Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Writer@Large · 04-25-2003, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eudaimonist
I usually agree almost completely with these manifestos... until they start talking about politics, and which point all I can do is shake my head.

Maybe I'm reading a different document. What politics? The closest thing to a political statement I see is:

"We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature�s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner."

How exactly is that (a) overly political or (b) highly objectionable?

--W@L

GeoTheo · 04-25-2003, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pensee
Hi, nice to meet ya. I'm a Humanist against abortion after 8 weeks gestation.

Why does this make any more sense than:
Hi nice to meet ya. I'm a humanist that is against euthanasia for any one under age 40, unless thay are terminally ill. After 40 they are no longer human. So as a humanist, after that point, I do not believe they posess "inherent worth and dignity" any longer.

GeoTheo · 04-25-2003, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by worldling
If, as you say, they "preserve the right to decide who is a person" (as, apparently, do you), and by their definition a foetus is not a person, then you cannot accuse them of being hypocrites.

(saying this for effect:THIS IS NOT MY BELIEF)
I do not consider atheists to be human, by my definition, so you cannot acuse me of being a hypocrite, when I say atheists do not posess "inherent worth and dignity".
See my point? This document is meaningless.

Nostalgic Pushhead · 04-25-2003, 07:09 AM

I agree with that manifesto completely and I don't support abortion.

So, there.

GeoTheo · 04-25-2003, 07:16 AM

I don't diagree with it. I just think it is a meaningless bunch of "nice" sentiments. I think it just borrows the sentiments of religions, without having any way to justify them.

worldling · 04-25-2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo
(saying this for effect:THIS IS NOT MY BELIEF)
I do not consider atheists to be human, by my definition, so you cannot acuse me of being a hypocrite, when I say atheists do not posess "inherent worth and dignity".
See my point? This document is meaningless.

I don't see what your point has to do with my point.

Eudaimonist · 04-25-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Writer@Large
Maybe I'm reading a different document. What politics? The closest thing to a political statement I see is:

"We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature�s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner."

How exactly is that (a) overly political or (b) highly objectionable?

--W@L

The last section (everything including and following "Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.") is the political section. My objection largely refers to the utilitarianism and redistributive egalitarianism in that section. Consider this quote:

Quote:

We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature�s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

I oppose the soft socialism implicit in this statement. (Take a look at the other manifestos... this left political leaning is crystal clear over there.) I'm not against people having a good life, of course -- it's the means of redistributive egalitarianism to which I'm objecting. This might not be objectionable to you, but it is highly objectionable to me.

GeoTheo · 04-25-2003, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by worldling
I don't see what your point has to do with my point.

My point is that if humans posess "inherent worth and dignity" we need somthing a lot stonger to protect it than peoples opinions. Is somthing so if you say it is so?

GeoTheo · 04-25-2003, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eudaimonist

I oppose the soft socialism implicit in this statement. (Take a look at the other manifestos... this left political leaning is crystal clear over there.) I'm not against people having a good life, of course -- it's the means of redistributive egalitarianism to which I'm objecting. This might not be objectionable to you, but it is highly objectionable to me.

Are you into Ayn Rand?

worldling · 04-25-2003, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo
My point is that if humans posess "inherent worth and dignity" we need somthing a lot stonger to protect it than peoples opinions. Is somthing so if you say it is so?

I wasn't asking you what your point was. I was asking you what it had to do with mine.

But while we're going off at a tangent, what would you suggest we need to protect humans' "inherent worth and dignity" that is a lot stronger than people's opinions?

In your opinion.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2003, 07:09 AM	#14
Nostalgic Pushhead Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: So. Burlington, Vermont Posts: 4,315	I agree with that manifesto completely and I don't support abortion. So, there.

04-25-2003, 07:16 AM	#15
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	I don't diagree with it. I just think it is a meaningless bunch of "nice" sentiments. I think it just borrows the sentiments of religions, without having any way to justify them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.