Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Socrates and Theresa May: a comparison Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Socrates: "I am not an Athenian or Greek, but a citizen of the world"

    May: "If you are a citizen of the world you are a citizen of nowhere"

    Sigh. :sad:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Meh. I thought you meant the Brazilian footballer. They are actually surprisingly similar.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Socrates may have been the father of western philosophy but he did come up with naive, idealistic twaddle at times.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Socrates was a fool, much of our Western timidity comes from his civilised man nonsense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If things carry on like this I think I'd rather take my chances on being a citizen of nowhere over citizen of the UK :afraid:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MemeworksStudios)
    Socrates was a fool, much of our Western timidity comes from his civilised man nonsense.
    Do you considered adhering to universal human rights to be "timid"?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Do you considered adhering to universal human rights to be "timid"?
    Yes. It's a secular religion for neo-Christian fools who can't let go of their babystories. The only objective laws are the laws of nature and mathematics.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MemeworksStudios)
    Yes. It's a secular religion for neo-Christian fools who can't let go of their babystories. The only objective laws are the laws of nature and mathematics.
    I think you'll find that certain "neo-Christians" are some of the strongest advocates against human rights. It's not a concept born from religion and its easy to turn your nose up at it in disgust until you need it.

    The so-called "laws of nature" are hardly objective.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MemeworksStudios)
    Yes. It's a secular religion for neo-Christian fools who can't let go of their babystories. The only objective laws are the laws of nature and mathematics.
    Our ideas of rights originated from early humanists

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    I think you'll find that certain "neo-Christians" are some of the strongest advocates against human rights. It's not a concept born from religion and its easy to turn your nose up at it in disgust until you need it.
    You're very wrong, progressive politics including human rights law has its roots in the Christian tradition, the idea that human life has value is rooted is not an axiomatic fact, but a sort of magical thinking which developed in Europe during the classical period. One such example is the modern concept of multiculturalism which came forward from the Christian ideal of the universal brotherhood of mankind.



    (Original post by RobML)
    Our ideas of rights originated from early humanists

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Secular humanism is an extension of Christianity. The expression of the theology is changed, but the principles are identical.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Do you considered adhering to universal human rights to be "timid"?
    Human rights are relative, not absolute and universal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    If things carry on like this I think I'd rather take my chances on being a citizen of nowhere over citizen of the UK :afraid:
    It's very easy to become a citizen of Estonia apparently - just a 5-min web form.

    Alternatively I hear that some firm in the US is planning to sell Mars citizenships.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    The so-called "laws of nature" are hardly objective.
    In practise, they are agreements. They may not be 'objective' in some absolute theistic sense, but they are sufficiently widely agreed upon for them to be considered binding.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Human rights are relative, not absolute and universal.
    They're arbitrary human constructs nothing more. It's an emperor with no clothes situation, tomorrow we could all decide that humans have a different set of rights and apparently it would be so.

    No, it's ridiculous. If we burned every writing on human rights, people would come up with a new set of beliefs regarding this issue, but it would not the same as what we currently have. We could burn every paper on quantum physics and eventually we would make the exact same discoveries, I laugh every time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think Dolores Umbridge might make a better comparison

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MemeworksStudios)
    You're very wrong, progressive politics including human rights law has its roots in the Christian tradition, the idea that human life has value is rooted is not an axiomatic fact, but a sort of magical thinking which developed in Europe during the classical period. One such example is the modern concept of multiculturalism which came forward from the Christian ideal of the universal brotherhood of mankind.
    Human rights law consists of much, much more than the right to life. Christianity hardly advocates freedom from discrimination on the basis of gender and sexuality, or the opposition of the death penalty, or the right to freedom of expression and so forth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Human rights are relative, not absolute and universal.
    Under international law they are. Certain rights are absolute, non-derogable (such the right not to be enslaved or tortured) and some are given less importance and treated as something that could be compromised.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Human rights law consists of much, much more than the right to life.
    'Twas merely an example to illustrate my point.


    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Christianity hardly advocates freedom from discrimination on the basis of gender and sexuality, or the opposition of the death penalty, or the right to freedom of expression and so forth.
    The Catholic Church has a very dark history, probably the most disgusting criminal organisation in the history of humanity, but low Protestant churches such as the Quakers, Methodists and so on certainly do. The first organisation to campaign for the abolition of slavery were the Quakers in fact.

    Opposition to the death penalty is Biblical, just look at Jesus, he could have lead a violent revolution against the Roman occupier, instead he got stripped, whipped and pinned to a cross.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    If things carry on like this I think I'd rather take my chances on being a citizen of nowhere over citizen of the UK :afraid:
    PUDDLES!
    :bumps:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    And Elizabeth l - one of the greatest monarchs ever seen - was continually promoting the concept of national pride.*
 
 
 
Poll
Is GoT overrated?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.