Different Rights For Different Attributes?

[Summertimequestionswine]

So most people agree that there ought be a set of rights available for all human beings on the basis of being...well...human.

However, what about the vast disparities in personality, ability, class, and the like between humans? Ought there be different sets of rights for different types of human beings?

Should people with different intellectual capacities have different rights? What about people in different socio-economic classes? Should different religious individuals have different rights available to them? What about ethnic or racial rights?

I personally believe that while it's nice to have a base set of rights for people because of their shared 'humanity', the vast disparities in how different people function and what they offer to the world ought be accompanied by different expectations and different opportunities to these individuals.

So what do you think? Should people have more varied sets of rights, and on what should we base them?

[Lordieth]

That's essentially what the class-system is, although they're not so much rights, but inherent societal privileges.

Unless you're talking about trying to level the playing field somehow, which I think would be an awful idea.

[Mefpan]

No. Equal rights means equal fucking rights. That is to say, the expletive is used for emphasis, not to convey the message that equal rights equate to an entitlement to fornicative interpersonal interaction.

But yes, let's not split contemporary society along even more lines, okay?

[Scomagia]

Name referencing NS summer and a controversial first post.

I have a lot of faith in this thread.

For the record, your idea is incredibly stupid. It is because of the vast difference in ability between individuals that a universal standard is needed. I don't even see how a society could stand under your asinine system, considering everyone would be constantly out to change the law to expand their individual rights at the expense of everyone else.

[Greater Fennoscandia]

Could you elaborate? Sounds really suspect though. People are not equal in personality or ability as you said, and I think most people see this obvious fact. We should accept it. I think people should obviously be equal in front of the law, and have equal opportunities for education etc. without discrimination before their abilities are taken into account aka. everybody can apply for school and it should be free, but if you are not motivated enough or simply not gifted enough for that particular school, tough luck. Expecting equality of outcome is stupid and clearly not even possible, even though feminists and social justice warriors want it to be so. Affirmative action is harmful as it prevents people actually capable from getting the job or position and puts people not actually capable in the position which will just disappoint them when they fail and be harmful for the organization.

For example, there has been attempts in norway to get the amount of women and men studying engineering fields to be about 50/50 and nursing jobs to be the same. It has not worked and the gender ratios are about 90% men / 10% women in engineering and the vice versa for nursing still. Women simply aren't even interested in going for engineering jobs and the women whining that the ratio isn't exactly 50/50 are themselves studying gender studies or some other liberal arts. Why don't they just study it themselves?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs

[Scomagia]

Could you elaborate? Sounds really suspect though. People are not equal in personality or ability as you said, and I think most people see this obvious fact. We should accept it. I think people should obviously be equal in front of the law, and have equal opportunities for education etc. without discrimination before their abilities are taken into account aka. everybody can apply for school and it should be free, but if you are not motivated enough or simply not gifted enough for that particular school, tough luck. Expecting equality of outcome is stupid and clearly not even possible, even though feminists and social justice warriors want it to be so. Affirmative action is harmful as it prevents people actually capable from getting the job or position and puts people not actually capable in the position which will just disappoint them when they fail and be harmful for the organization.

For example, there has been attempts in norway to get the amount of women and men studying engineering fields to be about 50/50 and nursing jobs to be the same. It has not worked and the gender ratios are about 90% men / 10% women in engineering and the vice versa for nursing still. Women simply aren't even interested in going for engineering jobs and the women whining that the ratio isn't exactly 50/50 are themselves studying gender studies or some other liberal arts. Why don't they just study it themselves?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs

Youtube videos are a shit source, for the record.

[Greater Fennoscandia]

Could you elaborate? Sounds really suspect though. People are not equal in personality or ability as you said, and I think most people see this obvious fact. We should accept it. I think people should obviously be equal in front of the law, and have equal opportunities for education etc. without discrimination before their abilities are taken into account aka. everybody can apply for school and it should be free, but if you are not motivated enough or simply not gifted enough for that particular school, tough luck. Expecting equality of outcome is stupid and clearly not even possible, even though feminists and social justice warriors want it to be so. Affirmative action is harmful as it prevents people actually capable from getting the job or position and puts people not actually capable in the position which will just disappoint them when they fail and be harmful for the organization.

For example, there has been attempts in norway to get the amount of women and men studying engineering fields to be about 50/50 and nursing jobs to be the same. It has not worked and the gender ratios are about 90% men / 10% women in engineering and the vice versa for nursing still. Women simply aren't even interested in going for engineering jobs and the women whining that the ratio isn't exactly 50/50 are themselves studying gender studies or some other liberal arts. Why don't they just study it themselves?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs

Youtube videos are a shit source, for the record.

It's a documentary, it being uploaded on youtube shouldn't really matter. If it came from tv it would be a better source? What is your point exactly.

[Scomagia]

Youtube videos are a shit source, for the record.

It's a documentary, it being uploaded on youtube shouldn't really matter. If it came from tv it would be a better source? What is your point exactly.

The point is that most folks aren't going to click a youtube link and watch the video.

[Greater Fennoscandia]

It's a documentary, it being uploaded on youtube shouldn't really matter. If it came from tv it would be a better source? What is your point exactly.

The point is that most folks aren't going to click a youtube link and watch the video.

Do you disagree with me? And I don't know how it is my problem if people choose to be willfully ignorant or outright deny facts like the "gender scientists" on the documentary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask#Aftermath

[Summertimequestionswine]

That's essentially what the class-system is

It essentially is not. The rich man and the poor man have the same rights.

I'm questioning whether there should not be rights only available to the rich and rights for the poor as well.

[Summertimequestionswine]

No. Equal rights means equal fucking rights.

People can have equal rights, insofar as those rights revolve around their being human.

Fortunately, humans are more complex than that. They deserve a more nuanced approach to what rights are or are not available to them.

[Divitaen]

No of course not. Human rights are owned by everyone. We all have a natural and inherent right to dignity and equal treatment and worth. That's just part of being thinking, feeling human beings. So no, everyone has the same human rights, because we are all humans.

[Summertimequestionswine]

It is because of the vast difference in ability between individuals that a universal standard is needed.

A universal standard based upon a universal trait.

Not all traits are universal, however. Should they not also merit certain standards?

I don't even see how a society could stand under your asinine system, considering everyone would be constantly out to change the law to expand their individual rights at the expense of everyone else.

That really is a question of implementation, not of validity.

[Summertimequestionswine]

No of course not. Human rights are owned by everyone.

Never said they weren't. In fact, said as much in my opening post. Human rights are those of which we are deserving because of our humanity.

We are more than simply human, however.

[Divitaen]

No of course not. Human rights are owned by everyone.

Never said they weren't. In fact, said as much in my opening post. Human rights are those of which we are deserving because of our humanity.

We are more than simply human, however.

Give a concrete example then, because its hard for me to discuss in abstract. Like what kind of different class, ability or personality would quality someone for a different set of human rights.

Otherwise it sounds like advocating for a corproatist, stratified society. Sorry if I misunderstand your meaning.

[Summertimequestionswine]

Never said they weren't. In fact, said as much in my opening post. Human rights are those of which we are deserving because of our humanity.

We are more than simply human, however.

Give a concrete example then, because its hard for me to discuss in abstract. Like what kind of different class, ability or personality would quality someone for a different set of human rights.

Otherwise it sounds like advocating for a corproatist, stratified society. Sorry if I misunderstand your meaning.

There are differences in intelligence between individuals, that should perhaps merit different sets of rights for instance. Should the stupid and uninformed really be allowed to vote on matters that neither interest them or are within their capacity to understand? What does society gain from this, and are these individuals really all that deserving?

Think of gendered rights. Women are given the ability to end a life at any time they wish, and to revoke parental rights via abortion. Why are men not afforded the same rights? Because men are not women, and women are not men. They are different, and so a different set of rights applies to them based on these facts.

I could get more controversial, but these are just two that come up in my head immediately. There could be rights centered around social class, race, religion, and other attributes as well.

[Divitaen]

There are differences in intelligence between individuals, that should perhaps merit different sets of rights for instance. Should the stupid and uninformed really be allowed to vote on matters that neither interest them or are within their capacity to understand? What does society gain from this, and are these individuals really all that deserving?

Think of gendered rights. Women are given the ability to end a life at any time they wish, and to revoke parental rights via abortion. Why are men not afforded the same rights? Because men are not women, and women are not men. They are different, and so a different set of rights applies to them based on these facts.

I could get more controversial, but these are just two that come up in my head immediately. There could be rights centered around social class, race, religion, and other attributes as well.

Yes, people who are "stupid" should be allowed to vote as well, because democracy is not about intellectual elitism, but self-determination. Its because we believe people should have a voice over policies and governance that affects them. Thats the empowerment that belongs to everyone. And how are you going to distinguish anyway? IQ test? Civics literacy test? These measurements often have disproportionately effects on the poor.

And no, its not a different set of rights. Abortion is derived from bodily sovereignty, a right over your own body. The foetus is in the women's body, and thus the woman is sovereign over the foetus. A man cannot force another woman to undergo an abortion just because the fetus is his. See, so both are still accorded the right to bodily sovereignty, it just happens to be more relevant to the woman in the case of abortion, but the human right remains the same.

[MERIZoC]

Of course. Rich white men should have the right to vote and drive, and everyone else can have the right to work for them for little to no money.

[MERIZoC]

Give a concrete example then, because its hard for me to discuss in abstract. Like what kind of different class, ability or personality would quality someone for a different set of human rights.

Otherwise it sounds like advocating for a corproatist, stratified society. Sorry if I misunderstand your meaning.

There are differences in intelligence between individuals, that should perhaps merit different sets of rights for instance. Should the stupid and uninformed really be allowed to vote on matters that neither interest them or are within their capacity to understand? What does society gain from this, and are these individuals really all that deserving?

Think of gendered rights. Women are given the ability to end a life at any time they wish, and to revoke parental rights via abortion. Why are men not afforded the same rights? Because men are not women, and women are not men. They are different, and so a different set of rights applies to them based on these facts.

If a man ever gets pregnant, he too will be allowed an abortion.

[Greater Fennoscandia]

Give a concrete example then, because its hard for me to discuss in abstract. Like what kind of different class, ability or personality would quality someone for a different set of human rights.

Otherwise it sounds like advocating for a corproatist, stratified society. Sorry if I misunderstand your meaning.

There are differences in intelligence between individuals, that should perhaps merit different sets of rights for instance. Should the stupid and uninformed really be allowed to vote on matters that neither interest them or are within their capacity to understand? What does society gain from this, and are these individuals really all that deserving?

Think of gendered rights. Women are given the ability to end a life at any time they wish, and to revoke parental rights via abortion. Why are men not afforded the same rights? Because men are not women, and women are not men. They are different, and so a different set of rights applies to them based on these facts.

I could get more controversial, but these are just two that come up in my head immediately. There could be rights centered around social class, race, religion, and other attributes as well.

Well please go on. I do think there should be some more restrictions on voting as now its only the matter of age and probably if you are under someones guardianship for being mentally retarded, I'm not sure about that though.
Democracy needs informed and educated people to work, why not have an exam or something showing that you are informed? I guess the problem would lie in the test being biased.

[Greater Fennoscandia]

There are differences in intelligence between individuals, that should perhaps merit different sets of rights for instance. Should the stupid and uninformed really be allowed to vote on matters that neither interest them or are within their capacity to understand? What does society gain from this, and are these individuals really all that deserving?

Think of gendered rights. Women are given the ability to end a life at any time they wish, and to revoke parental rights via abortion. Why are men not afforded the same rights? Because men are not women, and women are not men. They are different, and so a different set of rights applies to them based on these facts.

I could get more controversial, but these are just two that come up in my head immediately. There could be rights centered around social class, race, religion, and other attributes as well.

Yes, people who are "stupid" should be allowed to vote as well, because democracy is not about intellectual elitism, but self-determination. Its because we believe people should have a voice over policies and governance that affects them. Thats the empowerment that belongs to everyone. And how are you going to distinguish anyway? IQ test? Civics literacy test? These measurements often have disproportionately effects on the poor.

And no, its not a different set of rights. Abortion is derived from bodily sovereignty, a right over your own body. The foetus is in the women's body, and thus the woman is sovereign over the foetus. A man cannot force another woman to undergo an abortion just because the fetus is his. See, so both are still accorded the right to bodily sovereignty, it just happens to be more relevant to the woman in the case of abortion, but the human right remains the same.

Shouldn't the man have the right to choose or not to choose to be the parent then? A woman can abort the foetus at will and if she does carry it to term, the man simply has to accept the parenthood and possibly give resources to the woman? This can of course be circumvented by the man not simply getting women pregnant in the first place.

[Divitaen]

Shouldn't the man have the right to choose or not to choose to be the parent then? A woman can abort the foetus at will and if she does carry it to term, the man simply has to accept the parenthood and possibly give resources to the woman? This can of course be circumvented by the man not simply getting women pregnant in the first place.

It depends on the situation. Of course in situations where its female-on-male rape than the man obviously has no responsibility. I'm slightly torn on the situation though, as I do understand how men should have the right to abstain from parenthood, but at the same time this legitimises runaway father situations and punishes women for being the only sex capable of pregnancy. So I have to admit my mind is not made up on this specific issue.

However, the fact remains its not "different rights". The right to bodily sovereignty remains the same for men and women alike.

[Arglorand]

So what you're saying is that instead of abolishing entrenched systems of exploitation on the basis of various attributes we should /entrench them further/?

Nah. Nah, thanks. I'll keep to abolishing the patriarchy and shit.

[Kelinfort]

What difference of "rights" if you retain human rights?

Your definition of human rights must simply be not being hacked to death by other people.

[Greater Fennoscandia]

Shouldn't the man have the right to choose or not to choose to be the parent then? A woman can abort the foetus at will and if she does carry it to term, the man simply has to accept the parenthood and possibly give resources to the woman? This can of course be circumvented by the man not simply getting women pregnant in the first place.

It depends on the situation. Of course in situations where its female-on-male rape than the man obviously has no responsibility. I'm slightly torn on the situation though, as I do understand how men should have the right to abstain from parenthood, but at the same time this legitimises runaway father situations and punishes women for being the only sex capable of pregnancy. So I have to admit my mind is not made up on this specific issue.

However, the fact remains its not "different rights". The right to bodily sovereignty remains the same for men and women alike.

There are examples of underage boys being raped, or at least having sex with adult women, the adult woman getting pregnant and carrying it to term. The statutory rape victim was forced to pay child support later.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /14953965/