Another aspect to immigration

[vetran]

Did you miss the bit where I described what they are?

that is your opinion, if you look at the UN, NATO etc etc you will find most people consider countries slightly differently.

You seem to be swimming against the tide.

[d000hg]

That's pretty scary. To tell me that as an individual, my own life isn't my own - that I somehow owe part of it to the collective - made up of other people that I don't even know, let alone have some obligation toward.

That's because you grew up being told you were important, in a society/culture which places individual rights very highly. Many cultures weigh things differently and the idea that nobody can make decisions for you is rather narrow.

[vetran]

That's because you grew up being told you were important, in a society/culture which places individual rights very highly. Many cultures weigh things differently and the idea that nobody can make decisions for you is rather narrow.

Indeed here is a nice wail story that explains it.

Children are NOT born nice, researchers claim | Daily Mail Online

Children are NOT born nice: Researchers claim that environmental factors play a major part in altruism
New experiments indicate altruism has environmental triggers
Suggest altruistic behaviour governed more by relationships than instincts
Are children born nice?

It is one of the most debated concepts in psychology, whether altriusm is a result of nature or nurture.


Now, a pair of Stanford psychologists has conducted a new series of experiments that show altruism has environmental triggers, and is not something we are simply born with.

[SpontaneousOrder]

that is your opinion, if you look at the UN, NATO etc etc you will find most people consider countries slightly differently.

You seem to be swimming against the tide.

Sanity isn't statistical

If you can tell me how a country can have absolute self-determination, AND all individuals within that country can also have absolute self-determination, then go for it! Tell me. I'd bet my house, though, that you can't come up with anything that makes any kind of logical sense.

[vetran]

Sanity isn't statistical

If you can tell me how a country can have absolute self-determination, AND all individuals within that country can also have absolute self-determination, then go for it! Tell me. I'd bet my house, though, that you can't come up with anything that makes any kind of logical sense.

of course you can't have a group of people with no limits on their actions forming a part of unit that has different rules.

But you defined that, I just asked if you believe individuals should be able to decide what they want to do why shouldn't countries decide how to behave based on the hopefully democratic wishes of their populace.

Your attitude seems to be an individual should have the ultimate decision over everything is obviously unworkable once groups of people start to exist.

[xoggoth]

If you can tell me how a country can have absolute self-determination, AND all individuals within that country can also have absolute self-determination, then go for it!

Of course you can't have two opposing absolutes but it makes sense to try and balance the two. The problem with current human rights laws is the idiotic idea that, in a crowded and interdependent society, one person's rights can exist in isolation from everyone else's.

Does not mean we cannot have sensible laws that try and achieve a sensible balance that most accept.

[SpontaneousOrder]

That's because you grew up being told you were important, in a society/culture which places individual rights very highly. Many cultures weigh things differently and the idea that nobody can make decisions for you is rather narrow.

In some cultures young virgins are sacrificed. So what?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Your attitude seems to be an individual should have the ultimate decision over everything

I've never, ever, suggested any such thing. I have implied that no one should should be able to determine another individual's future.

If everyone has a right to self-determination, then it is again logically impossible for an individual to have the ultimate decision over everything.

I just asked if you believe individuals should be able to decide what they want to do why shouldn't countries decide how to behave based on the hopefully democratic wishes of their populace.

Don't you see that the two are mutually exclusive? Hence I explained why I can't extend the former to the latter - because it's logically impossible.

You asked the question, I answered.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Of course you can't have two opposing absolutes

That's all I was suggesting. Vetran said that as I believe the first, that then implies that the latter should (or at least could) be right too - which is impossible.

but it makes sense to try and balance the two. The problem with current human rights laws is the idiotic idea that, in a crowded and interdependent society, one person's rights can exist in isolation from everyone else's.

Does not mean we cannot have sensible laws that try and achieve a sensible balance that most accept.

The problem is because those human rights generally aren't rights at all. They're entitlements. If people called them entitlements then the argument would evaporate over night, and what would remain is debate over whom should have which entitlements - rather than what is and is not a right (which implies objectivity - conflicting with the arbitrary nature of entitlements, and hence being irreconcilable forever, so long as people insist on conflating rights & entitlements).

The only right that can possibly be be, logically speaking, objectively valid is the right of a person to self-determination; and all other objectively legitimate rights would be derivative of that (i.e. a right to not be raped derives from a right to self-determination, or if it's clearer - a right to live free from the initiation of violence or threats thereof).

Now, when it comes to 'balance' as you mention - so long as you don't believe in objective rights, derived from an objective morality, in the context of an objective reality (i.e. if any of those moral premises & rights contradict themselves, each other, or reality), then we can't possibly sensibly debate the issue.

Without that objectivity you can't sensibly debate other people who don't have it either, or visa versa - because how can you labour to convince someone of a truth, when that truth doesn't necessarily have to be based in objective reality? It's a performative contradiction, and you might as well try to convince your lounge wall that the flying spaghetti monster exists - because outside the context of reality (implying objectivity and non-contradiction) then spoken ideas and concepts are just meaningless noise. A debate necessarily implies a value in truth (even if that value is in a deliberate distortion of that truth in the form of a lie), so when objective truth is something to be compromised then a debate cannot be what is occurring - it's just people making noise.

If objectivity & non-contradiction is an agreed a priori between 2 people, then reasonable debate can take place - even if that involves people saying "this is immoral, BUT... I'd do this anyway because I personally think the end result is best".

You can compromise on one's adherence to virtue (no one has to be morally virtuous), but it's impossible to compromise on reality.

[d000hg]

In some cultures young virgins are sacrificed. So what?

That's your best counter-argument? It's a shame you didn't grow up in a culture which taught you the value of using reasoned debate.