Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 10th, 2018, 02:17 AM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: ph
Posts: 103
Is liberalism and human rights just a rationalization for human decademce


Like when a child does not want to go to bed so he shouts it is my right to watch TV and not go to bed, or someone wants to have sex with corpses in public or have sex with a dog or a horse or a 3 year old and so invents the concept of sexual rights in his head to justify his actions? Or someone wants to put the head of the local noble on a pile and invents the concept of democracy, just like monarchs want to rule without any limits and rationalizes it with the concept of divine rights of kings?
ren0312 is online now  
Remove Ads
Old March 10th, 2018, 05:18 AM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,365

Do people invent new rights to justify their behavior? Yes, but rights do not exist without social consensus. One person might claim the right to have sex with a horse, but if everyone else thinks that's a bad idea, the right doesn't exist.
Chlodio is online now  
Old March 10th, 2018, 05:35 AM   #3

Mortis1's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 61

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chlodio View Post
Do people invent new rights to justify their behavior? Yes, but rights do not exist without social consensus. One person might claim the right to have sex with a horse, but if everyone else thinks that's a bad idea, the right doesn't exist.
The media and government can pretty much shape the thought of your average person given enough time and dedication. We've seen these things happening today with a lot of these so called "rights". For example, trannies. They're pretty much socially acceptable today while 10-20 years ago the idea of it was simply ludicrous. At the end of the day the masses are usually moved by what some higher authority tells them to be moved by. They rarely make decisions on their own.
Mortis1 is offline  
Old March 10th, 2018, 06:22 AM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,365

^ True. If a new social consciousness arises through media or other means and then society wants to create new rights, that's the way it works. At one time there was no right to live in a democratic society. Democracy started as a fringe movement that gradually caught on until eventually society recognized the right to live democratically. Homosexuality used to be considered a form of decadence. Today only a small minority continues to think that. I have no problem with government or media leading people so long as people realize they are being led and cooperate in the process. The media leading people can be controversial because leaders in the media are not directly chosen by the people. Media leaders are chosen indirectly through mechanisms like ratings or circulation counts. If media leaders are too far out of step with society, no one will pay attention to them. I actually expect the government to lead and am disappointed at how little leadership the government actually does.
Chlodio is online now  
Old March 10th, 2018, 06:35 AM   #5

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 3,803

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chlodio View Post
Do people invent new rights to justify their behavior? Yes, but rights do not exist without social consensus. One person might claim the right to have sex with a horse, but if everyone else thinks that's a bad idea, the right doesn't exist.
I was thinking to write an answer to the first post, but you just did. Endorsed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mortis1 View Post
The media and government can pretty much shape the thought of your average person given enough time and dedication. We've seen these things happening today with a lot of these so called "rights". For example, trannies. They're pretty much socially acceptable today while 10-20 years ago the idea of it was simply ludicrous. At the end of the day the masses are usually moved by what some higher authority tells them to be moved by. They rarely make decisions on their own.
That is a really depressing idea about the humanity.

I don’t think you are right, and at the same time I have the wish that you are wrong, even if social engineering exists, today much more with the social networks. But my idea about the “trannies” (had to check the meaning of the word) is the same than 10-20 or 30 years ago.
Tulius is offline  
Old March 10th, 2018, 07:16 AM   #6

Jax's Avatar
Jax
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Seattle
Posts: 6,193

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mortis1 View Post
The media and government can pretty much shape the thought of your average person given enough time and dedication. We've seen these things happening today with a lot of these so called "rights". For example, trannies. They're pretty much socially acceptable today while 10-20 years ago the idea of it was simply ludicrous. At the end of the day the masses are usually moved by what some higher authority tells them to be moved by. They rarely make decisions on their own.
OMG! It all makes sense now.

The media and governments are actually in the control of a nefarious cabal of woman's underwear manufacturers bent on making everyone a trannie so that they can sell more bras.

Well! now that I'm on to them, when the media finally shames me into getting a government supported sex change and hormone therapy, I will have the last laugh when I refuse to wear a bra.
Jax is online now  
Old March 10th, 2018, 07:14 PM   #7

Mortis1's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 61

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax View Post
OMG! It all makes sense now.

The media and governments are actually in the control of a nefarious cabal of woman's underwear manufacturers bent on making everyone a trannie so that they can sell more bras.

Well! now that I'm on to them, when the media finally shames me into getting a government supported sex change and hormone therapy, I will have the last laugh when I refuse to wear a bra.
Oh, that's some low-tier sarcasm right there. I suggest you stop trying to be funny from here on out, you're not really good at it.
Mortis1 is offline  
Old March 10th, 2018, 07:43 PM   #8
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Texas
Posts: 598
Blog Entries: 124
Rights vs. Duties


The purpose of discipline is freedom. You discipline a child so someday you won't have to, or because you somehow feel obligated to until he is no longer under your care.

Furthermore freedom and rights ought to tolerate eccentricities, and a willingness to challenge authority, even conventional wisdom. So yes, a child has the right to question authority; how much a parent is willing to put up with that is up to them. The child is "wrong" on the basis that he is not at a wise age yet; not on the basis that he is challenging authority or thinks he is better off with less restrictions.


Government is not your parent (per se....); so of course one ought to expect full civil protections (of rights) from them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ren0312 View Post
Like when a child does not want to go to bed so he shouts it is my right to watch TV and not go to bed, or someone wants to have sex with corpses in public or have sex with a dog or a horse or a 3 year old and so invents the concept of sexual rights in his head to justify his actions? Or someone wants to put the head of the local noble on a pile and invents the concept of democracy, just like monarchs want to rule without any limits and rationalizes it with the concept of divine rights of kings?

Last edited by Piccolo; March 10th, 2018 at 07:48 PM.
Piccolo is offline  
Old March 11th, 2018, 01:10 AM   #9

SufiMystic's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: On a magic carpet
Posts: 692

What a strange OP. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would not like human rights. The alternative would appear to be no rights, in which case government imposes harsh and arbitrary rules which crush the individual and destroy lives. Why anyone would want that is entirely beyond my understanding.

In a society with no rights, you wouldn't even be allowed to come on here and freely express an opinion.

Last edited by SufiMystic; March 11th, 2018 at 01:12 AM.
SufiMystic is offline  
Old March 11th, 2018, 03:49 AM   #10

sparky's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Sydney
Posts: 2,078
Blog Entries: 1

.
the very concept of "rights" is an outgrowth of living in society where personal freedom is constrained by the rest of this society .

In Nature there is no "rights" only survival
sparky is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
decademce, human, liberalism, rationalization, rights



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Human rights and WW2 Naomasa298 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 39 September 11th, 2017 09:32 AM
Civil (and Human) Rights in Ireland Harpo General History 11 February 20th, 2016 09:43 AM
Human 'rights' are not Animal 'Rights'? DanC Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 47 January 7th, 2015 07:07 AM
Value of Human Life and Human Rights throughout History? EpicHistory360 General History 12 March 7th, 2014 06:34 PM
First Human Rights - Cyrus Cylinder Earl_of_Rochester Ancient History 45 April 29th, 2011 02:21 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.