I'll take their word over your 'experience', if you don't mind.Quote:
The HRW are liars.
Oh, you 'bet', do you? Smacks of speculation to me. Do your research.Quote:
I bet the Chinees reality is not much worse.
Printable View
I'll take their word over your 'experience', if you don't mind.Quote:
The HRW are liars.
Oh, you 'bet', do you? Smacks of speculation to me. Do your research.Quote:
I bet the Chinees reality is not much worse.
Why am I trying hard here to help you and the others to learn Russian?Quote:
Originally Posted by TronDD
Or do you think that Sakharov chose to be a physicist because he expected enormous material gains?
Of course it does not, when the most powerful country in the world and her satellites spend fifty years doing everything to counter that.Quote:
The fantasy of Communism is that people will work hard for the good of the community but that just doesn't happen.
You should have told that to Dynamo.Quote:
And, BTW, Democracy is not the opposite of Communism. Laise-faire Capitalim is.
Why, if you don't mind? Because the name of that organization is more democratic? Or because the speculations of that organization fit your perception of China? Which are formed by the speculations of the equally democratic media?Quote:
Originally Posted by joysof
No, of course he didn't. He did, however, find himself in Gorky/Nizhny Novgorod against his will.Quote:
Or do you think that Sakharov chose to be a physicist because he expected enormous material gains?
Does that not constitute suppression?
Mandelstam paid for a poem with his life; Tsvetaeva was forbidden to publish; Bulgakov had most of his plays suppressed and his best work wasn't published until long after his death. If you want more examples, I'll provide them: there are hundreds, after all.Quote:
How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?
Taken together, all of these things would seem to serve as a disincentive to unorthodoxy, and, tangentially, creativity.
Simple: because, as far as I can tell, Human Rights Watch has no ideological axe to grind. This sets it apart from JJ, who seems hell-bent on assuming the mantle of apologist for Soviet Communism.Quote:
Why, if you don't mind? Because the name of that organization is more democratic?
Did I ever ask anything about suppression? In this thread anyway? The question was about "communism does not motivate" and you failed to answer that question.Quote:
Originally Posted by joysof
Mandelstam paid for a poem with his life;[/quote:3b6tafj8]Quote:
[quote:3b6tafj8]How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?
If I remember correctly, his poem was highly anti-Soviet (using the terminology of that time), and that was explicitly forbidden. The criminal code had an article dealing with just that. Dura lex sed lex.
Hello? She left the USSR in 1925 and returned in 1939, and committed suicide in 1941. If she was not published during the two years (and what years!) she spent there, that hardly means anything.Quote:
Tsvetaeva was forbidden to publish
Which plays were suppressed? His best work, which you apparently think was M&M, was never published -- but it was never finished either. He died editing it. Of the finished works, I personally prefer "The White Guards", and it was published, moreover, he made a play after it, and it was a success. Stalin himself liked it, could it be more successful than that in the thirties?Quote:
Bulgakov had most of his plays suppressed and his best work wasn't published until long after his death.
Yeah, go ahead.Quote:
If you want more examples, I'll provide them: there are hundreds, after all.
Granted. Unorthodoxy was not welcome (is it anywhere?). However, you're going off the tangent yourself. I responded to the message that linked creativity to economy, and that could not possibly mean creativity in poetry.Quote:
Taken together, all of these things would seem to serve as a disincentive to unorthodoxy, and, tangentially, creativity.
You made me laugh so hard I almost choked. No really! The very doctrine of "Human Rights" is ideology and nothing but ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by joysof
You asked: 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?'. As far as I can see, the 'disallowing' of creativity is suppression.Quote:
Did I ever ask anything about suppression?
You asked: 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?'. It seemed, generally speaking, such a stupid question that I thought I would deal with it by reference to a sphere of creativity about which I have some knowledge. Economics isn't my strong point.Quote:
However, you're going off the tangent yourself.I responded to the message that linked creativity to economy, and that could not possibly mean creativity in poetry.
'Moliere', 'Flight' and 'Adam and Eve' were kept off the stage during the 30s, and were not published until after M.B's death.Quote:
Which plays were suppressed?
Never published? I have two copies on my bookshelf.Quote:
His best work, which you apparently think was M&M, was never published -- but it was never finished either.
As far as I remember, his longer prose works - including M&M - were published in the Soviet Union in the 60s. My favourite, perverse as I am, is his Theatrical Novel.
Something about cockroaches and mountaineers, I think :) . Of course it was anti-Soviet, but if critical words are 'explicitly forbidden', isn't creativity being disallowed?Quote:
If I remember correctly, his poem was highly anti-Soviet (using the terminology of that time), and that was explicitly forbidden.
More like lex iniusta.Quote:
Dura lex sed lex.
Hi. She actually left in 1922. A minor detail. More important: why should someone as brilliant as Tsvetaeva have felt unable to practise her craft in the Soviet Union?Quote:
Hello? She left the USSR in 1925 and returned in 1939, and committed suicide in 1941.
You're going to have to explain that one to me. Sounds a little...partisan.Quote:
You made me laugh so hard I almost choked. No really! The very doctrine of "Human Rights" is ideology and nothing but ideology.
Take, for example, hockey in the U.S.S.R. and now Russia. In the U.S.S.R., all the talented hockey players were taken by CSKA, the Red Army Team, and, to a lesser degree, Dynamo Moscow, but mainly CSKA. There players were taught hockey skills and were severely punished, sometimes even killed, if they did not perform well enough for the coach, Victor Tikhonov. The players were conscripted into the Soviet military as a way of controlling them, and few of the players ever got any military training at all. Once the players were soldiers of the U.S.S.R., the government could control every aspect of their lives, and did so regularly. Now, after the fall of the Soviet Union, things are supposed to be different. But the more things change, the more they stay the same. Just recently, a hockey player named Nikolai Zherdev left Russia for the USA to play in the best hockey league in the world, the NHL. He had a contract with an NHL team, the Columbus Blue Jackets, which he had signed just shortly after he was drafted into the NHL. But the Russian hockey authorities claim that he is a soldier on the Russian military. They claim to have papers proving this, including a military ID card. Zherdev says that he has never recieved any military traing, has never worn a uniform, and has never taken the oath of duty. Zherdev was also not even a Russian, he was born in Ukraine. After he left Russia, Zherdev's former coach, Victor Tikhonov--yes, the same guy again--claimed that Zherdev had deserted his country, his team, and his military duty, which is compulsory in Russia. If zherdev was indeed in the Russian military, he was placed there so keep him in Russia and under the control of Russian authorities. The dirty little secret of all this is the payoffs that NHL teams have to give Russian teams to buy the players out of military duty. So, then, this whole thing is about money and control. NHL teams have to pay many times more than the agreed on fee to even get the players over to the U.S. The players are only in the military for control. And the "compulsory" military duty is not even emposed uniformly, only in selected cases the Russians think they can get away with. Another Russian player, Ilya Kovalchuk, who is now playing in the NHL, certainly had nothing to do with the Russian military. there are about 100 other Russian players playing in North America and Canada that were never in the military.
Things are obviously not altogether fixed yet in Russia. Russia clearly is not yet a "normal" country. Another example would be the recent Presidential election in Russia.
You were replying to my message that mentioned Sakharov. In that message, I was dealing with the naive materialism of another poster.Quote:
Originally Posted by joysof
You asked: 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?'. It seemed, generally speaking, such a stupid question that I thought I would deal with it by reference to a sphere of creativity about which I have some knowledge. Economics isn't my strong point.[/quote:1ydtvu1p]Quote:
[quote:1ydtvu1p]However, you're going off the tangent yourself.I responded to the message that linked creativity to economy, and that could not possibly mean creativity in poetry.
I have already explained why this argument is irrelevant. We might as well discuss creativity in sexual perversions, if any creativity is fine by you.
'Moliere'[/quote:1ydtvu1p]Quote:
[quote:1ydtvu1p]Which plays were suppressed?
Nope. The premi
What does that have to do with creativity? Hockey? Ask me if I care about hockey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynamo
But you're trying to distort even that. Military service is not "selectively" compulsory in Russia. If there are no medical problems, and I suppose a good hockey player must have none, the only way for him to avoid being drafted is by starting university studies, or, if he has graduated, a PhD thesis. I do not think this hockey guy ever did so. Alternatively, he might avoid military service by having a couple of new born babies, or having disabled parents. And finally a person may be excluded by a presidential decree. Admittedly, lots of Russian men manage to evade the service, but they violate the law.
Secondly, the CSKA does not "take" anybody. CSKA stands for "Central Combined Club of the Army", and the players must be drafted before they can join the club. And normally they are trained before they join the army, in some junior school sponsored by CSKA.
So what happened is simple. The guy was trained, for free, in a junior school, then drafted and trained, again for free, by the Army. Then the guy decides to say good-bye and earn some money on the side. He is still in service and what he does is called desertion.
As for the presidential election... let's compare it with the nonsense that happened in Florida last time.
I thought he was pretty naive too.Quote:
You were replying to my message that mentioned Sakharov. In that message, I was dealing with the naive materialism of another poster.
You need to express yourself more clearly, then. When you ask 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?' (not 'economic creativity'), you leave yourself open to attack from all quarters.Quote:
I have already explained why this argument is irrelevant. We might as well discuss creativity in sexual perversions, if any creativity is fine by you.
I never said they were kept off the stage altogether during the 30s. Moliere was refused a performance licence in March 1930, and although it did appear in February 1936, it was cancelled on 9 March of the same year. After six years, it lasted three weeks. As with much Soviet censorship in the 1930s, Bulgakov's persecution was largely determined by Stalin's whims. Like a cat with a mouse, really.Quote:
Nope. The premiere was on 16-Feb-1936.
Oh, I see, you don't like them. Well, I take it all back. They were rightly suppressed.Quote:
Have you actually read them? I have, and they don't impress me all that much. "Adam and Eve" is particularly bad.
What sort of argument is that?
After some thirty years of refusal. That sort of lag hardly makes for a vibrant literary scene, does it?Quote:
So they were published in the end.
What is this fixation on sexual deviancy? And what was so odious about Bulgakov's work to make the comparison worthwhile?Quote:
What about creativity in child pornography? It was the law, get over it.
Stalin was particularly busy in that period, what with signing pacts with Fascists and having his fingers in his ears the rest of the time.Quote:
She should have chosen better time for that. As if there had not been anything more important for the USSR in 1939-1941, when WWII was raging.
Anyway, that's a cheap shot and beside the point. From Tsvetaeva to Berdyaev and the Nabokovs, great people left (or were forced out) in droves. Russia under both Ulyanov and Dzhugashvili was, regardless of its more serious atrocities, a climate deeply hostile to creativity.
The 'ideology' of human rights, perhaps?Quote:
Explain what?
May I explain? HR is an ideology and it's a totalitarian ideology. There are some characteristics of totalitarian ideology:Quote:
Originally Posted by joysof
1. It based on beleif in some irrational ideas. - Why do you think that human's rights should be the same for all cultures and social systems?
2. Proclaim these ideas as established truth.
3. Negative attitude to another ideas - You gave me a link about China, where the Chinese conception of HR is diffrent, so the HRW treat it bad.
4. The followers of totalitarian ideology always gather to organized groups.
HRW corresponds to all characteristics. - At least in Russia there is a group of human's right watchers - Novodvorskaya, Kovalyev etc.
Fair enough. An ideology is a body of beliefs.Quote:
HR is an ideology
Nonsense. All of the features of 'HR' (do you mean Human Rights Watch in particular or human rights in general?) you supply as justification for this statement - belief in inalienable truths, opposition to those who think differently, an organisational structure (!)- could apply to any political party, trade union, ornithological society, or the Rotary Club. None of them denote totalitarianism. Restrictions on press freedom, state-sanctioned denigration of political unorthodoxy, a lack of due process in the legal system and the existence of labour camps are what I think of when the T-word is mentioned and as far as I can tell, no human rights organisation practises any of these things. All, however, are features of the current regime in Beijing.Quote:
and it's a totalitarian ideology
The message that you replied to did not have such questions. Learn to answer questions and not questions to answers to questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by joysof
I recall that he developed a sort of personal problem with the director (Stanislavsky) and the director simply refused to continue working on it. Which does not surprise me at all, because there is voluminous evidence that Bulgakov was very arrogant and cooperated poorly.Quote:
I never said they were kept off the stage altogether during the 30s. Moliere was refused a performance licence in March 1930, and although it did appear in February 1936, it was cancelled on 9 March of the same year. After six years, it lasted three weeks. As with much Soviet censorship in the 1930s, Bulgakov's persecution was largely determined by Stalin's whims. Like a cat with a mouse, really.
Oh, and if you believe that Stalin kept an eye on every single person in the USSR and Bulgakov in particular, you ought to reconsider. The only case when Stalin intervened was when Bulgakov had managed to piss off the whole theater and was fired. Thanks to Stalin he was employed again. Do you expect Stalin would have mothered him forever?
Oh, I see, you don't like them. Well, I take it all back. They were rightly suppressed.Quote:
[quote:2behx1op]Have you actually read them? I have, and they don't impress me all that much. "Adam and Eve" is particularly bad.
What sort of argument is that?[/quote:2behx1op]
I'm saying that they could be left unpublished or unstaged because they were just bad.
After some thirty years of refusal. That sort of lag hardly makes for a vibrant literary scene, does it?[/quote:2behx1op]Quote:
[quote:2behx1op]So they were published in the end.
Are you saying that the "literary scene" was not "vibrant" in the USSR times? Funny, funny. Is it vibrant now?
What is this fixation on sexual deviancy? And what was so odious about Bulgakov's work to make the comparison worthwhile?[/quote:2behx1op]Quote:
[quote:2behx1op]What about creativity in child pornography? It was the law, get over it.
Why is that deviancy, joysof? It's OK in certain countries. But you apparently believe that child pornography is bad by definition. Yes it is, because your law defines it accordingly. If some other law defines something else as illegal, then it is illegal. If you don't like it in this country, leave the country or change the law. Don't piss in the wind.
Stalin was particularly busy in that period, what with signing pacts with Fascists and having his fingers in his ears the rest of the time.[/quote:2behx1op]Quote:
[quote:2behx1op]She should have chosen better time for that. As if there had not been anything more important for the USSR in 1939-1941, when WWII was raging.
Invading Poland, waging a war with Finland, conducting a coup d'
That's an extremely iffy technicality.Quote:
The message that you replied to did not have such questions. Learn to answer questions and not questions to answers to questions.
Stalin took a personal, and oddly patriarchal interest in the affairs of various prominent artists, including Shostakovich, Pasternak and Bulgakov. In M.B.s case, they spoke on the telephone in April 1930, The Days of the Turbins was, as you said yourself, one of Koba's favourite plays, and Bulgakov was, by all accounts, closely watched throughout the 30s.Quote:
Oh, and if you believe that Stalin kept an eye on every single person in the USSR and Bulgakov in particular, you ought to reconsider.
No arguments here, although I would say neurotic rather than arrogant.Quote:
there is voluminous evidence that Bulgakov was very arrogant and cooperated poorly.
Paranoid, too - although that's hardly surprising.
Could have been. Don't have any facts on that. But another play, Ivan Vasilyevich, was certainly banned in 1936 after a Central Committee official visited a rehearsal.Quote:
I'm saying that they could be left unpublished or unstaged because they were just bad.
I would say that it was vibrant, if terrorised, during the 20s and 30s, and, yes, largely stagnant thereafter. Any oeuvre with Fadeev at its head was bound to be. As for the scene nowadays, I wouldn't know, although I'm told that it's abject. But then I'm not defending 'now', I'm voicing concerns about 'then'.Quote:
Are you saying that the "literary scene" was not "vibrant" in the USSR times? Funny, funny. Is it vibrant now?
Don't know where to start with this one. Yes, I find child pornography distasteful, but not because it is illegal. To be quite honest, I find your brand of moral relativism quite obnoxious.Quote:
Why is that deviancy, joysof? It's OK in certain countries. But you apparently believe that child pornography is bad by definition. Yes it is, because your law defines it accordingly. If some other law defines something else as illegal, then it is illegal.
Which country? Don't understand.Quote:
If you don't like it in this country, leave the country or change the law. Don't piss in the wind.
In the Soviet Union, it was often extremely difficult to leave the country, wasn't it? Remember the refuseniki?
I try not to found my admiration of artists upon their apotheosis by others. But perhaps I do. We're all products of our environment, after all.Quote:
You don't even understand that most of those in "the droves of great people" are great because the West made them symbols.
Are you sure about your dates? From my humble reading I had gathered that the first USSR constitution was actually ratified in 1922, the year poor Marina left the country. I'm willing to stand corrected.Quote:
You do not understand that when you mention Lenin and some events before 1924 you don't speak of the USSR, which is the topic of this thread.
Freely and proudly.Quote:
You freely admit your ignorance in economy
You needn't have involved yourself.Quote:
and are trying to switch the topic to some chimerical creativity
Well, season's greetings to you too :) .Quote:
You know, I'm getting tired of your lexicon
So he helped him once. Is the lack of help afterwards "suppressing"?Quote:
Originally Posted by joysof
Correct. Personally, again, I found this one shallow -- less shallow than the subsequent movie, though. Come to think of it, I do not like his plays, any of them. He wrote marvelous prose, no denying, but his theatrical works were a disaster. So... it might be that they were "suppressed" for some political reasons, I don't care. I will grant you that his novels were held back. They could not have been published even if the party had given a go. This has more to do with the psychology of the country back then than with anything else. This factor is always ignored by those critical of the USSR, and that only demonstrates how shallow their arguments are.Quote:
But another play, Ivan Vasilyevich, was certainly banned in 1936 after a Central Committee official visited a rehearsal.
In 1917-1922, the country was suffering from the Civil War. That civil war was caused solely by ideological differences. In practical terms, it meant that the monarchists were killing those who said things different than they did, and the other parties, including the communists, were doing just the same. Say, do you seriously expect that those who finally prevailed in this slaughter would tolerate any dissidence? I say no, not while the memories were so vivid. It would have taken another generation. Which is exactly what happened. Is it different from any country that had a revolution? Perhaps you have no personal experience with people that have been through a revolution and a civil war. Neither have I. But I have experience with those who have been through German occupation. Even here in Western Europe the older generation stiffens when they hear German. And the Germans actually treated these countries quite gently! In Russia, and especially in Byelorussia, which suffered most, the reactions are significantly stronger. And this is after sixty years.
I would say that it was vibrant, if terrorised, during the 20s and 30s, and, yes, largely stagnant thereafter. Any oeuvre with Fadeev at it's head was bound to be. As for the scene nowadays, I wouldn't know, although I'm told that it's abject. But then I'm not defending 'now', I'm voicing concerns about 'then'.[/quote:1djkq9j6]Quote:
[quote:1djkq9j6]Are you saying that the "literary scene" was not "vibrant" in the USSR times? Funny, funny. Is it vibrant now?
This thread is about the historical perspective. And given the perspective, which is the opposition of "now" and "then", even as regards "general" creativity, the USSR clearly had an edge over the modern Russian Federation (to say nothing of Uzbekistan and some other interesting countries).
Don't know where to start with this one. Yes, I find child pornography distasteful, but not because it is illegal. To be quite honest, I find your brand of moral relativism quite obnoxious.[/quote:1djkq9j6]Quote:
[quote:1djkq9j6]Why is that deviancy, joysof? It's OK in certain countries. But you apparently believe that child pornography is bad by definition. Yes it is, because your law defines it accordingly. If some other law defines something else as illegal, then it is illegal.
Everything is relative. For example, to go fishing in the UK, you have to buy a license (if I'm not mistaken; if I am, take another suitable country). In Russia, you are free to catch almost anything you can without any stupid permit. But we were speaking about freedom of speech. You probably know that the only reason while pornography in general is alive and kicking in most countries in the world is because those countries believe in "freedom of speech", and the porno industry makes it understood in those countries that pornography is just "speech" (or media). But when it comes to child pornography, suddenly freedom of speech becomes limited. As it becomes when dealing with racism and so on. So it is not me who introduces this "moral relativism". It is just that some relativism is more relative than the others. Which is very archetypical when it comes to the USSR and Russia.
Which country? Don't understand.Quote:
[quote:1djkq9j6]If you don't like it in this country, leave the country or change the law. Don't piss in the wind.
In the Soviet Union, it was often extremely difficult to leave the country, wasn't it? Remember the refuseniki?[/quote:1djkq9j6]
How very interesting. In the previous message of yours, you claimed that "great people left (or were forced out) in droves". Huh?
Are you sure about your dates? From my humble reading I had gathered that the first USSR constitution was actually ratified in 1922, the year poor Marina left the country. I'm willing to stand corrected.[/quote:1djkq9j6]Quote:
[quote:1djkq9j6]You do not understand that when you mention Lenin and some events before 1924 you don't speak of the USSR, which is the topic of this thread.
According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "1924, January 31st: The first constitution of the USSR passed by the second congress of the councils (soviets)". It was almost 1925, as you can see.
No, banning his plays is.Quote:
So he helped him once. Is the lack of help afterwards "suppressing"?
You're confusing legality with morality.Quote:
Everything is relative. For example, to go fishing in the UK, you have to buy a license (if I'm not mistaken; if I am, take another suitable country). In Russia, you are free to catch almost anything you can without any stupid permit.
Both statements are valid. Lasted nearly seventy years, did the USSR.Quote:
How very interesting. In the previous message of yours, you claimed that "great people left (or were forced out) in droves". Huh?
I think I understand now. You're quite right, the Constitution was ratified in 1924. However, it had been ratified in principle (by the First All-Union Congress of Soviets) - and the USSR had been declared - by the end of 1922.Quote:
According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "1924, January 31st: The first constitution of the USSR passed by the second congress of the councils (soviets)". It was almost 1925, as you can see.
I like this impersonal "banning" of yours. So who did that "banning"? I hope you're not going to reiterate "evil Stalin did". Then again, since you have skipped my arguments for other possible reasons for the "banning", you have apparently recognized their validity.Quote:
Originally Posted by joysof
No I am not. I first explained the legality. Then, because you said that the law was immoral, I explained the historical and psychological background that might justify the law. But you ignore that and keep on saying "oh how illegal oh how immoral". I always find it amusing how the "human rights" proponents undermine the very ideology by denying the very basic human right, the right of peoples to shape their state the way they want it.Quote:
You're confusing legality with morality.
Both statements are valid. Lasted nearly seventy years, did the USSR.[/quote:6xk02nt9]Quote:
[quote:6xk02nt9]How very interesting. In the previous message of yours, you claimed that "great people left (or were forced out) in droves". Huh?
You don't see a logical incompatibility of the two statements of yours?
I think I understand now. You're quite right, the Constitution was ratified in 1924. However, it had been ratified in principle (by the First All-Union Congress of Soviets) - and the USSR had been declared - by the end of 1922.[/quote:6xk02nt9]Quote:
[quote:6xk02nt9]According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "1924, January 31st: The first constitution of the USSR passed by the second congress of the councils (soviets)". It was almost 1925, as you can see.
"In principle" does not work with constitutions, joysof. It can only be ratified or not. And before a constitution is ratified, no state exists. Plans and pilot state bodies may exist, but this is not quite the same. Actually, we don't even have to discuss all these "technicalities" (as I'm sure you're going to call them). Suffice it to say that Lenin died in 1924, and everything was very different after that.
Don't believe in evil, as it happens. But that's another discussion.Quote:
I like this impersonal "banning" of yours. So who did that "banning"? I hope you're not going to reiterate "evil Stalin did".
Regardless of who did it, the plays were banned. This has never on my part been a thread designed to demonise JVS.
What do you expect? I'm just a bleeding-heart liberal, after all :) .Quote:
"oh how illegal oh how immoral"
Agreed. A boring detail. Besides, I've had too much to drink and can barely remember my name at this point.Quote:
"In principle" does not work with constitutions, joysof. It can only be ratified or not. And before a constitution is ratified, no state exists. Plans and pilot state bodies may exist, but this is not quite the same. Actually, we don't even have to discuss all these "technicalities" (as I'm sure you're going to call them). Suffice it to say that Lenin died in 1924, and everything was very different after that.
PRC's economy has certain capitalistic features, in Russia there was also economical growth during NEP. So PRC isn't a good example whether communism works or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ
With ideology of human rights being criticized here, I'd like to say some words in its defense. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ
Let's take any two different persons A and B, HR ideology says that the rights of A are justified as long as they don't contradict to B's rights and vice versa. That is the basics of human rights ideology. All the other possible ideologies can only add the following:
1) Some proof that there are some criteria by which A can be considered more important than B and therefore should have more rights. All these proofs and criteria are subjective.
2) Say that yes, A and B deserve equal rights but those rights should be restricted not only by what was written above but also by something else. But who and why has the right to decide what that "something else" should be? So it's also subjective.
Either way, we only go deeper into subjectivity. So even if the human rights ideology is totalitarian (though personally I don't think so), then any other is also.
There's actually no state that is shaped the way it's inhabitants want. The shape of a state depends on a lot of factors and has more to do with the circumstances and the will of certain groups than with people's will. Not to say that the term "the right of peoples" is a rather vague thing, and it's certainly not a basic human right (at least because when one speaks about the right of a person it's clear what is meant but when one speaks about the right of the group of people it requires more assumptions and explanations).Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
Though I must agree that some who consider themselves the human rights proponents are often overdoing it, which mostly shows in their tendency to overuse banning (like Novodvorskaya wanting communist ideology to be banned, for example).
As for HRW, it watches the human rights not only in the countries with "opposite social system" but in USA and EU as well.
... which only works so long as there are exactly A and B and nobody else. As soon as there is C, it becomes tricky. And it becomes a joke when there are 150 millions of those not contradicting one another and 10 thousands who want it the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendy
Basic or not, it is just more significant than the right of one person. I'm simply stating a fact of life here, not a communists or socialist doctrine. The will of a people (or a group large enough) always has implications far surpassing those of a will of a single person. But the "human rights" doctrine simply denies the entire concept and is unable to deal with the reality of this world in its entirety. It may work in societies which have already reached harmony (such as the EU), but it simply breaks down under more severe conditions.Quote:
Not to say that the term "the right of peoples" is a rather vague thing, and it's certainly not a basic human right (at least because when one speaks about the right of a person it's clear what is meant but when one speaks about the right of the group of people it requires more assumptions and explanations).
A group does not have more rights than an individual. There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot.
People can live anyway they want so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If you and your friends want to start a Communist state, go right ahead. But you cannot force anyone to be part of it.Quote:
I always find it amusing how the "human rights" proponents undermine the very ideology by denying the very basic human right, the right of peoples to shape their state the way they want it.
Tim.
Oh, let's do it the other way around. I and my friends stay, and the others go ahead and start an anti-communist state. Somewhere else. They cannot force us to be part of it, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by TronDD
Can you achieve anything with this kind of logic?
This is ridiculous. And obviously false.Quote:
Originally Posted by TronDD
What do you mean "obviously false"? Might does not make right.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
In the real world, yes, groups of people will work together to get their way regardless of the rights of other's that they trample on. But they are in the wrong.
Tim.
A very simple example: an individual cannot breed offspring. A small group can, but it will degenerate in a very short timeframe.Quote:
Originally Posted by TronDD
A group and an individual both have exactly the same right to breed. Obviously, only the group (possibly) has the ability, but that doesn't allow them any more rights.
Tim.
I am talking about the ability. You were very explicit about the ability, too: "There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot."Quote:
Originally Posted by TronDD
Moreover, I find this "right without ability" talk quite pointless. Who needs a right that can never be enforced?
Besides, a group might restrict some rights of an individual. For example, the right to "move freely" (for a criminal).
I was refering to rights in my statement you quoted. A group cannot violate anyone else's rights in the same way an individual cannot.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
One always has rights. Regardless of whether or not they can, or choose to excercise them.
Groups are not seperate entities from individuals. Groups are made up of individuals and groups exist only because individuals have the right to associate with others.
A criminal is a different situation. When you violate the rights of others (commit a crime) you forfeit some of your rights (freedom, or even your life in the case of capital punishment).
It can and does in every society.Quote:
Originally Posted by TronDD
So long as "one" is alone or the society grants them.Quote:
One always has rights. Regardless of whether or not they can, or choose to excercise them.
Separate. Groups do consist of individuals, but their existence creates a new many-to-many relationship, which is ignored by the human rights doctrine. I have said that the doctrine works when the many-to-many is uniform and the society is stable, then the weaker one-to-many or even one-to-one relationship is OK.Quote:
Groups are not seperate entities from individuals. Groups are made up of individuals and groups exist only because individuals have the right to associate with others.
Problem is, you need a society to make sure a criminal shall forfeit his rights. And that creates a right of a society to suspend or revoke a right of an individual.Quote:
A criminal is a different situation. When you violate the rights of others (commit a crime) you forfeit some of your rights (freedom, or even your life in the case of capital punishment).
I am talking about what is correct (right vs. wrong). Yes, bad things can and do happen but that does not make them correct. I think we are arguing about different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
A correct society grants Man his rights and protects them. They are deemed inalienable.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
What is the "human rights doctrine"? We may be arguing on different pages again. I support and am speaking from the viewpoint of laissez-faire Capitalism which is based around the rights of Man. I don't see how what you are saying about ignoring group relationships is part of that system.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
That is the roll of goverment. So, yes, I can see your point that society, the group, has power over the individual in this case. But only government is given that power by the people governed by it, that includes the criminals. If you do not wish to be governed by it, you are free to leave that nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
Within that society, no group has any more or less rights than any individual or other group.
Tim.
I would like to retract my statement that rights are granted by society.
Rights exist because of Man's interaction with others. No one grants them.
This scenario hopefully demonstrates what I mean:
If you lived on an island alone, rights are a nonissue because there is no interaction with other people. If I showed up on this island and I decide I want you dead, would it be ok to kill you because no one has granted anyone any rights? Since you haven't been granted the right to life, do you let me kill you? I would think you would fight back. That would be you exercising your right to life. No one had to grant it, it just came out in our interection with each other. It would be ok to kill me in self-defense because I did not recognize your right to life. A right no one had to grant to you.
Society is simply interaction between Men. A rational society, will uphold each individual's rights and protect them from others. They use a government for that purpose.
Tim.
This is truly a most charming discussion, but, I'm afraid, not in the slightest related to the subject of this topic or indeed the whole forum.
"Right" and "wrong" are subjective. Use more specific terms please. I, however, did not mean "right" or "wrong". I simply stated that groups did (and do) "violate" rights of an individual according to the laws established within those groups. For example, in most countries in the world it is illegal to have weapons of mass destruction "privately". Gross injustice, if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TronDD
And then the society alienates them whenever it feels like that. That's precisely what I mean. The society has special rights that an individual has not.Quote:
A correct society grants Man his rights and protects them. They are deemed inalienable.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
Then I suggest that you familiarize yourself with this doctrine. As for "laissez-faire Capitalism", I do not see how it connects with human rights. This is a term for a special utopist model of economy. Get your terminology right.Quote:
What is the "human rights doctrine"? We may be arguing on different pages again. I support and am speaking from the viewpoint of laissez-faire Capitalism which is based around the rights of Man. I don't see how what you are saying about ignoring group relationships is part of that system.
Role. What you just said will suffice to deem you a die-hard totalitarian. In a liberal and democratic state, government is merely an agent of the people, it is elected by the people, is driven by the people and implements the will of the people. It is the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by TronDD
But I agree with this definition of yours, because it actually makes more sense than the democratic nonsense I wrote just above. If a person cannot live in a society, that person should leave the society, and I have said that before.
Ever heard about immunity? And how come that when a police officer pulls me over, whatever the reason, I suddenly lose my right to "move freely"?Quote:
Within that society, no group has any more or less rights than any individual or other group.
I have already replied to a similar "binary" argument. As soon as there are more Men, its simplicity becomes oversimplification.Quote:
Originally Posted by TronDD
Ok agreed, but a just society doesn't allow it. I guess the question is: Can a just society exist?" That's another debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
I don't agree that right and wrong are subjective, but that is also another debate. I agree that groups do violate rights and laws support them. That goes back to the "just society" question.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
Maybe I just disagree with the term "rights" here. Just because society has the ability to do something an individual cannot, doesn't mean it has a right to. We are going in circles on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
It is not utopian any more than any other govermental system is considered utopian. It is a specific method of governing, not simply a term. Like democracy, communism, or a dictatorship. I don't think either of up understand eachother's view point on this subject. Kinda kills the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
That's what I said. However, that goverment is based on human rights. Not majority rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
Because the officer has to have just cause to pull you over. They can't just pull you over and detain people willy nilly.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
I disagree, it'll be exactly the same. The problem, as you are pointing out, is enforcement of "proper interaction".Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
I guess this debate isn't going to go much further here. I'm satisfied with much of it, anyway. Fell free to post final comments or message me if you want but I guess the aguing is over. :(
Tim.
Boo. I thought it was going well. Political debates rarely stay civil. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper May
Tim.
It is utopian because it is not implemented anywhere in the world. Communism is and was utopian, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by TronDD
I do not know any state whose government is "based on human rights". Some governments are "democratically elected", while in fact usually controlled by a group of oligarchs, others are explicitly oligarchies.Quote:
That's what I said. However, that goverment is based on human rights. Not majority rule.
Either way he has more rights than I do, and, importantly, the right to suspend some rights of mine.Quote:
Because the officer has to have just cause to pull you over. They can't just pull you over and detain people willy nilly.
Oh my dear Jas-Jas, you do sound very moderator-like there, don't you! Our little Jas is becoming a man! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper May
C'mon, Jas, let 'em argue. I don't think they'll listen to you anyway :D As long as they stay off of me, it's fine with me.