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 21:31:05 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PRI26-000614-7P; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:30:10 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:29:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PRI10-00060y-B3 for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:29:02 -0800 Received: from mail-qw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.216.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PRI0t-00060h-O1 for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:29:02 -0800 Received: by qwe5 with SMTP id 5so5142176qwe.40 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:28:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=6iS2gvIyFSkfSA4BQjyq/Eo2Wi7TZErDQ5XTKZHsWVw=; b=b5U7tk7d+tRHzVjJtprQrip8eDFGoScudtpmgRaXgMKDad5VYJUTgD0rB3jJSpk3iN M1PnK0jZ9GahCGzmwlJTxu0WGWivprBagDWF3YKIhr3TnjEy8nYs+v+5jsyRQZnqKheH bbjqAs0Jnt5NDRxGoMpfXYRjj8YzOdPWi4J6E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=douyFExe94aKugLVEhzb0CfUYTaN1d3Cwett9puqIbqEL2pZ2BFaMRJiDeq0ryROfi vXbtW/JNVbAg+D01pUf2FqflLzBH5RfZFfig1SeVa3NInNIDJUlr92k08TphRBU0w9vX fxY3HDzvxuLF5W5h28Fn25u5j+fJZ0WqVCIy4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.241.78 with SMTP id ld14mr1361590qcb.288.1292045329594; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:28:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.48.14 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:28:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <885332.19254.qm@web88003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <810610.45148.qm@web88006.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:28:49 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: natural and human rights From: "Aviv S." To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630f827e77b1704971bbe32 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: seraviv@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 22582 Lines: 419 --00163630f827e77b1704971bbe32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 How about this: The dictionary definition for "right" is: "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please." So the way I see it - A right is a liberty then is given to you by a specific "rule" (I first wanted to use {flalu} (law) but since it doesn't have to be a legal rule, I chose {javni} which is a more general class than {flalu}). jvazi'e: x1 has the right to do x2 by power of rule x3 in community/system x4 from: ko'a jvazi'e ko'e ko'i ko'o .ijo ko'a zifre ko'e tu'a lo javni be ko'e bei ko'o Therefore, a "right" would be a {lo se jvazi'e} BTW: what do you think of {jinzi} for inalienable. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:20 PM, tijlan wrote: > 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. > > --00163630f827e77b1704971bbe32 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
How about this:
The dictionary definition for "right" is:
"a just claim <= span style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; CURSOR: default" id=3D"hotword= " onmouseover=3D"this.style.cursor=3D'default'" onmouseout=3D"this.= style.backgroundColor=3D'transparent'" onclick=3D"this.style.backgr= oundColor=3D'#b5d5ff';return hotWord(this);" name=3D"hotword">or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: = You have a right to say what you please."
So the way I see it - A right is a lib= erty then is given to you by a specific "rule" (I first wanted to= use {flalu} (law) but since it doesn't have to be a legal rule, I chos= e {javni} which is a more general class than {flalu}).=
=A0
jvazi'e: x1 has the right to do x2= by power of rule x3 in community/system x4
=A0
from:
=A0
ko'a jvazi'e ko'e ko'i= ko'o .ijo ko'a zifre ko'e tu'a lo javni be ko'e bei ko= 'o
=A0
Therefore, a "right" would b= e a=A0{lo se jvazi'e}
=A0
BTW: what do you think of {jinzi} for = inalienable.
=A0


On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:20 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 December 2010 14:22, A. PIEKARSKI = <totus@rogers.com<= /a>> wrote:

>>
>>1) mujyselpo'e
>>
>>p2 i= s a natural/inalienable right possessed by p1
>>=A0
>>fro= m:
>>p2 se ponse p1 lo munje=A0
=A0
>2) remselpo'e >=A0p2 is a human right possessed by p1
>=A0
>from:p2 se pon= se p1 lo remna
>=A0
>totus
>

In my opinion, a righ= t is not so much a possessed thing as a condition for doing

somethin= g.

What do people usually mean by "I have the right to ..."? It&= #39;s a claim that they

are conditioned with a freedom to do/be a ce= rtain thing. "have" is an idiomatic
expression. So, how about = "terzi'e" (te zifre)?

------------- The obvious advantage of using {terzi'e} is tha= t it separates the
right

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

it bei= ng a 'condition'.=A0 I've looked through definitions of 'co= ndition' and I
don't see

one that fits.=A0 What is the definition of 'condi= tion' 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) possib= le for zifre1. A right is that which makes an event/state possible for some= one. A right -- a condition -- may be inalienable (natural) or statutory (l= egal). For instance, the condition for moral rights is typically inalienabl= e, and the condition for civil rights is typically statutory. "A natur= al 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"= ;. "munje" does not
necessarily encompass the entire cosmos in= dependent 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.


= --------------------=A0But I think that the default meaning of {lo munje} i= s
generally

understood to be our cosmos.=A0 Do we really need to = worry about natural
rights in any other cosmos?
=A0 The trouble with= {rarna} is that the meaning
of 'natural' seems to be close to &= #39;spontaneous' or 'instinctive' - not really
relevant

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

x1 is a univers= e/cosmos [complete and ordered entirety] of domain/sphere x2 defined by rul= es x3

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 beli= eves that the right to be homosexual (munje2) is specific to certain univer= ses (munje1) defined 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.


--00163630f827e77b1704971bbe32--