It has long been known to me, that this world, or at least the western world, spends too much time teaching our children about 'Their rights'.
I would like to think, that if the emphasis was taken off 'rights', and pointed more toward 'responsibilities', the world could do nothing else, but, become a far better place.
ie, I may not have the right to spank my child nowdays, but I still have the responsibility. (Just so they don't end up like YOU).
Now don't get me wrong here, it's not the child's fault, the world has come to this, just an example. Lawyers teach their clients that they are the victim too much.............. I even have friends that play the victim of their own lives! (Makes it easier for me to succeed, without them attacking life, the way it is supposed to be done).
Who would dare dissagree?😛
Mick.
I would like to think, that if the emphasis was taken off 'rights', and pointed more toward 'responsibilities', the world could do nothing else, but, become a far better place.
ie, I may not have the right to spank my child nowdays, but I still have the responsibility. (Just so they don't end up like YOU).
Now don't get me wrong here, it's not the child's fault, the world has come to this, just an example. Lawyers teach their clients that they are the victim too much.............. I even have friends that play the victim of their own lives! (Makes it easier for me to succeed, without them attacking life, the way it is supposed to be done).
Who would dare dissagree?😛
Mick.
Curious, coming from an Australian, where we have few true rights anyway.
Don't get me wrong, responsibilities are equally important, but here in Australia we could stand to have more people stand up for some rights.
The right to freedom of speech and expression, for instance, could use some help here...mercifully, it's looking increasingly likely that the mandatory internet filter plans will fall through.
And with that, I'll leave the topic alone, before I cross the line into politics....
Don't get me wrong, responsibilities are equally important, but here in Australia we could stand to have more people stand up for some rights.
The right to freedom of speech and expression, for instance, could use some help here...mercifully, it's looking increasingly likely that the mandatory internet filter plans will fall through.
And with that, I'll leave the topic alone, before I cross the line into politics....
I was reading a magazine where these worlds are used:Responsibility and Rights . The writer says that there's one thing that has to be given to children : the sense of responsibility and the sense of playing, and they go together ,hand in hand. Not giving the sense of responsibility (ability to respond?🙄) and they'll grow without character ,not aiming to do great things. And without a smiley attitude they'll become disfunctional ,probably unhappy. Where big values and playfulness meet , a birth of a non sacrificial responsibility and a non superficial game happens .(sorry for my traslation..)
A responsibility that is more than a staid duty , more than a rock ,and a game that is a lot more than amusement ,more than a feather.
Let's grow them like this and we'll have children that will do seriously any game ,and will play with the great responsibilities .-With this combination ,Stay hungry,stay foolish,Steve jobs had built the Apple empire and
bla bla bla.
Actually, I'm looking at a far bigger picture, if everyone exercised responsibilitiy on the internet in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue.
So you see, responsibility first, rights, should then become a distant last.(naturally).
As an Australian, you have more rights than plenty, but that could all change, if the law makers have their way. Also as an Australian, you have big responsibilities, look after that side of it, and your remaining rights, will last a little longer.
It is becoming the 'Australian way', that, if there is no law in place, it can't be wrong.
If I could bring myself to think like that, we may all be in danger, I shall execise responsibility here, and save us all the hassle, Just because, that is what 'I' believe, to be right.........and it's my right.🙂
So you see, responsibility first, rights, should then become a distant last.(naturally).
As an Australian, you have more rights than plenty, but that could all change, if the law makers have their way. Also as an Australian, you have big responsibilities, look after that side of it, and your remaining rights, will last a little longer.
It is becoming the 'Australian way', that, if there is no law in place, it can't be wrong.
If I could bring myself to think like that, we may all be in danger, I shall execise responsibility here, and save us all the hassle, Just because, that is what 'I' believe, to be right.........and it's my right.🙂
Picowallspeaker,
Thats the right way I feel. Rights are nothing without responsibility, for a start.
Without responsibility, rights cannot possibly exist, but, responsibility can exist forever without rights. No brainer really, no politics here, just uncommon sense!
Thats the right way I feel. Rights are nothing without responsibility, for a start.
Without responsibility, rights cannot possibly exist, but, responsibility can exist forever without rights. No brainer really, no politics here, just uncommon sense!
Most people just want to be able to do whatever they feel like doing with no care for the consequences. Anything that curbs their disregard for social correctness, morals and legal issues they claim is an infringement of their rights. I say "Hurrah!" for opression. "Hurrah!" for Imperial Yoke.
Agreed.
'hurrah'. For kicking irrresponsible, self righteous, gits, in the shin........REAL hard.
'hurrah'. For kicking irrresponsible, self righteous, gits, in the shin........REAL hard.
Last edited:
On the other hand ... I was reading yesterday about different attitudes between England and Italy,of the opportunity to get rid of the sons as soon as possible (E) and to let them stay home the more as possible (I).If the first ones are going to face life stiff upper lips,the latter are becoming big babies. I'm among them !!!
Ciao
Ciao
Clearly not a problem suffered by all countries. Some people, have as much right to food, as that sparrow you hit this morning in your car on the way to wall street. Then you complain? Strange.
I would say that we all have the responsibility to protect our rights, and to understand that our rights are limited when they infringe upon the rights of others.
Peace,
Dave
Peace,
Dave
On "responsibility" preserving "rights":
Take the example of DRM on content - when I purchase a piece of content, I contend that implies two rights:
1) To experience that content for an indefinite duration, regardless of the physical form that content exists in
2) To transfer the above right to another person, ie. to sell the content
That implies responsibilities on my part, being:
1) That I will not make that content publicly available, whether by intention or carelessness
2) That I will destroy any and all additional copies of the content in my possession upon transferring my right to experience it.
The music and film industries disagree with me - they would argue that I have neither rights 1 nor 2 (which, in turn, rules out the necessity for responsibility 2), but that the most important facet is Responsibility 1.
And so we see the introduction of DRM - technology which eliminates right 2 in order to enforce Responsibility 1. In the process, it also severely impedes Right 1: because the content is tied permanently to one medium, it can't be effectively preserved in the event of disaster, accident or technological change. (I would also argue that if, ultimately, we are purchasing "licenses" to experience content, I shouldn't have to repurchase said content when technological change makes a superior version available - ie. I really shouldn't have had to repurchase my Pink Floyd albums. But that's another argument - for now, I'd just like to have a right, for my digital content, equivalent to being able to record an LP to a PC for transfer to a CD)
My point is that rights and responsibilities come in a balanced package, and BOTH need to be observed.
Take the example of DRM on content - when I purchase a piece of content, I contend that implies two rights:
1) To experience that content for an indefinite duration, regardless of the physical form that content exists in
2) To transfer the above right to another person, ie. to sell the content
That implies responsibilities on my part, being:
1) That I will not make that content publicly available, whether by intention or carelessness
2) That I will destroy any and all additional copies of the content in my possession upon transferring my right to experience it.
The music and film industries disagree with me - they would argue that I have neither rights 1 nor 2 (which, in turn, rules out the necessity for responsibility 2), but that the most important facet is Responsibility 1.
And so we see the introduction of DRM - technology which eliminates right 2 in order to enforce Responsibility 1. In the process, it also severely impedes Right 1: because the content is tied permanently to one medium, it can't be effectively preserved in the event of disaster, accident or technological change. (I would also argue that if, ultimately, we are purchasing "licenses" to experience content, I shouldn't have to repurchase said content when technological change makes a superior version available - ie. I really shouldn't have had to repurchase my Pink Floyd albums. But that's another argument - for now, I'd just like to have a right, for my digital content, equivalent to being able to record an LP to a PC for transfer to a CD)
My point is that rights and responsibilities come in a balanced package, and BOTH need to be observed.
Last edited:
That's a puchased right, and is to be expected, as such.
I'm pointing out that, responsibility, should be taught to our children, and well understood, before rights. That way, they take there (IMHO) natural order.
BOTH need to be observed, is agreed, I'm not so sure about exactly equal measure.
I'm pointing out that, responsibility, should be taught to our children, and well understood, before rights. That way, they take there (IMHO) natural order.
BOTH need to be observed, is agreed, I'm not so sure about exactly equal measure.
Last edited:
Who's right?
Interesting observation by one Marcello Pera and a fellow named Ratzinger - right is observed by determining where the emigres go. This was in a correspondence between the two of them put into "Without Roots". Required reading.
Phillip Morris, the detested tobacco company put an ad in the WSJ a few years ago which stated a simple moral observation -- even Aquinas would marvel at the logic:
"What would happen if everybody did it?"
Interesting observation by one Marcello Pera and a fellow named Ratzinger - right is observed by determining where the emigres go. This was in a correspondence between the two of them put into "Without Roots". Required reading.
Phillip Morris, the detested tobacco company put an ad in the WSJ a few years ago which stated a simple moral observation -- even Aquinas would marvel at the logic:
"What would happen if everybody did it?"
People don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their decisions any more. This mentality is fine, but just don't call yourself 'free' because you are not. The 'entitlement society' that the western cultures are falling into cannot be free because it is in contradiction to the definition. To lawyers everyone is the victim just like to cops everyone is the suspect. It comes with the trade. But the way to break free is to implement reasonable common sense in all aspects of life. Unfortunately too many people's minds have been corrupted and blinded to sensible common thought.
Thus we have to have so many frivolous laws against such stupid behavior. To me, the problem arises when for example, someone decides to take drugs or eat junk food their whole life is overweight or unhealthy because of it, yet I will now have to pay for it within the 'system'. Take away the responsibility of someone for their own body and what you get is a lot of unhealthy people. The future I see of America.......
If they had to pay for the medical bills themselves for that behavior, perhaps it would change their minds.
........perhaps.
Thus we have to have so many frivolous laws against such stupid behavior. To me, the problem arises when for example, someone decides to take drugs or eat junk food their whole life is overweight or unhealthy because of it, yet I will now have to pay for it within the 'system'. Take away the responsibility of someone for their own body and what you get is a lot of unhealthy people. The future I see of America....... If they had to pay for the medical bills themselves for that behavior, perhaps it would change their minds.
........perhaps.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.