Return-path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS, T_DKIM_INVALID,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chain.digitalkingdom.org Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:07:46 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PQNU3-0000OL-R2; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:07:15 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:06:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PQNTD-0000OE-2H for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:06:23 -0800 Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PQNT3-0000NA-8Z for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:06:22 -0800 Received: by wwi18 with SMTP id 18so1292510wwi.10 for ; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:06:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=GFzkIpJ2inoO7aU+6+AdOg71Ea654S7jffKoPnShezA=; b=MNKOxLngBiVsZxlQvovDPapRESStrixn1TSL8owENvXOal1BhBE+1jBIyBfHEgEjV+ 7ujrBjtbJcvU39JXJmhtCrQI4HY4j/9wq6SBYRFZZEyZVxtatM06Kus/U5j7eFcu+xEe IK0bvb1Aw55C1pNMTPUTkQHFdhThlIG6R7cQo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=hhsVyFslnIdyeD8/PDG1uDKkfkNy4kP88fbha4aNJX8w/NyyJ9qziz5LE8RGhM/urZ 4jx1OG4y/lyHaXHlWAR2zG40cyleKhQy12uuEjGyCY6UPr7pbMHE+PxGecG8RXEkO19h BtEWo3A8by/0SfnctxhHe0JC9IBtx1aTALpv4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.167.133 with SMTP id i5mr849253wel.55.1291827966939; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:06:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.183.197 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:06:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <885332.19254.qm@web88003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <885332.19254.qm@web88003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:06:06 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Om7pd8DaJ9uNLclZnfsjcTODbic Message-ID: Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: natural and human rights From: tijlan To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016367fa6861491480496e92363 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jbotijlan@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 5372 Lines: 127 --0016367fa6861491480496e92363 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 8 December 2010 15:12, A. PIEKARSKI wrote: > coi ro do > > Please comment: > > 1) mujyselpo'e > > p2 is a natural/inalienable right possessed by p1 > > from: > p2 se ponse p1 lo munje > 2) remselpo'e > p2 is a human right possessed by p1 > > from:p2 se ponse p1 lo remna > > totus > In my opinion, a right is not so much a possessed thing as a condition for doing something. What do people usually mean by "I have the right to ..."? It's a claim that they are conditioned with a freedom to do/be a certain thing. "have" is an idiomatic expression. So, how about "terzi'e" (te zifre)? "tercru" (te curmi) might work in some cases, but with the implication that the right is granted by some agent, which contrasts with an agent-less natural right. For (1), I would use "rar" (rarna) instead of "muj". "munje" does not necessarily encompass the entire cosmos independent of any arbitrary framework; it can be of a specific domain (x2) and defined by a specific rule (x3), which again contrasts with a pan-domain pan-rule natural right. As for (2): Does "human" in a "human right" mean a physically defined biological object (remna)? Does it not have a more metaphysical ground, such as "person-hood" (prenu)? Article 1 of UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) says: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Would this exclude non-homo-sapiens beings with reason and conscience, if they existed? I think the use of the word "human" is a misnomer that doesn't accurately represent the actual ontology of the entity which the principles are meant to recognise. In fact, UDHR is hardly specific about any physical definition of "human"; there is little element that limits the endowed entity to "homo sapiens". I therefore suggest "prenu", which can potentially embrace all kinds of beings with the qualities that UDHR's thirty articles identify. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Human_rights_set_out_in_the_Declaration --0016367fa6861491480496e92363 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 8 December 2010 15:12, A. PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:
coi ro do

Please comment:

1) mujyselpo'e

p2 is a natural/inalienable right possessed by p1
=C2=A0
from:
p2 se ponse p1 lo munje=C2=A0
=C2=A0
2) remselpo'e
=C2=A0p2 is a human right possessed by p1
=C2=A0
from:p2 se ponse p1 lo remna
=C2=A0
totus

In my opinion, a right is not so much a poss= essed thing as a condition for doing something.

What do people usual= ly mean by "I have the right to ..."? It's a claim that they = are conditioned with a freedom to do/be a certain thing. "have" i= s an idiomatic expression. So, how about "terzi'e" (te zifre)= ?

"tercru" (te curmi) might work in some cases, but with the im= plication that the right is granted by some agent, which contrasts with an = agent-less natural right.

For (1), I would use "rar" (rarn= a) instead of "muj". "munje" does not necessarily encom= pass the entire cosmos independent of any arbitrary framework; it can be of= a specific domain (x2) and defined by a specific rule (x3), which again co= ntrasts with a pan-domain pan-rule natural right.

As for (2): Does "human" in a "human right" mean a = physically defined biological object (remna)? Does it not have a more metap= hysical ground, such as "person-hood" (prenu)? Article 1 of UDHR = (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) says:

=C2=A0"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rig= hts. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Would this exclude non-hom= o-sapiens beings with reason and conscience, if they existed? I think the u= se of the word "human" is a misnomer that doesn't accurately = represent the actual ontology of the entity which the principles are meant = to recognise. In fact, UDHR is hardly specific about any physical definitio= n of "human"; there is little element that limits the endowed ent= ity to "homo sapiens".

I therefore suggest "prenu", which can potentially embrace al= l kinds of beings with the qualities that UDHR's thirty articles identi= fy.

http://en.wikipedia.= org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Human_rights_set_out_in_the_= Declaration
--0016367fa6861491480496e92363--