Originally posted by @fmf So? What does that have to do with me exactly?
People losing their livelihoods for disagreeing with popular opinion but having the "right" to disagree means these "rights" are largely useless as we literally by definition, can't use them without basically killing ourselves.
Originally posted by @fmf I am not confused by what you are doing. What you are doing is plain to see. You are selecting things you don't like - and which are nothing to do with me - and trying to hold me responsible for them.
I have no idea about what Indonesia means for you.
Your big mistake is that you're trying to discuss abstract things but ONLY as how they relate to Muh Life in Muh Indonesia.
Originally posted by @philokalia In a good society the right of a man to speak and to do as he pleases within reason is respected. It doesn't matter what authorities say.
The strengthened and increasing affirmed rights and freedoms that citizens now have where I live - such as the right of a man to speak and to do as he pleases within reason no matter what authorities say - are making the society better than it was under the relatively rightless and freedomless military dictatorship.
I don't believe in freedomlessness and rightlessness, I don't believe or thing along the lines of rights and freedoms as primary importance in the prosperity and direction of a society.
I think in terms of practicalities and duties.
And then, justice.
And from justice, there is propriety in how we treat others.
What we have now is no real duty, impractical thought, immorality, and unprincipled people insisting on rights.
Originally posted by @philokalia I have no idea about what Indonesia means for you.
Your big mistake is that you're trying to discuss abstract things but ONLY as how they relate to Muh Life in Muh Indonesia.
This isn't about you.
It's about the systems and their merits.
Yes, I am talking about the system of rights and freedoms and their merits in Indonesia. If you are not able to talk about reality in such a place because you want to discuss "abstract things" then perhaps you should talk to someone else. Burgeoning rights and freedoms here are as real and gritty as babies being born alive, the bodies of murdered journalists not being found in car boots, women escaping rapists husbands, they are as real and gritty as food supply and water and life and death. Witter on about "abstract things" and gay wedding cakes all you want; but don't expect me to be impressed.
Originally posted by @philokalia People losing their livelihoods for disagreeing with popular opinion but having the "right" to disagree means these "rights" are largely useless as we literally by definition, can't use them without basically killing ourselves.
It's not a right at all.
It's a liability.
That rights are not honoured somewhere or that they meant nothing in situation A or situation B is not an argument against rights. It's not really an argument of any kind. It's just a bears-poo-in-the-woods type assertion. The world is an imperfect place, so?
Originally posted by @philokalia You are literally taking am abstract discussion about rights and virtues and the likes and saying
"no, I won't go there, let's only talk about Indonesia and me and this context."
That's not how a discussion works.
I would say that the last 50 years of Indonesian history demonstrate very well indeed the validity and application in real life of rights and freedoms. As you can see, my perspective is that rights and freedoms are fundamental and existential to living and breathing real people and real dynamic and diverse non-abstract societies and, with that as my backdrop, your "abstract discussion" thing is less than compelling.
Originally posted by @philokalia What we have now is no real duty, impractical thought, immorality, and unprincipled people insisting on rights. At least, thst is how I summarize the West.
You seem to want to talk about "the West" but not about what I have to say about a different part of the world.
Originally posted by @fmf That rights are not honoured somewhere or that they meant nothing in situation A or situation B is not an argument against rights. It's not really an argument of any kind. It's just a bears-poo-in-the-woods type assertion. The world is an imperfect place, so?
...
So, it doesn't work consistently and is empty, and it doesn't actually hear out true values for the society?
Tje only real values that help people are the virtues embedded in the people..?
Originally posted by @fmf I would say that the last 50 years of Indonesian history demonstrate very well indeed the validity and application in real life of rights and freedoms. As you can see, my perspective is that rights and freedoms are fundamental and existential to living and breathing real people and real dynamic and diverse non-abstract societies and, with that as my backdrop, your "abstract discussion" thing is less than compelling.
South Korea became a good place to live because of increased prosperity and economics. After this, the murders stopped.
While the murders and repression, rights were theoretically enshrined in the government...
... And most people generally believe that we got to this point ONLY through development of our economics.
Originally posted by @philokalia Just like how the UK established its "freedom of speech" policy in 1998 with very little meaning, whatever "rights" they chooe to define for themselves become revocable and ephemeral things.
The UK eh? Mmmm. Sounds like it might be really bad. Do you think - therefore - that the citizens of Indonesia should NOT have a right to free speech and free press?
If it weren't for economic development, we would look like the Philippines.
And we would be able to enjoy Muh Democracy, then, right? Lol.
The Filipinos elected strongman Duterte because life without security and without justice for drug dealers isn't worth living even if you have Muh Rights.
15 Jun '18 08:52
Phikokalia's Virtue Oriented World
Back to Top