Womens rights -> has the world come far enough?

[WiredCoffeeJunkie]

My point is a valid one. You have chosen to ignore it. I can only assume you do not agree with freedom and equality of speech and thought for all. Correct me if I am wrong here.

I think others should be able to exercise various freedoms, where it doesn't violate the golden rule. From your comments I have to assume you don't know much about morality or ethics. It's ok, most people don't think about it much.

I have no idea what equality of speech or thought is. How do you measure someone's speech to ensure it's equal?

[MM6]

Choosing to be a wise-ass is not a clever option Im afraid. You knew perfectly well what I meant by my comment and chose to hide behind semantics. Do not presume you know anything about my education in morals, ethics or otherwise. Another example of your arrogant assumptions about me. You chose to ignore my other points. I can only assume you have met more than your match.

[WiredCoffeeJunkie]

Choosing to be a wise-ass is not a clever option Im afraid. You knew perfectly well what I meant by my comment and chose to hide behind semantics. Do not presume you know anything about my education in morals, ethics or otherwise. Another example of your arrogant assumptions about me. You chose to ignore my other points. I can only assume you have met more than your match.

What was the topic again?

[MM6]

Sixth the USA is in fact a bastion of Democracy. We do not have Marxist or socialist leanings like the UK

Are you absolutely sure about that? I think you need to read a few more books and copy some out for us all to read then maybe you'd make at least one valid point.

[WiredCoffeeJunkie]

Sixth the USA is in fact a bastion of Democracy. We do not have Marxist or socialist leanings like the UK

Are you absolutely sure about that? [sniped]

Yes.

[MM6]

well there you have it folks - WCJ has polled every single American and asked whether they have any Marxist or indeed Socialist leanings - and they all said no. Or maybe he/she just made it up right off the top of his/her head.

[WiredCoffeeJunkie]

well there you have it folks - WCJ has polled every single American and asked whether they have any Marxist or indeed Socialist leanings - and they all said no. Or maybe he/she just made it up right off the top of his/her head.

I didn't have to. Our socialist party doesn't do very well in the polls and to my knowledge there isn't even a marxist party.

You obviously have lost your argument.

[MM6]

So that equates to no socialist or marxist leanings.....what planet are you on? I was pointing out, albeit surreptitiously, your inability to stay on topic...Go back and read what we discussed - its plainly obvious you simply gave up when it all got too much for you - or when your books didnt provide the answer. You realised your comments were grossly over-generalised, not thought through and mostly way off topic. You got lost in your own jargon. And you cant even answer simple points intelligently and fall into even simpler traps.

[WiredCoffeeJunkie]

So that equates to no socialist or marxist leanings.....what planet are you on? I was pointing out, albeit surreptitiously, your inability to stay on topic...Go back and read what we discussed - its plainly obvious you simply gave up when it all got too much for you - or when your books didnt provide the answer. You realised your comments were grossly over-generalised, not thought through and mostly way off topic. You got lost in your own jargon. And you cant even answer simple points intelligently and fall into even simpler traps.

Because you can’t even argue why women should even be allowed to VOTE for goodness sake.

Seriously. What is equality of speech and thought? How do I measure this?

How do I measure your moral code against the moral code and free will of another human being? What enlightenment have you been given that justifies meddling with a person's life whom you've never met, never spoken to, don't even know anything about, but makes you know what's best for them? You call me arrogant.

[MM6]

Because you can’t even argue why women should even be allowed to VOTE for goodness sake.

This is so ridiculous its actually funny!!

That statement alone shows you up for what you are. A deluded pseudo-intellectual spouting utter rubbish.

That you think I should have to argue over something so utterley obvious - with you - on why one half of the population should be given a voice and a say in how their country is governed and in how it affects their lives is contemptible. Think basic human rights. Think bringing these women into a state of freedom and self expression which we in the West take for granted. Imagine being silenced and not allowed access to an education. Imagine having no rights under the law. Imagine being forced to marry, unable to escape a violent husband, imagine fearing for your life if you dare to speak out. Think Taliban. Do I really need to even consider these kind of regimes as valid when seeking to free the oppressed living under them? Do I need to give credence to their *moral code*?

I honestly expected more from you - but hey thats ok - maybe you'll learn to stop being told how to think and instead have your own original thoughts which I could then discuss with you.

But whatever. Its been fun.

[WiredCoffeeJunkie]

Ok, I thought so. The simple answer is that it was fought for.

By using voting as an example I’ll build a framework to solve your little dilemma.

As I stated, morality that’s recognized as “good” is based on the golden rule. Someone with the power of representation (voting) is hard pressed to argue against someone else having representation. In every *moral* society where representation is pressed for it is won as the argument is on solid moral ground. It’s not well known, but even the Colonies were granted representation when they demanded it, albeit too little and too late. Just because YOU think some people in your rant above are immoral doesn't mean they are. Ben Franklin was disgusted with YOUR countrys' morals a couple of centuries ago.

Ethically we have a problem though. Representation means responsibility. It’s forgotten in the West where voting is thought to be a “right” that it also is a serious responsibility. Someone who demands representation must also take the responsibility and it’s a grave mistake to believe anyone, no less someone you know nothing about, wants responsibility. It has to be earned and that earning be respected by those you beg it from.

Next we have Laws. Justice is based on ethics so although the wording and passage of a right of representation can be tricky, it’s based on firm ethical grounds once that ethical balance of representation and responsibility is satisfied.

Lastly we have societal laws. These are often, but not always rooted in religion. Often they are not words, but attitudes to argue against. If women want representation and are committed to it, they will be willing participants in formulating and articulating the argument to society as a whole as to why they deserve representation. Societal laws are based on morality, so the burden of proof is low. An argument in ignorance or your attempt above to argue from personal conviction may even be strong enough to satisfy the proof. Don’t mistake this as being simple though as societies are comprised of many individuals and it may take a generation for representation to be taken for granted. This is the longest section, because this is the part that will piss off alot of people when you meddle with their life.

No quotes or cut and paste sweethart because to my knowledge that is entirely (though of course, probably only in this form) original thought.

You could have even have said voting is fundamental protection against tyranny, no matter the circumstances it shouldn't be restricted. Something stronger than your personal conviction that it's "good".

[one_irish_rover]

I disagree with both of you, on certain points. MM6 seems to be assuming that equality is a basic human right. WCJ appears to be a strict moral relativist.

Certain morals are universal (scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that primates have evolved bearing a common set of basic morals such as cooperation, loyalty, self-sacrifice, altruism, formation and protection of family); other morals are relative. Laws, human rights, and cultural "norms" are based on both universal and relative morality, and much individuality exists across societies. (nothing new there).

The basic question we need to answer here: Is equality a universal moral (and thusly a universal right)?

There is no direct evidence (of which I'm aware), that equality, in itself, is a universal human moral, and thus a universal human right.

Apart from the abstract, isn't it up to the women in the society to decide whether they want equal rights? If they are content with the structure of their society, then who are we to meddle? If they are demanding universal suffrage, but don't have the power to break and restructure society, then it must be the responsibility of "outside" societies to help. (I think that we all agree on that point). That responsibility stems from a universal moral: altruism.

[WiredCoffeeJunkie]

I accept a universal moral truth of the golden rule, aside from which I'm utterly amoral. This means murder is immoral, it means altruism is moral. It means regardless of your upbringing or beliefs, you can be held accountable for your actions. This is the opposite of strict moral relativisim. Beside the point, but I prefer ethics.

Incidently be careful with equating humans with primates or drawing "universal truths" from science. We are similar to apes, but for instance it is morally wrong for us to kill a baby so we can start a family with the mother.

I think everyone agrees that "sex equality" is important, moral too provided it isn't forced, though maybe still not ethical depending on what women want to be equal at. I don't think they are equal at giving birth for instance. I'm actually not opposed to annie's ideas at all as I've repeatably stated. I just think she's deliberately more apt to cause problems than help them. She's an Ethnocentrist.

Overthrow a government... I think a case has to be crafted for each situation. I think many have every right to call us immoral.

[one_irish_rover]

I accept a universal moral truth of the golden rule, aside from which I'm utterly amoral. This means murder is immoral, it means altruism is moral. It means regardless of your upbringing or beliefs, you can be held accountable for your actions. This is the opposite of strict moral relativisim. Beside the point, but I prefer ethics.

what is your distinction between ethics and morals?

Incidently be careful with equating humans with primates or drawing "universal truths" from science. We are similar to apes, but for instance it is morally wrong for us to kill a baby so we can start a family with the mother.

Humans are primates, of course, and the research I was referring to includes apes and hominids (including humans). The beauty of "good" science, is that the conclusions are universal. Like I said, universal morality is a hypothesis, not a theory. But, I agree with your point about equating non-human animals to humans, especially cncerning something as complex as behavior, morality, etc.

I think everyone agrees that "sex equality" is important, moral too provided it isn't forced, though maybe still not ethical depending on what women want to be equal at.

agreed.

Overthrow a government... I think a case has to be crafted for each situation. I think many have every right to call us immoral.

Sure, our leadership's motivations are not purely altruistic or cooperative.

[WiredCoffeeJunkie]

what is your distinction between ethics and morals?

The words mostly. One implies you are about to rant about traditions you've been brought up with, the other implies you've thought out your decision based on a method and study. Both eventually mean a concept of comparative value has to be thought out. Eventually they are the same thing once you realize you're not forgiven because you made a bad decision based on either moral or ethical dogma.

Sure, our leadership's motivations are not purely altruistic or cooperative.

Oh. It's not just our leadership that can be concidered immoral. Our freedoms could be concidered immoral in their own right. Women wearing immodest clothes for instance. We have a different comparative value on these things. Immodest clothes are a minor side effect of women feeling empowered, which we hold a relatively high value on. The problem of course is that a women in a Thong bikini might very well turn the average Muslim village into a killing field.