Single moms... what do you feel?

[Anahita]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

I never stated which way things ought to be. If you go back through our discussion you will see that you stated that. I simply stated the way things are.

Yes, that’s what I meant when I said that I heard you saying ‘what is.’

How are all human beings born equal? That humans are born is not disputed, that they are born "equal" is.

This is a moral ascertion, yes. You are right, that could be disputed. I assert that humans are born with inherent rights. I believe in basic human rights (per, UN, lets say.)

For what is after all meant by the word "equal"? It's rather vague to me. Are all humans born with the same capacities? Different children are born in different geographies, different socioeconomic ladders, different races and cultures, and different life situations.

Like I said, I think that much of this is semantic. There are some words (e.g., freedom, democracy, equality, and so on) that need to be defined. Many governments who deny the UN Charter on Human Rights, and many other things, would claim any of those words, while doing what is opposite of my conception of those words. In some countries today, you are very ‘free’ to never hear any perspective that differs from the official government perspective (because anyone who says something that differs is punished….1984 comes to mind, again) I think of that as very close to opposite of freedom of speech (which I think is a VERY important freedom.) You are right to seek a clear definition. I don’t know enough about the philosophy to give you something clear, right now. The closest I can come is that ‘all (people, men=men and women!) are created equal, and endowed by the creator with certain unalienable rights.”

You state that children and adult individuals are equal in basic "human rights" yet state that they cannot vote or drive a car. That is a contradiction. The latter negates the former.

I wouldn't call a 'right to drive an auto an inherent human right.' I tend to agree most with the UN Charter. I’ll get back to these other points a little later… but I also believe almost nothing is ‘impossible.’

Oh my goodness, though, don't hear me wrong. I certainly don't think women is the central oppression issue... just one of many! I am for a more caring and loving world, and against racism, sexism, harm to nature, and many other things. Those are all different expressions of one big issue.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

Yes, that’s what I meant when I said that I heard you saying ‘what is.’

This is a moral ascertion, yes. You are right, that could be disputed. I assert that humans are born with inherent rights. I believe in basic human rights (per, UN, lets say.)

Like I said, I think that much of this is semantic. There are some words (e.g., freedom, democracy, equality, and so on) that need to be defined. Many governments who deny the UN Charter on Human Rights, and many other things, would claim any of those words, while doing what is opposite of my conception of those words. In some countries today, you are very ‘free’ to never hear any perspective that differs from the official government perspective (because anyone who says something that differs is punished….1984 comes to mind, again) I think of that as very close to opposite of freedom of speech (which I think is a VERY important freedom.) You are right to seek a clear definition. I don’t know enough about the philosophy to give you something clear, right now. The closest I can come is that ‘all (people, men=men and women!) are created equal, and endowed by the creator with certain unalienable rights.”

I wouldn't call a 'right to drive an auto an inherent human right.' I tend to agree most with the UN Charter. I’ll get back to these other points a little later… but I also believe almost nothing is ‘impossible.’

Oh my goodness, though, don't hear me wrong. I certainly don't think women is the central oppression issue... just one of many! I am for a more caring and loving world, and against racism, sexism, harm to nature, and many other things. Those are all different expressions of one big issue.

The UN Charter is simply a modern creation, and as such it's definition is purely technical and on paper only. It has no bearing on the metaphysical aspect of rights, which is I believe what you really want to argue on your side if you want to have a case.

It's different to believe that we as humans possess rights as individuals, such as the right to life and property and defend ourselves against aggression or violence, and the idea that we are equal (whatever that means, again). The distinctions you must first understand is between natural rights (i.e. the rights granted to us by God, or nature, etc.) and those of civil rights (proponents of civil rights such as those who argue for equality, etc., believe that rights are not given to man by a higher order, such as God or nature, but only a government can give you your rights).

The Soviet Union tried to create "equality" and see what happened. "Human nature" as cliche as that sounds, cannot allow for equality of minds, characters and capacities. What can you point to in nature, in society, in the world, that is "equal"? Believing that somehow in the future we will "all be equal" is no different than the Communist or Marxian utopia of classless society.

Even if you examine a sprocket factory and compare two sprockets of the same brand and from the same company, you will find the tiniest and most subtle differences. There is one song by Rush which I love and perfectly captures those who argue for equality.

Rush - The Trees

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(and they’re quite convinced they’re right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can’t help their feelings
If they like the way they’re made
And they wonder why the maples
Can’t be happy in their shade?

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream `oppression!`
And the oaks, just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
’the oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light’
Now there’s no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw ...

[Anahita]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

\.... What can you point to in nature, in society, in the world, that is "equal"? Believing that somehow in the future we will "all be equal" is no different than the Communist or Marxian utopia of classless society.

No. My views are very different, despite my difficulty in articulating what has never been said before. What I do is try to frame an idea around an already known idea, however imperfect for the purpose.

I don't have time to keep up with every great point you make... but keep with me while I try... I will come back to this idea of 'equality', though. Keep bouncin the great thoughts and ideas!

[Anahita]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

You have simply assumed equality without having to demonstrate how in a world of differences we are all equal.

I assume equality as a moral idea, rather than a concept of equality dependant on characteristics, etc.

Egalitarianisms logical conclusion at a basic level is that no song or story is worth hearing more than another.

Could you elaborate?

In terms of stories or view: I would not say that all perspectives are equally valid. Einstein has a more valid point-of-view than many other people, in my opinion. I’m not saying that every view is equally true, or valid, etc. All views should have equal right to be heard, though. There may be several hundred people who have Einstein capabilities living in Africa or China, but because they do not enjoy inherent human rights, they cannot even express their ideas.

I used voting as an example of how, historically, ‘rights’ were granted or denied based on arbitrary things like gender.

I’m not seeking utopia—which really means ‘nowhere.’ [from Greek ou (not) topos (place).] I seek a more just and fair world for all (but, not limited to human beings.)

It's different to believe that we as humans possess rights as individuals, such as the right to life and property and defend ourselves against aggression or violence, and the idea that we are equal (whatever that means, again). The distinctions you must first understand is between natural rights (i.e. the rights granted to us by God, or nature, etc.) and those of civil rights (proponents of civil rights such as those who argue for equality, etc., believe that rights are not given to man by a higher order, such as God or nature, but only a government can give you your rights).

This is an interesting point, and seems to get at an idea of the purposes of government.

Please do not try to claim women as the only sufferers by somehow excluding women as a category in itself of victims.

That’s what I tried to say. Oppression reinforces oppression—of all sorts. There will be sexism as long as racism exists. There is a mentality of oppressive thought that permits these sorts of frameworks…(that’s what I meant by many other factors)

Originally Posted by Anahita You are right that not all people have equal rights or opportunities. I think you talking about what is and I am saying more of what should be (and many of the other factors you mention are similar issues). Many women around the world are still denied even basic human equality.

There is one song by Rush which I love and perfectly captures those who argue for equality

However, I am talking about moral ideas. I believe that most adult human beings are moral agents (not meaning they are moral, however, but have the capacity.) So, being moral agents they have both rights and responsibilities. They make choices and can be blamed for the choices—while not everything is right or wrong in absolute, some things are right or wrong (why I refute relativism). If you argue for moral egoism, then we are talking apples and oranges.

Is nature a moral agent?

[Footnote: I like the cartoon, but not the 'food.']
----
And on the other main point, too... I think this all relates to the single mom idea (that's the reason I emphasized woman issues in the discussion.) Are some men afraid of single mothers because they have been able to do what, historically, is the role of both parents? Are independent women scary to some men?

Sip said something about the brain chemistry of single moms... What do you mean by that? Can you be more specific?

[Anahita]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

I'll keep thinking about the egalitarian idea, and how to explain what I want to say (not Marx, not capitalism, not anything that has already been). Democracy is a word like equality. Many countries claim to be 'democratic.' None define the word. By doing that, some would be, or not be.

"All democracies turn into dictatorships - but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea... That's the issue that I've been exploring: How did the Republic turn into the Empire ... and how does a democracy become a dictatorship? "

--Star Wars filmmaker George Lucas

(and how does a single mom organize against the threat of dictatorship?)

[Anahita]

This notion is similar in all strands of egalitarian thought from Marxists, to environmentalists, to socialists, etc. Essentially, the blame is put on external factors, and not the individual.

No, no. None of those, least environmentalists, put the 'blame' on just external factors! I blame external factors for problems, too, and I take the blame for what I do, as well. I drive a car, for example. ... I'll read on.

But, yes... you hear my subtext of egalitarianism-ish-

I don't suppose that humanity will ever get to that, but I do hope (and work towards) something more like that, than now (worldwide)