Human beings are really funny when it comes to 'rights'. Most people understand the concept of 'rights from' (or freedom from) meaning the right not to be attacked, enslaved, poisoned, tortured, etc.

Problems come in when people start talking about 'rights to' (or freedom to). The right to life, the right to a minimum standard of living, the right to health, the right to education, the right to a job, the right to have children, the right not to have children, just to name a few. It is amazing how many rights we have.

Question: What do I do, if my 'right' requires the co-operation and participation of a bunch of other human beings? What if they don't want to co-operate and indulge my demands for my 'rights'? Do I force them to comply with my wishes? Wouldn't it interfere with their rights not to be compelled?

Take abortion. Is it a 'right'? What if the doctor does not want to perform it? Do I have my right violated? I knew that pregnancy was a natural consequence of sex. I wanted the sex, but not the pregnancy. I wanted it both ways. Tough luck, says nature. Cause and effect link. What choices do I have? Jump up and down, be upset, cry a lot, try the coat hanger, or demand that some other human being eliminate the consequence of the actions I took voluntarily. If I find one willing to co-operate -- fine. If not, I may scream about my rights until I turn blue in the face.

But rights?

Really.

PS. Before the quibbling starts -- In the abortion example I was obviously talking about consequences of voluntary choices.

[ 06 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

Take abortion. Is it a 'right'?

---

quote:

---

.... consequences of voluntary choices.

---

This thread hoped to discuss human rights in a much broader sense than abortion. Abortion was just an example to illustrate a point. The difference between legal rights and 'inalienable' rights; the distinction between 'rights from' and 'rights to'; and the distinction between 'rights-that-do-not-require-the-help-and-co-operation-of-others' and the rights that do.

The following rant is appropriate here.

What am I?

I am a biological entity living on this planet I call Earth, circling around a star I call Sun: one of billions of stars in a Galaxy, one of billions of Galaxies in a Universe that does not care whether I live or die. My life is a genetic accident: of no concern to the vast and empty space out there. If a cosmic accident wiped out life on Earth, I would be gone together with the toads and the shell-fish.

I was born with a life-expectancy of so many years, after which I will die. Whether there is or isn't a soul that survives, as far as I can tell, my body rots away and I will be gone from the scene.

I may not even live to a ripe old age. I may die at any time, due to accident, sickness, violence. Life is survival. It is a second-to-second process without guarantees, without assurances. I may stop breathing at any moment.

The three basic facts I must be aware of are:

- Life, health and happiness can not be guaranteed.
- Accidents and death are natural consequences of life, I can not outlaw them.
- The final responsibility for my life rests with me.

My Life is my survival. I can do it well or I can do it badly. Luck, my abilities and my character has a lot to do with it, but there is nobody else to blame.

Sitting back and bitching about others may give me momentary relief, but it will not get me anywhere. I am ultimately alone and ultimately responsible. (Funny, how readily I take personal credit for my successes, while I tend to blame others for my failures. I do not hear myself say too often: "I screwed up real bad this time")
Whatever meaning I may find in my existence is up to me, individually. No matter what I do, eventually I will finish my life-span, however short or long it will prove to be, and then I will die.

If I lived for a hundred years, I will have lived for 36,500 days. Every day is a repetition of the basic cycle: The sun comes up, I wake, I eat, I forage for food (in the forest or in the supermarket), I do whatever I can to improve my environment and find distractions; then I sleep. I repeat these daily activities 36,500 times with whatever variations I may find, and then I die. This is a basic truth that nothing will ever change, no matter what I do.

If I managed to remember this simple fact of existence, so many of my problems would go away; so many things would become unimportant and irrelevant. I would be happier if, instead of waiting for others to deliver on my 'rights', I took responsibility and took charge of my existence, as individual biological entities must if they want to survive.

There is no fundamental difference between the existence of a human being and the existence of, say, a cheetah. Both I and the cheetah were born, cared for by our parents until grown, after which we both have to fend for ourselves. The cheetah repeats the same cycle of days: waking, hunting, eating, mating, eliminating, lazing around and sleeping, just as I do. The main difference is that the cheetah does not blame anybody if he goes hungry. He tries harder the next day. He does not depend on the other cheetahs to provide for him; he knows it is his job.

My life is my property. I am ultimately and finally responsible for it. I am alone to face it, just as I will be alone to face death when it comes. Locked inside my own mind, I am as alone as it is possible to be. Beyond a certain point nobody can follow me, nobody can participate, nobody can understand.

In the room where I am writing this, where nobody can see or hear me, I look in the mirror and face the truth: I am ultimately alone when I make my decisions, and I am ultimately alone when I face the consequences. Just like the cheetah or the elephant or the baboon. It is up to me to live my life. I can do a good job or I can be a loser. Lucky circumstances do make a difference, but beyond the uncontrollable random events in my environment, it is my survival skills that will determine the quality and length of my survival.

I was a Physics student when I last sat down to figure out the meaning of life. My approach was scientific. 'Before I attempt to answer a question' - I told myself - 'first I must determine what the question means'. What do I ask by: "what is the meaning of my life?" What do I mean by 'meaning'?

I decided that asking for meaning has one common purpose: to determine the object's role and function in one's own life. I still remember the emotional intensity of the discovery thirty-seven years ago as I was writing it down with big block letters: "1966 March 16. Today I found the meaning of my life: it is life itself, to be lived in peace, harmony, love and happiness".

I was an egotist and individualist like most of my compatriots.

It took me a while to become aware of social and political issues. In Hungary where I grew up, they weren't allowed to exist. There was an official version of 'truth' and if you wanted to be promoted or at least left alone, you paid lip-service to it: spouting the propaganda was looked upon with favor by the rulers of that world.

If you wanted to lose your job, be beaten up by the police or go to prison then you could question and fight the official line, and some well known and some nameless heroes did exactly that.

Ordinary citizens were just minding their own business in the existing System, not supporting it but not fighting it either. Everybody knew that the party-line (the only party allowed) was pure propaganda, so we acted as if no political or social question could possibly exist.

So most of us growing up there became strong individualists, depending on our own wits to make a living, calling for help on close friends when required. Nobody organized anything beyond the next 'get-together' or vacation. Organizing anything outside the framework given by the authorities was tantamount to treason.

When I 'relocated' to the West, I couldn't help noticing a different atmosphere. Organized labor was particularly militant in Canada at the time and I have to confess: I was very negative, even contemptuous of it for many years.

For me, it was proof of weakness to flock to a 'herd' for protection, instead of going ahead and looking after my interests, my own way. Instead of realizing that I lived in a much more tolerant society that did allow dissent (called democracy) I continued relying on the same survival skills that I had developed in the dictatorship I came from.

It took me many years to understand Democracy. When I did, I became a convert and started to approve of organized resistance to social injustice. I realized that there was such a thing as 'community'. A human being is a lot more than a jungle animal: hunting and being hunted. We live in tribes and if a group of the tribe gangs up on the rest, the rest has a right to organize their defence.

Now I disapprove of those who have never become aware of their social environment, those who have only one compass - their own interest and pleasure - and charge ahead to satisfy these without regard to how it effects others around them. Usually I call them selfish bastards. At long last, I am socially aware and approve of ‘community interest’ and ‘community action’.

However, I never disowned my previous convictions on self reliance and independence. I am convinced that life goes on on two different planes: the individual and the social. Both are true and valid, both have their rules that can not be neglected except at my own peril.

On one hand, now I understand that, in a functioning Democracy, citizens have all kinds of 'rights' they can reasonably expect from their society as their 'due' from the social contract. If they have fulfilled their obligations, they have benefits owed to them. The old balance between 'rights' and 'responsibilities'.

On the other hand, everybody is familiar with the chronic whiners who hate to do anything on their own, who incessantly demand their 'rights' and never shut up about their needs and wants and miseries. Those who seldom make an effort, who say "yes I know but..." to everything you suggest they could do, those who refuse to take responsibility for their own existence. Those who become dependant, complacent and demanding. They feel that they have a right to guarantees, the right not to have accidents.

It is amazing how many rights they have.

The right to life, the right to a minimum standard of living, the right to health, the right to education, the right to a job, the right to have children, the right to be protected from violence, just to name a few.

When they say they have rights, they mean that other people owe it to them; other people are responsible for their existence and well-being.

I would like to send these losers, to live for a few years, in a place where they have no rights at all and do not have anything beyond what they can scrape out by their own effort. They would learn the lesson that every one of us who grew up in a totalitarian world had to acquire at a very early age if he wanted to survive.

Whether one is demanding a legitimate 'right' or whining for 'goodies' like a spoilt child, existence has one aspect that goes beyond all social considerations. No matter how socially aware we become over the years, how much we care about our community, this aspect stays the ultimate truth from birth to grave for every living organism. No one is exempt from it, humans like amoebas, have to face it. I call it the 'loneliness of existence'.

This is the most important truth I have learned over the years. I have to start with it if I want to understand the world I live in.

[ 07 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

It is normal that people fall back on individualism and mere survival strategies after a major historical defeat. And before that period Hungary had lived under a semi-fascist regime and then outright Nazi rule.

I have many friends from Chile and Argentina, some of whom attempted to return to live in their countries after the fall of the military dictatorships there. They found a changed society, grown inwards, people had internalised the habits of dictatorship, hushed conversation, the knock on the door.

The fall of the Soviet bloc often led to societies that were democratic in name only, in many cases run by brutal mafias, and all social protection cast aside as the new bosses could identify it with authoritarian "socialism". I'm not particularly familiar with the situation in Hungary, unfortunately.

When it comes to ‘natural rights’ or ‘inalienable rights’ then the concept is undefined and open to interpretation. If we want to analyze this version of the concept, it usually boils down to ‘very strong expectation’ most people are born with.

Some of it is cultural and it is possible to kill out this expectation from people. An Egyptian peasant, born into a peasant family, found it natural that he was a peasant and the Pharaoh had divine rights to rule over his entire existence.

However, if you dump a whole lot of babies on a desert island and let them grow up without prejudice, they will assume certain rights: equality of opportunity, freedom from compulsion, keeping promises, possession of property earned, etc., etc.

These expectations are those we normally refer to when we talk about ‘human rights’.

quote:

---

they will assume certain rights:

---

quote:

---

However, if you dump a whole lot of babies on a desert island and let them grow up without prejudice, they will assume certain rights: equality of opportunity, freedom from compulsion, keeping promises, possession of property earned, etc., etc.

---

Speaking of universal human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also the product of a particular society at a particular point in history. The UN Charter which lays out what human rights are universal is the product of the horrors of World War II, as is most of the human rights legislation of the 20th century.

It is interesting to note that the country which holds itself as the true guardian of planetary human rights, the United States, has refused to sign and ratify most of the human rights legislation introduced in the past 50 odd years. This is because their culture of individualism holds the rights of personal and state sovereignty to be supreme over human rights. Except in the case of Iraq, Grenada, Haiti, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Panama, Columbia, Guatemala, or any other sovereign state it has an economic or political interest in controlling.

Oh, the hyprocrisy.

quote:

---

Human beings don't have an instinctive sense of what individual or collective rights are

---

quote:

---

The main difference is that the cheetah does not blame anybody if he goes hungry. He tries harder the next day. He does not depend on the other cheetahs to provide for him; he knows it is his job.

---

Cheetahs DO depend on each other for sustenance, in a wide variety of ways. A lone cheetah is invariably a soon-to-be-dead cheetah. Your concept of "jungle law" is hopelessly at odds with the reality. Baboons, cheetahs, humans, we are all of us highly social creatures, deeply dependant on each other for our survival. Left to our own individual devices, we all rapidly wither and die.

As this makes quite plain...

quote:

---

However, if you dump a whole lot of babies on a desert island and let them grow up without prejudice, they will...

---

quote:

---

There have been experiments and anthropological research in this direction. I will dig some of them out.

---

quote:

---

Cheetahs DO depend on each other for sustenance, in a wide variety of ways.

---

True perhaps, but NONE of these ways will include any one cheetah or group of cheetahs expecting.. nay, demanding, that the other cheetahs do all the hunting while they relax under the shade tree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
I doubt you can show me a study where human infants were abandoned on an island. I'm pretty sure it's illegal.

---

PS. Damn, I just forgot the decision I had made in my last post!

[ 07 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

True perhaps, but NONE of these ways will include any one cheetah or group of cheetahs expecting.. nay, demanding, that the other cheetahs do all the hunting while they relax under the shade tree.

---

That is precisely what male lions do. They occasionally rouse themselves from under the shady tree to fight amongst each other for reproductive dominance and otherwise demand that the females to do the "lion's share" of the hunting. Cheetahs are a bit more gender equal, I believe, but there are definitely different roles assigned to different members, it is nowhere near as simple as "I hunted yesterday, you do the hunting today."

quote:

---

Assuming that some segments of society are a drain on the rest of us "providers" leads down a very dangerous road.

---

quote:

---

I'm just noting that in any society, every segment, even the least "productive", contributes in some way.

---

Hehe. I guess vandals do make work for painters and glaziers, and without abusive husbands a whole support industry would have to find new jobs, and of course drunk drivers give our emergency medical staff something purposeful to do...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

and without abusive husbands a whole support industry would have to find new jobs

---

quote:

---

How can I assume that the many crackheads who love to smoke some rock outside my window are involved in any reciprocity? How are they doing anything but take?

---

quote:

---

Don't be snide, Magoo!

---

I wasn't trying to be snide. But like Wing Nut points out above, I'm sure that drug counsellors, like abuse counsellors, would be happy to find a new job & suggesting that Crackhead Jack is doing anything other than being a drain is kind of an inverted interpretation of "contributing".

quote:

---

problems could be solved but the solution is not in the interests of those holding the pursestrings!

---

In the case of cancer, most citizens are stuck with whatever treatments medical science does or does not provide. In the case of drug addiction, we don't need a doctor to intervene on our behalf - we can say no all on our own. Smoking crack or injecting heroin, then saying "I'm an addict - support me" is like smashing your own knees with a hammer and saying "now I'm an invalid - you have to carry me around!"

quote:

---

But like Wing Nut points out above, I'm sure that drug counsellors, like abuse counsellors, would be happy to find a new job & suggesting that Crackhead Jack is doing anything other than being a drain is kind of an inverted interpretation of "contributing".

---

That's as may be, but successfully label a person or a group of people a "drain," and the next logical step is to stop that drain -- cut him/her/them off from any societal support, on the basis that they made their bed(s) and can lie in them.

A step or two more, and what you end up espousing is an atomized society of utterly unconnected individuals -- otherwise known as a war of all against all.

[ 07 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

In the case of drug addiction, we don't need a doctor to intervene on our behalf - we can say no all on our own. Smoking crack or injecting heroin, then saying "I'm an addict - support me" is like smashing your own knees with a hammer and saying "now I'm an invalid - you have to carry me around!"

---

If we value universal access to health services as a fundamental human right, as we in fact do in Canada, then it must truly be universal. Regardless of whether that person has cancer, schizophrenia, a congenital heart defect, HIV/AIDS, or a crippling addiction.

Group mentality at its best. Is it completely out of the question to treat laws (or rights) as guidelines and use intelligence when applying them? Yes I know, open to abuse. But who says there is hope for humanity? (even though I am still contemplating it).

[ 07 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

Every OTHER crack addict is a sub-human deviant and should therefore be starved to death. Or better yet, gassed.

---

Who's asking for death here? This only came up in the process of asserting that not everybody contributes. He doesn't. So where do his "entitlements" come from then?

As for your friend, I have no quarrel with the fact that he uses a drug - that's his choice - but it's also his responsibility. If he can pay for it, and if he's willing to pay whatever price may be levied in terms of his health or longevity, then I really don't care, but if he decides that now his choice to use a drug is a disease that renders him unable to support himself, and so therefore I must, then I may take issue with him.

quote:

---

Crackhead Jack. How delightful. A cardboard cut-out boogeyman.

---

quote:

---

the many crackheads who love to smoke some rock outside my window

---

quote:

---

It’s like saying that the speed limit is 100km/h on the 401 regardless of the road condition, traffic, age and experience of the driver, the condition of his car,…

---

How do I know he can't afford his addiction? Because not only do I see all the crack smokers in the alley out back, I see them go right back around to the front to panhandle. Recently they've been coming in to the entrance between our front doors, either to agressively panhandle tenants on their way in, or to sit and smoke crack.

Yes, I have read Linda McQuaig’s “The Wealthy Banker’s Wife” and know all her arguments. And I am familiar with the “slippery slope” argument, too. As I mentioned before, I am aware of the danger of abuse, if we make our legal system more complicated. It is abused now, as it is.

Too many people use the word 'rights' without clearly identifying which kind they are talking about."

There's one guy from my old neighbourhood who was once the bassist for a mildly sucessful American late-80s prog-rock band. Now he's a homeless heroin addict. When he started on his road to addiction, he could easily afford the drugs, now he's lost everything. He contributed to at least one record that I own and enjoyed very much, and to the bank accounts of a whole bevy of music industry types. When he dies, he will be counted as a net contributor, more so than many of us ever are. In fact, at the end of most every human life, there comes a realization that each of us contributes something of value over our lifetime, even if it is merely to serve as a terrible example, as the saying goes. The fact that the guys getting off in your alleyway aren't contributing to YOUR standard of living is really immaterial.

quote:

---

Mr. Magoo appears to be quite the Maoist.

---

Hehe. I doubt it, although I bet I'd look dashing in one of those hats.

And in the end I'm finding myself agreeing with Francis: clearly there are some rights, like the right to free thought or the right to the pursuit of happiness, which take nothing from others and then there are so-called rights which by necessity do.

The only way someone can have a "right" to a minimum guaranteed income without having to work for it is if someone else does. If someone else has a right to (some of) the money I earn by working, then how come I don't have a right to all of it? After all, I've worked for it and they've done nothing.

What if they demand my money and then go out and buy a television with it? What if they spend it on pornography? You may argue that they have a right to be fed (and I wouldn't disagree), but how do they have a "right" to these things? Why should my kids have less so that someone I've never even met can enjoy life's luxuries?

quote:

---

If someone else has a right to (some of) the money I earn by working, then how come I don't have a right to all of it? After all, I've worked for it and they've done nothing.

---

Mr Magoo, a specific question, although I'm not sure I know how to express it quite. But something like this:

Do you think there is some absolute correspondence between the work that you do and the money that you get paid for it? That is (maybe), are you worth what you get paid, or is the work worth your doing it, and how do you know?

In what sense is the money you get paid for your work yours?

quote:

---

Do you think there is some absolute correspondence between the work that you do and the money that you get paid for it?
That is (maybe), are you worth what you get paid, or is the work worth your doing it, and how do you know?

---

Good question. I know I make a slightly inflated income because as a Uni employee I'm unionized. My job is highly ranked within the union (grade 13 on a 2-15 scale) because it's a techie job, and many people don't really care to work in front of (or inside of) a computer. Finally, I make extra money by teaching in the evenings. I'm not sure how to put a price on knowledge, but I'm told my Uni doesn't pay evening instructors all that well (though I'm not complaining).

I do know that I don't earn my money by selling people luxury items, by tricking anyone, by exploiting others financially, or through any dishonesty... so I sleep ok at night!

quote:

---

Or we'll argue, anyway, that we should be able to.

---

That's sweet of you!

However, I am still disgusted by greedy bastards who can walk by a hungry child, even if the parents are lazy, no-good bums who just don’t care (don’t argue ronb, you know that there are some). There are many victims of social injustice and the right thing to do is to help them as much as we can, regardless of their legal rights to it.

[ 07 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
psst, Francis, In your "reality", cheetahs are bold individualists who hunt alone, so spare me the lecture. There's a good fellow.

---

about Cheetahs

quote:

---

To paraphrase the old question: what happens when an inviolable, unshakable human right collides with an unbreakable, inalienable human right?

---

As a human social concept, rights are written into legal systems. (Or recited, in societies that can't write, or carved in stone, or pressed into clay tablets.) Rights vary considerably form one society to another, even where both societies exist in the same historical period. They vary considerably in a single society, from one time period to another. The rights that one administration writes down, the next can just as easily cross out.
Human rights are nothing more nor less than a set of decisions people make about how they can live together without fighting all the time. Which people are given what rights is largely a matter of the prevaling belief-system - that is, the values held by the current ruling elite - and of the society's economic circumstances. No legal system can be maintained without the support of the majority - or at least a substantial and well armed minority - of the ruled. The laws have to include insurance against popular uprising: must contain some rights for peasants, merchants, artisans... even for the indigent and unproductive, because criminals are a great deal more expensive than beggars.

In any case, regardless of the theoretical issue of natural/universal/inalienable human rights, the main issue I tried to raise in this thread was covered in the first post: the issue of rights versus responsibilities and the question of ‘rights’ that depend on other human beings delivering something they had not contracted for. I think we have to tread very carefully here because one person’s enforced ‘right’ may become the trampling of another person’s right to be left alone in peace.

I know someone in Hungary who was sued for paternity (not me) and when he moved abroad, another suit was successfully brought against his father for support of the baby. Now, his father had lived an honourable life, living up to all his responsibility all his life and quite ashamed of his sons conduct. In my view it was major injustice that he was penalized for something he had had no control over and what he deeply deplored. The deciding argument was the baby’s right for support. It seemed that they grabbed the first person they could pin it on, regardless of his rights.

quote:

---

I still think the predominant is nature – nurture is built on top of it, not the other way around.

---

quote:

---

Animals will often help one another - because they want to, because they feel compassion, because they want the others to like them, because mutual aid is good for the group -

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
On the other hand, everybody is familiar with the chronic whiners who hate to do anything on their own, who incessantly demand their 'rights' and never shut up about their needs and wants and miseries. Those who seldom make an effort, who say "yes I know but..." to everything you suggest they could do, those who refuse to take responsibility for their own existence. Those who become dependant, complacent and demanding. They feel that they have a right to guarantees, the right not to have accidents.

It is amazing how many rights they have.

The right to life, the right to a minimum standard of living, the right to health, the right to education, the right to a job, the right to have children, the right to be protected from violence, just to name a few.

---

These rights you've laid out - some of them are in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which I wholeheartedly endorse, utopian though that document may be - for example the basic right to one's life, the right to a basic level of income commensurate with a decent standard of living, the right to gainful employment, and the right to be safe from crime, war and fear.

So does that make me a "whiner", a person who "demands that others carry him"?

Does that make all the brave men and women who built that document in the heady days of the mid-1940s "whiners", because they believed that governments had the power and the duty to do more for their citizenry than just define negative rights and play a passive enforcer and observer?

They could easily have just lithographed (BTW, is that the old term for what we now would term a photocopy?) the US constitution after changing some of the words, and calling that a UNDHR - and as you and I well know, the US Constitution is a restricted subset of what goes into the UNDHR.

[ 07 May 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

Looking back it seems to be somewhat obscure phraseology on your part that could be interpreted one of two ways.

[ 07 May 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

They want jobs, health, decent living, children, abortions -- all on a silver platter.

---

[ 07 May 2003: Message edited by: verbatim ]

PS. And it is entirely possible that whiners don't seek counseling.

[ 08 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

In our current system, the participation legally allowed is far more than just voting.

---

1./ Blame it all on the system
2./ Blame it all on the victim

quote:

---

Many recognize it and act as real citizens, living up to their civic responsibilities, because they recognize that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand

---

I know so many people who, given some encouragement, became involved in a community group, became activists, and it not only changed their lives, but they in turn changed the lives of others. That's grassroots organizing, and it's very effective. How come a bunch of nutjobs like the Reform/Canadian Alliance Party became the official opposition in Canada? Grassroots organizing. The NDP needs to do more of it to effectively rebuild the party.

Most people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they really can make a difference. They need to be educated and encouraged. Passion and commitment are infectious, and if you present enough of it to enough people, you get otherwise apathetic people participating in a process that develops and protects their own rights and the rights of others.

It solves nothing to simply sit back and whine about the whiners.

[ 08 May 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

Another species, found in similar habitats to the lion, the cheetah, also show a form of limited sociability. The female cheetah lives a solitary lifestyle, intent only on rearing and protecting her offspring. The male on the other hand is often found in small groups, comprising most commonly of two or three brothers, who maintain specific territories, protecting them against lone males or other groups. Known also as a Coalition, the group of males are more likely to be successful in hunting collectively and in defending much larger and often, more long standing territories.

---

quote:

---

If you want to live in a world free from the spectacle of human misery, go sit under a Bodhi Tree for a few years and solve it for us. Otherwise, close your window if it upsets you that much. You live right downtown during an era when the afflicted and the mentally ill have been unceremoniously dumped onto the streets of Toronto in record numbers. Whining about the consequences is just that, whining.

---

I live in very similar circumstances to Mr. Magoo, Ron, and I would vouch for that fact that acceptable behaviour in my neighbourhood has dramatically fallen off in the last 3 years. Since you noted that you moved, and didn't state where, I cannot assume you were aware of that.

But I don't think its whining to now be worried about some incredibly drunk or high person screaming and grabbing at my wife and baby on the street out side our building. That never used to happen. Or the thugs who hang out at the MacDonalds at the corner. Or the crackhead woman who blocks our buildings entranceway and politly asks for change. Of course when you refuse a stream of profanity and flailing arms greets you.

And I know I choose to live here Ron, I know about the consequences. I don't call the cops or complain to the landlord. But it is a lot worse then ever before. To suggest its us just whining is more than a little patronizing. "Close your window", nice frigging sentiment. How about the one about the crackhead who climbed up our fire escape and started banging on our window at 3am, asking for change? Or the guy, drunk out of his mind, who dropped his pants and shit on the street at 2:00 in the afternoon.

Who are we to complain though? We should just put up with it right? Why would we expect anything more, because hey, we live downtown.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Mammals tend to herd. Even the big predators. Some don't. Most do.

---

quote:

---

I live in very similar circumstances to Mr. Magoo

---

I'm thinking maybe very similar. We have a McDonalds on the corner (only for the last 2 years), we have the same (relatively polite) woman asking for change (with a broken leg?), and I distinctly remember the guy banging on the fire escape until police came.

Any chance you live near Henry's? Any chance you live in my building? Maybe even right across the hall?

It would be a really weird coincidence I must admit.

It reminds me of "of all the websites, in all of cyberspace..."

And Ron, while I'm sure all of us are cognizant of the cutbacks and the toll they've taken, you must admit that the physical manifestation of them (ie a crackhead verbally abusing you) is not a pleasent thing.

While dealing with them might strike you as "pathetically ineffective", well, I really don't have much chance to explain to them that, while I can sympathize with their plight, I don't need them doing what they're doing that instant. Actually I wish they were only sleeping in the doorway.

However, what it ends up doing is very harmful. It is called denial of reality. And plans, strategies, goals based on a flawed perception of reality can be counterproductive. It is like building on quicksand.

Yes, I know there are extremes in both direction: hyperbole, exaggeration, sensationalism, which is equally harmful. However, there is no substitute to rationality, finding out what things really are and naming them by their proper names. Find out the facts, get empirical data if possible, put things in perspective and then deal with this ‘as objective as possible’ reality by rational, intelligent strategy.

As I said before: people who are supposed to be on the same side (and mostly are in most important issues) do more harm to their own cause by bickering, infighting, quibbling, insulting, ego-tripping.

Suggestion: let’s forget about our precious egos and concentrate on the topic at hand. Cut out personal attacks, if nothing else, this should make audra happy.

PS. As Tommy Paine so eloquently said on the "Political correctness on Babble" thread:

quote:

---

In the mean time, I've resolved that we should be patient like Sagan to our brothers and sisters in arms, but to our opponents we should reserve the blunt words of James Randi.

---

[ 08 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

He does not depend on the other cheetahs to provide for him; he knows it is his job...

---

and...

quote:

---

Both I and the cheetah were born, cared for by our parents until grown, after which we both have to fend for ourselves..

---

…which are both quite false.

There is evidence that Neanderthals and early sapiens sapiens supported disabled members of their clans into ripe old age that directly refutes this concept of humanity’s inherent selfish hostility to the weak. We are a cooperative species, deeply interdependant on each other for our mutual survival. This is arguably our greatest competitive advantage over other species, we are magnificent at it. That there are competition and conflicts between individuals in the group is inevitable, but these are never allowed to threaten the survival of the entire group. The fact that we have subsequently codified this trait into our cultures is hardly surprising, it is a reflection of our deeply ingrained survival strategy.

This misconception that, like the noble big cats, humans do not regularly rely on each other for sustenance and companionship and protection and a whole host of other essentials then seemingly leads you to believe that there is no “natural” basis for the concept of rights beyond those which do not encroach on any other individual’s needs. I disagree. I consider your assertion that individual humans are in a perpetual natural state of competition to be groundless and quite ridiculous. Competition between groups for resources and reproductive success? Of course. A constant struggle with the uncaring void? Entertaining, but a diversion.

quote:

---

FM: It took me many years to understand Democracy. When I did, I became a convert and started to approve of organized resistance to social injustice. I realized that there was such a thing as 'community'. A human being is a lot more than a jungle animal: hunting and being hunted. We live in tribes and if a group of the tribe gangs up on the rest, the rest has a right to organize their defence.

Now I disapprove of those who have never become aware of their social environment, those who have only one compass - their own interest and pleasure - and charge ahead to satisfy these without regard to how it effects others around them. Usually I call them selfish bastards. At long last, I am socially aware and approve of ‘community interest’ and ‘community action’.

However, I never disowned my previous convictions on self reliance and independence. I am convinced that life goes on on two different planes: the individual and the social. Both are true and valid, both have their rules that can not be neglected except at my own peril.

---

Does it mean the other level doesn't exist? Of course not. I tried to express my very strong belief in it. However, pretending that the individual and lonely level does not exist is nothing but denying reality. And, as I have said many times, nothing good comes out of that practice.

On the other hand, if we face that part of reality, then we may learn to be more self reliant and take responsibility for our own existence.

PS. Damn, you made me say the exact same thing a second time, even though I said I wouldn't. If only you bothered to read it when I said it the first time, time and energy could have been saved all around.

[ 08 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

or whine about the whiners about the whiners. You made an intelligent post Rebecca, did you have to ruin it? Your insinuation is both nasty and completely unfounded. Sit back? What on Earth makes you say that? Probably sounds good to you. Sad, really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy Shanks:
And Ron, while I'm sure all of us are cognizant of the cutbacks and the toll they've taken, you must admit that the physical manifestation of them (ie a crackhead verbally abusing you) is not a pleasent thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
responsible for only ourselves

---

[ 08 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

On the other hand, if we face that part of reality, then we may learn to be more self reliant and take responsibility for our own existence.

---

I have a reason for pursuing this. The insinuation is so contrary to everything I believe in, and everything I ever said on Babble, that I really would like to know where it comes from.

What you quoted last (and I did say): "learn to be more self reliant and take responsibility for our own existence." means exactly what it says. There is no only said or implied. It means to assume not only our rights but also our responsibilities. It means that I did not apply for unemployment insurance, even when eligible, as long as I had other alternatives. It means paying our own bills, unless we are unable to do so. It means thinking and planning ahead, so we won't become a burden to our fellow human beings due to our own negligence or worse. It means lots of things. But it does not mean that "We are responsible for only ourselves".

To prove how wrong you are, I suggest you read my first post in the What does the word 'Honour' mean to you thread (I was posting as Zatamon then). These concepts: rights, responsibilities, honour, ethics, etc are all related. I tried to arrange them in a consistent, logical sequence there.

[ 08 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

Zatamon! Dude! Nice to see you. I was wondering what happened to you. I still think back on your manifesto from time to time.

[ 08 May 2003: Message edited by: ronb ]

Nice to see you too, ronb -- which manifesto?

[ 08 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

What was gonna follow? Perhaps a snide remark over the assumption I had voted for the Tories, hence, in your opinion, my hard-hearted, selfish attitude?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Zatamon! Dude! Nice to see you. I was wondering what happened to you. I still think back on your manifesto from time to time.

---

Announcing "Saugeen Peace Mongers" thread. I guess you missed it at the time. I made sure my new profile was exactly the same and I assumed everyone would recognise my 'style' by now.

I guess I am not the only arrogant and overbearing bastard on Babble.

[ 08 May 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy Shanks:
NDP, Michael Prue, who did you vote for?

What was gonna follow? Perhaps a snide remark over the assumption I had voted for the Tories, hence, in your opinion, my hard-hearted, selfish attitude?

Surprised?

---

Hey, there's working-class union members who vote Canadian Alliance.

There's always people who vote the strangest ways, considering their attitudes.

But yes, if you had voted Tory I was going to say, them that makes their beds sleeps in it.

quote:

---

I guess I am not the only arrogant and overbearing bastard on Babble

---