A marginalized group does not receive human rights, they are stripped of them. The removal of your birthrights should be violently opposed as soon as possible.

  • queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    People lived in peace with other people much of the time, but we never lived in peace with nature itself. Drought, flood, fire, predators, disease, infection, and many many other natural threats to our human rights have always existed. Furthermore, natural scarcity meant that even other people could become a threat - people from a different gens/tribe could decide that it’s better if the other gens/tribe dies than if everyone eats a little less to make the food last longer. Nature was humanity’s first enemy, before we divided up into class society and started to war with each other.

    I will say “natural” is misleading, because humans are natural too. That’s why I said in order for “natural” to mean anything at all then it must be distinct from human choices. If we include humans into nature, then natural rights don’t mean anything because everything is natural including human oppression.

    • Vegan btw (LOUD)OP
      link
      11 year ago

      oppression people is an action(a thought such as making the other village the enemy put into action) while not oppressing people is nothing(natural).

      • @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Animal intelligence and its products and human intelligence and its products are fundamentally the same. If beaver dam is natural then Three Gorges Dam is also natural. Difference is only in degree of sophistication.

        • JucheBot1988
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Animal intelligence and its products and human intelligence and its products are fundamentally the same.

          This may be true from the “outside” – i.e., from the perspective of some hypothetical non-human observer – but what it doesn’t consider, I think, is the subject-object distinction so important to historical progress. Humanity experiences itself most purely as subject (intelligible) and the non-human worldmost purely as object (alien and unintelligible). Since humanity begins in bondage to external nature, the original traumatic experience is the collective discovery that subject is in fact, and from a certain view that may be considered more “correct,” also object, and this with regard to the brute, unintelligible forces of external nature. Historical progress is humanity asserting and maximizing its subjectivity by control over the external world. Thus, dialectically, a real distinction between humanity and nature develops. Nature is that which cannot be known (by humanity) as subject, and over which humanity is struggling to assert control; humanity is that which can be known as subject, which itself struggles, and which is experienced as struggling. The precise boundary between the natural and the human is discovered and created within the conflict itself.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So a bear choosing to eat me isn’t natural?

        If we say “okay, bears are natural so anything they choose to do is natural” then you have a problem because humans are natural too.

        That’s why I made the distinction between humans and nature. Everything humans do is unnatural, including when we choose to do nothing at all.

        • Vegan btw (LOUD)OP
          link
          11 year ago

          No? i don’t think with words in my head if I should oppress a certain type of people? I just naturally dont do it

        • Vegan btw (LOUD)OP
          link
          11 year ago

          We are confusing the word nature because of “human nature” and nature such as the world outside the head.

        • Vegan btw (LOUD)OP
          link
          11 year ago

          What do you mean by choosing. Thats sounds like a choice? something that can be debated in the head with words?

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Yes, anything that can be debated internally with words or even with feelings.

            The only human behavior I think that can be called natural is truly thoughtless or automatic action. Natural breathing is when you breathe without thinking about it, unnatural breathing is when you become conscious of your own breath and start thinking about it. And it really does feel unnatural! I’m sure you’re manually breathing now too, and I’m sure you’d agree it’s quite different from natural breathing.

            • Vegan btw (LOUD)OP
              link
              11 year ago

              It’s you who did this to me but that “control” came from outside my head is not powerful enough for me to oppress others. my motivation to oppress others would come from food/money

                • Vegan btw (LOUD)OP
                  link
                  11 year ago

                  what does that have to do with removing the rights of a certain type of people. What you said sounds like just one person oppressing one person

                  • queermunist she/her
                    link
                    fedilink
                    31 year ago

                    A group of people can, in fact, thoughtlessly oppress a certain type of people through their thoughtless collective action.