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: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:22:53 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PR13Q-0006o5-Dd; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:22:24 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:21:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PR12S-0006nx-QE for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:21:24 -0800 Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com ([74.125.82.181]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PR12J-0006nc-9C for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:21:24 -0800 Received: by wyf22 with SMTP id 22so4007002wyf.40 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:21:09 -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=MiFjT0NqWHhtnHLbNMdUA/yeYWYtli4PIvZpXpo/SFw=; b=ekp+Ec9YtKOsMrcBqI4kdtV9v2y73yQcGuCiQy5SbmbkMqrYZI0OVcXvj0tCWvH9J0 Prnrjb3QcTPmLpWRh+URU4wYsx5bLrGjZW9Z333X2Ci2WzBdnQSF/auznYfo4rTDlh2y 7dDNiIOMCynmWB9CQRvqI2LjcJmLQPw4irYns= 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=xgw1WnpsTvKITCrZYeDgrq5DWLKeKhIvIZZLgZT+Lwp/q56dHZYcHcrzFp/mQCOX0O TigLJLr8xvltBURHNcHbwrfVm0D6rkGPLnc6QQEv47B2iocTDKjCCfq6lMTesLe3Usus 6vPFg3vjTnaqZFd4h7gn/0NL+QExtX3teSI6M= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.1.149 with SMTP id 21mr2091744wed.10.1291980052517; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:20:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.183.197 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:20:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <810610.45148.qm@web88006.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <885332.19254.qm@web88003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <810610.45148.qm@web88006.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:20:52 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: CNSHkic8U7c-a0mUfpF0ktgOF9M Message-ID: Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: natural and human rights From: tijlan To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636499a4b1652fb04970c8cf7 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: 10073 Lines: 247 --001636499a4b1652fb04970c8cf7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 9 December 2010 14:22, A. PIEKARSKI wrote: > > >> > >>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)? > > ------------- The obvious advantage of using {terzi'e} is that it separates > the > right > > to 'do something" from the 'something' itself. However, I still don't > understand > > it being a 'condition'. I've looked through definitions of 'condition' and > I > don't see > > one that fits. What is the definition of 'condition' that you see fits > both > your > > understanding of 'right' and that contained in the definition of > {zifre}? zifre3 (condition) is that which makes zifre2 (event/state) possible for zifre1. A right is that which makes an event/state possible for someone. A right -- a condition -- may be inalienable (natural) or statutory (legal). For instance, the condition for moral rights is typically inalienable, and the condition for civil rights is typically statutory. "A natural right" means an inalienable condition (zifre3) for someone (zifre1) to do/be something (zifre2). "I have the natural right to life" (cf. UDHR art.3) can be expressed quite simply as mi zifre lo nu jmive kei lo rarna "life" (lo selzi'e) is that to which "the natural right" (lo rarterzi'e) is possessed by "I" (lo zifre). Once again, "have" seems to be an idiomatic expression of "be conditioned", perhaps due to the person-centric nature of legal discourses (i.e. the active voice is preferred to the passive voice for practicallity, exceptions being "one is entitled to ..." etc.). 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. > > > -------------------- But I think that the default meaning of {lo munje} is > generally > > understood to be our cosmos. Do we really need to worry about natural > rights in any other cosmos? > The trouble with {rarna} is that the meaning > of 'natural' seems to be close to 'spontaneous' or 'instinctive' - not > really > relevant {lo munje} is not necessarily physical. It can be any "complete and ordered entirety", including metaphysical ones such as "the universe of discourse": x1 is a universe/cosmos [complete and ordered entirety] of domain/sphere x2 defined by rules x3 The current controversial anti-gay campaign by Ugandan MP David Bahati stems from his belief that freedom of sexual orientation applies to only specific countries (i.e. specific universes of human society), rejecting the international consensus that it's a nation-independent natural right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYTziDqTWD4 In other words, he believes that the right to be homosexual (munje2) is specific to certain universes (munje1) defined by non-Ugandan (or non-biblical, as he claims) rules (munje3). Sexual orientation is scientifically known to be spontaneous rather than of an arbitrary decision. One is inherently homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual etc. not because one has decided so but because one is just instinctively so. And this is a very important basis of freedom of sexual orientation being a *natural* right. Spontaneity actually has a lot to do with non-statutory rights. Bahati (like any other anti-gay Evangelicals) argues that homosexuality is not natural, to which scientists would respond that it is natural and therefore the gay right too can be considered based on natural conditions. So, it's quite crucial that we understand the contrast between {rarna} and {munje} in this regard, the former being more accurate in denoting the underlying principles of inalienable rights. --001636499a4b1652fb04970c8cf7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 9 December 2010 14:22, A. PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:

>>
>>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 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" i= s an idiomatic
expression. So, how about "terzi'e" (te zifre)?

------------- The obvious advantage of using {terzi'e} is that it= separates the
right

to 'do something" from the 'something' itself. However, I = still don't understand

it being a 'condition'.=C2=A0 I've looked through definitions o= f 'condition' and I
don't see

one that fits.=C2=A0 What is the definition of 'condition' that you= see fits both
your

understanding of 'right' and that contained in the definition of {zifre}?

zifre3 (condition) is that which makes zifre2= (event/state) possible for zifre1. A right is that which makes an event/st= ate possible for someone. A right -- a condition -- may be inalienable (nat= ural) or statutory (legal). For instance, the condition for moral rights is= typically inalienable, and the condition for civil rights is typically sta= tutory. "A natural right" means an inalienable condition (zifre3)= for someone (zifre1) to do/be something (zifre2).

"I have the natural right to life" (cf. UDHR art.3) can be ex= pressed quite simply as

mi zifre lo nu jmive kei lo rarna

&qu= ot;life" (lo selzi'e) is that to which "the natural right&quo= t; (lo rarterzi'e) is possessed by "I" (lo zifre). Once again= , "have" seems to be an idiomatic expression of "be conditio= ned", perhaps due to the person-centric nature of legal discourses (i.= e. the active voice is preferred to the passive voice for practicallity, ex= ceptions being "one is entitled to ..." etc.).



For (1), I would use "rar" (rarna) instead of "muj". &q= uot;munje" does not
necessarily encompass the entire cosmos independent of any arbitrary framew= ork;
it can be of a specific domain (x2) and defined by a specific rule (x3), wh= ich
again contrasts with a pan-domain pan-rule natural right.


--------------------=C2=A0But I think that the default meaning of= {lo munje} is
generally

understood to be our cosmos.=C2=A0 Do we really need to worry about natural=
rights in any other cosmos?
=C2=A0 The trouble with {rarna} is that the= meaning
of 'natural' seems to be close to 'spontaneous' or 'ins= tinctive' - not really
relevant

{lo munje} is not necessarily physical. It can be = any "complete and ordered entirety", including metaphysical ones = such as "the universe of discourse":

x1 is a universe/cosm= os [complete and ordered entirety] of domain/sphere x2 defined by rules x3<= br>
The current controversial anti-gay campaign by Ugandan MP David Bahati = stems from his belief that freedom of sexual orientation applies to only sp= ecific countries (i.e. specific universes of human society), rejecting the = international consensus that it's a nation-independent natural right. http://www.youtube= .com/watch?v=3DKYTziDqTWD4
In other words, he believes that the righ= t to be homosexual (munje2) is specific to certain universes (munje1) defin= ed by non-Ugandan (or non-biblical, as he claims) rules (munje3).

Sexual orientation is scientifically known to be spontaneous rather tha= n of an arbitrary decision. One is inherently homosexual or heterosexual or= bisexual etc. not because one has decided so but because one is just insti= nctively so. And this is a very important basis of freedom of sexual orient= ation being a *natural* right. Spontaneity actually has a lot to do with no= n-statutory rights. Bahati (like any other anti-gay Evangelicals) argues th= at homosexuality is not natural, to which scientists would respond that it = is natural and therefore the gay right too can be considered based on natur= al conditions.

So, it's quite crucial that we understand the contrast between {rar= na} and {munje} in this regard, the former being more accurate in denoting = the underlying principles of inalienable rights.

--001636499a4b1652fb04970c8cf7--