Dec 17 2011: After looking at the comments, I realized a few things that we havnt touched on.
As a culture, we tend to give credit to those that work towards a specific position. People that go to school and graduate are given jobs over those whom havnt - regardless if the graduate is more capable of the job. It is viewed as though the graduate deserves it more. A person that has been at a company longer than someone else, deserves the promotion over the person with less exp within the company - regardless if they can do the job better. These kind of examples can be found throughout society.
The thing about it is, kids pick up on these type of things as they opperate within the society and they start thinking in these terms, yet most of the time, I would bet that they cant make logical sense of it. Is it logical? I think its more humanitarian to run things this way, but not the best way to opperate a society thats focused on results. Is this good for their creativity? How can we make kids and adults truly feel that they are capable of coming up with great ideas when our society opperates within this model of thinking? Perhaps, in order to make kids more creative, the adults are the ones that need to change. Just some food for thought.
Dec 16 2011: Often i think it has alot to do with how kids explain things. They often will explain things from a very basic view, concentrating on core principles of a subject.
Unfortunately, when people explain things in this way, we tend to disregard said person's opinion, assuming this person doesnt have enough knowledge in a subject to take all variables into account and make an informed decision. Same goes for age - for obvious reasons.
The thing about it is, it must be true much more often that not, otherwise we wouldn't think that way. I don't think it can be reversed. Though, I think if people were taught the following things, and/or given the opportunity to learn the following statement for themselves, we would become aware of our stereotypes and become more receptive to others.
1. People should come to a very clear understanding that, the more people you have in a collective pool to give input on a subject, being the average education level is random, the more likely you are to finding a good idea.
2. We should do studies, or perhaps someone can do a TED Talk, demonstrating how knowledge can very destructive to common sense. Or how common sense is sometimes a more efficient way to look at things as opposed to a scientific one - see 3.
3. Demonstrate that when you look at the simple core principles of things, you can build larger models in your head, and view thier associations with eachother. Looking at the bigger picture of things..
4. Children should have mentors helping them conceptualize things they are thinking into words. Also, how about providing some kind of public service, helping kids explain their ideas fully. Perhaps even extending off of their ideas before presenting their ideas to the scientific community. We could teach them how to do professional presentaions for their own TED talks.
Dec 16 2011: First off, I completely understand your frustration, but I must add that - I am not following your logic. Are you saying that the church is impeding on your personal rights because you have the right to be married by any church of your choosing?
Firstly, you must not overlook a few key points. I will repeat what i said above in a different manner. The freedom of religion encompasses protection from outside forces manipulating it. Religion in it's pure essence is a set of ethical standards. Thus, by forcing a specific religion to change its ethical standards, you are forcefully manipulating the religion. Like I mentioned above, the freedom of religion, which includes practicing, only applies as long as the religion is not impeding on the personal rights of others (which sounds similar to what you were claiming above, with the - "My rights should not be reliant on the benevolence of religious groups..." comment).
As far as gay rights, you would do far more good for the cause if you argued: do homosexual couples have the right be be married? If they do, you can then argue that the state should provide a way for them to marry if no churches will. If thats not already the case.
Dec 16 2011: My comment was not directed at your country or your situation - what ever that might be.
Anyway, are you proposing that no good deed can be done out of pure love for another? If not, why do you assume that Gandhi and Cyrus created the human rights charter as a means to an end (their own happiness) as opposed to love?
By forcing a church to comply with a social norm, you are forcefully altering the religion itself. Here in the U.S, as long as the religion and its practices are not impeding on the personal rights of other individuals, you cannot "force" them to do anything. Freedom and stuff.
Dec 16 2011: You said - ""Right is not givable.It is takable." or no one gives your right- you should get it.so everyone has the right which he/her fought for it before."
Here in the United States, we equate that to a lawless Wild West, with cowboys and whatnot, heard of it? This sets the stage for serious abuse. And in all honesty, to put it roughly, when you consider how govts create and/or support their own religions (ethical standards), as a means to an end, they are influencing "human rights" - regardless.......
Dec 16 2011: In regards to universal human rights, if they are being conceptualized through our moral framework and not so much our culture specific ethical systems, I guess that would make them universal enough to be considered universal. However, "human rights" can embody alot of different ideas that various cultures won't agree on, i.e: democracy, freedom of speech, etc. Also, cultures have different aspects about them that influence our views, i.e: some cultures reflect a strong presence of personal accountability and are less inclined to feel bad for ppl who put themselves in bad situations. So i guess, as far as universality, I say it depends on the actual "human rights" subject and details surrounding it.
TEDCred score: +1.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Why aren't kids (+ young adults) given more credit?
As a culture, we tend to give credit to those that work towards a specific position. People that go to school and graduate are given jobs over those whom havnt - regardless if the graduate is more capable of the job. It is viewed as though the graduate deserves it more. A person that has been at a company longer than someone else, deserves the promotion over the person with less exp within the company - regardless if they can do the job better. These kind of examples can be found throughout society.
The thing about it is, kids pick up on these type of things as they opperate within the society and they start thinking in these terms, yet most of the time, I would bet that they cant make logical sense of it. Is it logical? I think its more humanitarian to run things this way, but not the best way to opperate a society thats focused on results. Is this good for their creativity? How can we make kids and adults truly feel that they are capable of coming up with great ideas when our society opperates within this model of thinking? Perhaps, in order to make kids more creative, the adults are the ones that need to change. Just some food for thought.
A comment on Conversation: Why aren't kids (+ young adults) given more credit?
Unfortunately, when people explain things in this way, we tend to disregard said person's opinion, assuming this person doesnt have enough knowledge in a subject to take all variables into account and make an informed decision. Same goes for age - for obvious reasons.
The thing about it is, it must be true much more often that not, otherwise we wouldn't think that way. I don't think it can be reversed. Though, I think if people were taught the following things, and/or given the opportunity to learn the following statement for themselves, we would become aware of our stereotypes and become more receptive to others.
1. People should come to a very clear understanding that, the more people you have in a collective pool to give input on a subject, being the average education level is random, the more likely you are to finding a good idea.
2. We should do studies, or perhaps someone can do a TED Talk, demonstrating how knowledge can very destructive to common sense. Or how common sense is sometimes a more efficient way to look at things as opposed to a scientific one - see 3.
3. Demonstrate that when you look at the simple core principles of things, you can build larger models in your head, and view thier associations with eachother. Looking at the bigger picture of things..
4. Children should have mentors helping them conceptualize things they are thinking into words. Also, how about providing some kind of public service, helping kids explain their ideas fully. Perhaps even extending off of their ideas before presenting their ideas to the scientific community. We could teach them how to do professional presentaions for their own TED talks.
A reply on Conversation: If/when same-sex marriage is legalised, should ALL religious bodies be required by law to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies?
Firstly, you must not overlook a few key points. I will repeat what i said above in a different manner. The freedom of religion encompasses protection from outside forces manipulating it. Religion in it's pure essence is a set of ethical standards. Thus, by forcing a specific religion to change its ethical standards, you are forcefully manipulating the religion. Like I mentioned above, the freedom of religion, which includes practicing, only applies as long as the religion is not impeding on the personal rights of others (which sounds similar to what you were claiming above, with the - "My rights should not be reliant on the benevolence of religious groups..." comment).
As far as gay rights, you would do far more good for the cause if you argued: do homosexual couples have the right be be married? If they do, you can then argue that the state should provide a way for them to marry if no churches will. If thats not already the case.
A reply on Conversation: What are human rights? How do we decide and are they universal?
Anyway, are you proposing that no good deed can be done out of pure love for another? If not, why do you assume that Gandhi and Cyrus created the human rights charter as a means to an end (their own happiness) as opposed to love?
The author sounds to me like a moral Nihilist.
A comment on Conversation: If you could trade lives for 24 hours; who would you trade with? Why?
I have a few people in mind: maybe Warren Buffet or a Rothschild. A Rockefeller would be ok too.
Why?
So I can find out how they plan on bringing in the United Earth Alliance. O.o
Might pick up a few investing tips as well....
A comment on Conversation: If/when same-sex marriage is legalised, should ALL religious bodies be required by law to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies?
By forcing a church to comply with a social norm, you are forcefully altering the religion itself. Here in the U.S, as long as the religion and its practices are not impeding on the personal rights of other individuals, you cannot "force" them to do anything. Freedom and stuff.
A reply on Conversation: What are human rights? How do we decide and are they universal?
Here in the United States, we equate that to a lawless Wild West, with cowboys and whatnot, heard of it? This sets the stage for serious abuse. And in all honesty, to put it roughly, when you consider how govts create and/or support their own religions (ethical standards), as a means to an end, they are influencing "human rights" - regardless.......
A reply on Conversation: What are human rights? How do we decide and are they universal?
Perhaps you meant to use the word moral instead?
A comment on Conversation: What are human rights? How do we decide and are they universal?
A comment on Talk: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: Flow, the secret to happiness