or threat of punishment do we then comply.
I call these laws Human Laws—Laws of Civility. Civil Laws, as I have suggested, apply to human beings—these Laws require reason and “free will”—choice. These laws require greater precision because of this free will—free will is not always an easy thing to handle, especially when it comes to deciding whether to serve one’s own wants and needs over the needs and wants of others—and too, especially if there would be no apparent personal gain by doing so.
Free will or Freedom of choice may be what others have been referring to when they mention Rights and Equality. We are all “free” to decide whether to follow Human Laws as they apply to our separate and unique environments.

A government doesn’t create your unalienable rights with law, they protect them with law. There is no society on earth, nor any religion anywhere which would sanction a person just killing another person, imprisoning them, or enslaving them.

 I thought the issue is, if the employer is taking money from workers based on their race or gender or something similar. The only difference between that and one of the forms of slavery is whether the employer takes some of the workers wages or all of them.  

Equality is equal pay for equal work, equal right to live where you can afford, equal access to public places and equal services that you paid your taxes for, things like that.  It is not that everyone should or even could be the same.

Those are self-evident truths. Whereever they come from, all of humanity demands those things for themselves, and will only give them up by force. Not allowing people to kill randomly is pretty hardwired into us, I don’t believe we ever needed a law to tell us that it was wrong. I believe we established a law to protect that right, not established the right with the law.

A woman who makes 100 widgets a day is equal to a man who makes 100 widgets a day at widget making, and should be paid equally for her widget making as what was the man was paid.