What right do you have?

[Starman]

Originally Posted by ketzer

What right do you have to believe what you do?
What right do you have to expect others to believe what you do?
Do those rights carry with them any responsibilities?
Does exercising those rights too freely carry any dangers?

It has nothing to do with the "right" to do something; it is not something that you need permission, or authority, to do. People impulsively want to share their philosophies. Regarless whether it is a belief or and epiphany. Regardless whether it is religious, spiritual, a scientific breakthrough, the birth of a child, or some other event a person may feel is impactful or noteworthy.

It is difficult for people to contain their passions, and everything in this world, regardless of the subject, has its pros and cons. Political issues for instance, or even nutritional issues. Telling a person that they should not eat red meat can be detrimental to cattle farmers who make a living selling red meat. People beat other people over the head with their politics and other philosophies not related to spiritual beliefs.

I feel no one has the "right" to intrude or impose their beliefs on others. Throughout history people were murdered, put to death, because they did not believe as the masses did. The main reason for this is propagation. Lots of people do not want to be alone in their beliefs so they try to get others to join them. In this world the more people you can get to believe something the more validity that thing is given.

Today people repeat the same thing over and over again, and many who hear it will start to believe it. There are so many conspiracy theories out there that millions of people believe, and are beat over the head by those conspiracy theorists. So many people in this world are looking for someone to save them, they are looking for a messiah, or a key to life, and they want others to join them in their quest; this often gives them hope. It is a human conditioning that comes from many centuries past.

Group-think, or herd mentality, is at the core of it, and yes there are dangers in this. I firmly believe that each person will know the truth by finding it for themselves. Although we all do live vicariously through each other, identifying with fictional characters in movies, or wanting to copy what they saw someone else do, etc. But we also have a responsibility to allow others to make their own choices, nonetheless, it seems most parents do impose their beliefs on their children, all through their children's life.

The same may be said of friends, acquaintances, and even strangers. The person who used to stand on a soapbox on a corner street, shouting out to the crowd their beliefs has been replaced by online discussions like we are having here. There is still pressure to conform; it is everywhere, in every society and culture. Religion and spirituality are a subculture within the greater culture. Culture is formed by tribes and clans that grow in influence and impose their beliefs on others. It is not about the right to do it, they just feel they can do it so they do.

[Rah nam]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Would cyber bullying, such as making death threats to people on line qualify as mental abuse?

Since this is a spiritual board I will look at it from a spiritual side:



There are two components to this as I see it, anything we think say or do will affect us at some point in our development as a spirit. We will have to deal with it.
The recipient on the other hand has the chance to learn from it.

Words don't have to hurt if we realize who and what we are and that, what is said is not our problem, but rather the problem of the one who brings it out.

Originally Posted by inavalan

I didn't want to clutter this thread, so I wanted to reply by private message, but you chose not to receive PMs ...
This is my intended PM:

Well, you are right about that, trying to discuss the validity of the conspiracy theory would clutter up the thread and would miss the point as well. Perhaps I have opened up one of those cans with the spring loaded worm that pops out and can't be put back in here. And here I thought I had picked a good clear example with which to illustrate, oh well. Whether one believes George Web or CNN or both are being morally irresponsible with the claims they are making is not as important as the question of whether such a moral responsibility exists, and if so, where, when, and to what degree does it apply. The point of this thread was to explore whether one places any limits on what one is willing to adopt as their beliefs. What and how much evidence do they feel they need. What sources of evidence do they trust and why. Or perhaps more directly to the point, are standards with some degree of objectivity possible for these questions at all, and if so how can one know what they are. Many of the issues explored on this forum go well beyond what is considered scientifically proven (albeit that line itself is a blurry one) and into the realms of conjecture and further out into belief without any objective basis at all.

Here on these forums, the right to believe as one wishes and espouse those beliefs without fear of ridicule is held as a condition of being a part of this society. Yes there are rules that go to decorum and not advocating violence and harm, but few would feel as free to discuss their beliefs in the general population as they do here. Yet even here, there is a moral code with regards to espousing one's beliefs, either of one's own or regarding others beliefs, but the tent is a big one.

I have never seen a fairy or a gnome dance around in my front yard. Yet I can go read posts that discuss the preferred dance style of various fairy lines if I want to. I read them and think, that sounds nice, I wish I could see that but sadly, I don’t really believe it. I feel that to simply believe claims absent some combination of personal experience or verifiable or at least credible evidence would be irresponsible and a disservice to myself. Like anyone, I have my own standards of credence.

Some warn of the dangers of fairies, but overall the threads generally don’t talk about how the fairies are telling them to harm anyone so it seems pleasant enough. On the other hand, suppose one of the common fairy thread members read something inavalan once posted and now doesn’t like you. Maybe they start a thread about how the fairies were telling them that they know through magic means that inavalan was really the devil and intends to start WW3 and somebody should do something. And they said they were not advocating violence, but if something is not done, billions could die. Then they suggested that fire can’t burn the devil so if inavalan wants to prove his innocence he should subject himself to trial by fire. And then they hacked your computer, got your identity, and posted your picture along with a picture of your house, your address, and your phone number. Even if they truly believed all of the things they were saying, would you not still hold them responsible if something happens to you or a loved one because some other extremist believed them and decided violence was called for.

Perhaps you would get a moderator and demand that this thread be shut down. What would you or anyone reading this think if the moderator said that since they have not actually harmed you yet, they are free to believe what they want and free to talk about it. Mabee the moderator could say, perhaps inavalan is the devil, maybe there should be a thread to discuss the merits of this claim? I mean look at the pile of innuendoes and nefarious connections the fairies are talking about, can inavalan explain all of those. Can inavalan prove he is not the devil, that he does not intend to start world war three, that all those magic fairies are telling a lie…. I mean why would they lie. Think about it, do magical fairies have nothing better to do then make up conspiracies against inavalan if all inavalin is is just someone on a forum? Would that make sense.

The point of course is, what responsibility do we have to either ourselves, others, or society to seek validity in our beliefs. Do we have a responsibility and to restrain ourselves from espousing those beliefs when the claims we make could lead to harm to others, and yet they are just claims we decided to believe regardless of their credibility.

Perhaps for a more stark example, Alex Jones from InfoWars peddles the idea that the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook grade school was all a big hoax put on by actors and the parents are in on it. Some of those parents, after losing their 4, 5, or 6 year old child to a metally ill individual with an arsenal of guns, now get anonymous death threats by his followers who believe they are part of a hoax and conspiracy to take away their guns. Just how much responsibility and liability does Mr. Jones have to gather evidence to back such claims before he goes on an internet tear and whipps up his base. Is it right for CNN or ABC or the BBC to put him on the air to repeat those claims regardless of whether there is anything to back them up. How does his right to believe and espouse what he wants balance with the rights of the grieving parents, or is it all fine as long as he doesn’t personally do violence to those parents?

I think it is actually a hard line to place and therefore a hard question to answer and was surprised at how quick and short some of the initial answers were.

Originally Posted by Starman

It has nothing to do with the "right" to do something; it is not something that you need permission, or authority, to do. People impulsively want to share their philosophies. Regarless whether it is a belief or and epiphany. Regardless whether it is religious, spiritual, a scientific breakthrough, the birth of a child, or some other event a person may feel is impactful or noteworthy.

It is difficult for people to contain their passions, and everything in this world, regardless of the subject, has its pros and cons. Political issues for instance, or even nutritional issues. Telling a person that they should not eat red meat can be detrimental to cattle farmers who make a living selling red meat. People beat other people over the head with their politics and other philosophies not related to spiritual beliefs.

I feel no one has the "right" to intrude or impose their beliefs on others. Throughout history people were murdered, put to death, because they did not believe as the masses did. The main reason for this is propagation. Lots of people do not want to be alone in their beliefs so they try to get others to join them. In this world the more people you can get to believe something the more validity that thing is given.

Today people repeat the same thing over and over again, and many who hear it will start to believe it. There are so many conspiracy theories out there that millions of people believe, and are beat over the head by those conspiracy theorists. So many people in this world are looking for someone to save them, they are looking for a messiah, or a key to life, and they want others to join them in their quest; this often gives them hope. It is a human conditioning that comes from many centuries past.

Group-think, or herd mentality, is at the core of it, and yes there are dangers in this. I firmly believe that each person will know the truth by finding it for themselves. Although we all do live vicariously through each other, identifying with fictional characters in movies, or wanting to copy what they saw someone else do, etc. But we also have a responsibility to allow others to make their own choices, nonetheless, it seems most parents do impose their beliefs on their children, all through their children's life.

The same may be said of friends, acquaintances, and even strangers. The person who used to stand on a soapbox on a corner street, shouting out to the crowd their beliefs has been replaced by online discussions like we are having here. There is still pressure to conform; it is everywhere, in every society and culture. Religion and spirituality are a subculture within the greater culture. Culture is formed by tribes and clans that grow in influence and impose their beliefs on others. It is not about the right to do it, they just feel they can do it so they do.

I am thinking more here about the theory of natural rights. People may argue their inalienable right to think and espouse what they want regardless of who it hurts. They don't need permission to do so, and no one has the authority to deny them, because it is all about those natural rights they feel they were born with.

Do I have the right, even if I don't have the means, to impose my belief that no one should be allowed to outlaw young women from attending school in Afghanistan? Where does that right come from? Is it an exception from the principal that no one has the "right" to intrude or impose their beliefs on others. Am I right to impose and trump their belief with mine if I feel I am sure that a great injustice is being done when that young girl's right to an education is being denied, and I have the right to right that wrong.

Our tribes (human herds) are the one of the greatest survival advantage humans have had throughout our evolution. Compared to other animals we were strong in numbers but vulnerable as individuals. Our common values and beliefs are some of the primary things that defined our tribes and held them together. Does the tribe have a need and therefore a right to impose a set of common moral values and spiritual beliefs on each for the good of all?

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well, ...

I won't probably give you a satisfactory answer, but I'll try to comment on some thoughts your post triggered in my mind while reading it.

I firmly believe that whatever happens to me is the necessary result of my own thoughts. Even when apparently I am the victim of a random act, a malicious individual, or such, I believe that at some level I caused it, I allowed it, I invited it. There may be some fears, anger, or at least indifference, stubbornness, carelessness, that allowed this situation to be initiated, and I didn't stopped it although I had opportunities to do that.

Even participating on such an anonymous forum, and occasionally being confronted by some rude individuals, it is something that I attracted, not only because I agreed to assume a risk by participating, but because I didn't make good use of my intuition to avoid or deflect the negative energies.

Surely, in practice, I abide by general physical assumptions like cause and effect, and support the idea that those responsible for willfully, carelessly, or randomly causing harm, have to be held accountable, and I'd even dispense justice with my own hand in certain situations. Generally, I'm less into punishment and more into preventing the recurrence of crime, I'm more for using punishment as an effective deterrent.

What is amazing, and quite discouraging, is that even the most abject criminals justify their actions to themselves, and that most ordinary people can look at the same piece of reality, and truly honestly believe opposite things about it.

We live times when common sense, honesty, good manners, honor, respect, self-respect, accountability, and such, are laughed at, and considered weaknesses. You can't believe what people say, you have no source of objective information, and in most cases your judgement isn't what should be either.

So what's one to do? Most people adhere to some group's beliefs, be they political, religious, or something else, and give up independent thinking. I eventually chose to turn inwards and find my answers and my guidance there. I know that I may be wrong in what I glean to be those. I know that sharing my ideas is overwhelmingly a waste of time, and expose myself to negativity.

I am always sorry for those having to suffer, especially those who appear to be innocent, including animals, and (why not) plants.

As long as we believe that we can fix reality by changing others, we won't succeed. We can only try to change our thoughts.

"What right do you have?" ... Everybody believes to be right, and believes that they know that others are not.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by ketzer

I am thinking more here about the theory of natural rights. People may argue their inalienable right to think and espouse what they want regardless of who it hurts. They don't need permission to do so, and no one has the authority to deny them, because it is all about those natural rights they feel they were born with.

Do I have the right, even if I don't have the means, to impose my belief that no one should be allowed to outlaw young women from attending school in Afghanistan? Where does that right come from? Is it an exception from the principal that no one has the "right" to intrude or impose their beliefs on others. Am I right to impose and trump their belief with mine if I feel I am sure that a great injustice is being done when that young girl's right to an education is being denied, and I have the right to right that wrong.

Our tribes (human herds) are the one of the greatest survival advantage humans have had throughout our evolution. Compared to other animals we were strong in numbers but vulnerable as individuals. Our common values and beliefs are some of the primary things that defined our tribes and held them together. Does the tribe have a need and therefore a right to impose a set of common moral values and spiritual beliefs on each for the good of all?

Well said, but the word "natural" is often used in faulty ways. What one person may think is right another person, about the same thing, may think is wrong. Free speech is limited, so are freedom of actions. The more freedom a person has the more responsibility they have, thus freedom requires constraints.

We ae not free to run amok, we are not free to do whatever we want, and society imposes restrictions in accordance to what they believe crosses the line on unacceptable things that should not be done. Like girls getting and education in Afghanistan. It comes down to the dominant values of the masses, which as you have said, leaves individuals vulnerable.

Not all cultures believe in individuality. Certain communist ideologies definitely do not accept the concept of individuality. In those instances the State is more important than the individual. Even in spiritual freedom there are parameters that supersede the individual. Religious and spiritual groups are often exposing that we embrace something larger than ourselves.

Rights, inalienable, natural, or otherwise, are often determined by the masses; which in turn may just be a matter of cultural tradition or individual conditioning. Is it my place to right what I think is wrong; in my opinion societies moves rather slowely in that regard. Most people find change difficult; the restrictions placed due to this coronavirus are a case in point. I remember causally talking with a black man back in the 1970's who had been programmed to believe that everyone needed to "stay in their place," he referred to "not rocking the boat." I found his mindset interesting. There is a book about slavery, written in 1973, titled "Our Portion of Hell." One of the lines in this book says "been down so long it seems like up to me."

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Starman

... thus freedom requires constraints.

... Certain communist ideologies definitely do not accept the concept of individuality.

...

These two assertions rub me wrong, a little. The first is an oxymoron. The second sounds too kind, and that's a dangerous mistake.

[Starman]

Inavalan, freedom requires disciple, those who show no restraint often lose their freedom. Victor Frankl, MD psychiatrist and founder of Existential psychology, was a Jewish prisoner in a WWII Nazi concentration camp when he wrote "man's search for meaning," in it he stated that with freedom comes responsibility. I fully embrace this with no reservations.

I do not see it as a oxymoron rather to me it is finding the middle ground between freedom and the constrains of self discipline, or responsibility, which is practiced in most societies by most people everyday. Once again you have isolated parts of what I said and taken it out of context. We all have our opinions and nothing can do anything to us, "rub us the wrong way," unless we allow it to.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Starman

Inavalan, freedom requires disciple, those who show no restraint often lose their freedom. Victor Frankl, MD psychiatrist and founder of Existential psychology, was a Jewish prisoner in a WWII Nazi concentration camp when he wrote "man's search for meaning," in it he stated that with freedom comes responsibility. I fully embrace this with no reservations.

I do not see it as a oxymoron rather to me it is finding the middle ground between freedom and the constrains of self discipline, or responsibility, which is practiced in most societies by most people everyday. Once again you have isolated parts of what I said and taken it out of context. We all have our opinions and nothing can do anything to us, "rub us the wrong way," unless we allow it to.

I disagree. Don't redefine words, use qualifiers! That's the way people lose their natural right to freedom, by accepting contorted arguments, and re-definitions.

freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint

It isn't that I "isolated parts". It is that you wanted to shove together ideas that are more acceptable with others that are less acceptable. The fact that you wrote "once again" shows that you are bothered by my observations, nothing else. It is typical to those that think they're unchangeably right. Then you bring emotional but irrelevant "helpers".

It is also an example of a dangerous approach: redefine terms, shove together concepts, come with a new reality. It is your right to try. It is my right to call you out on it.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Starman

The person who used to stand on a soapbox on a corner street, shouting out to the crowd their beliefs has been replaced by online discussions like we are having here. There is still pressure to conform; it is everywhere, in every society and culture. Religion and spirituality are a subculture within the greater culture. Culture is formed by tribes and clans that grow in influence and impose their beliefs on others. It is not about the right to do it, they just feel they can do it so they do.

Not too long ago I would watch a 'preacher' preach from on top of a wooden box. I would go and listen to him on a regular basis. It wasn't his message that I was interested in, nor was it he would talk till he could talk no more and another 'preacher' would replace him on top of the wooden box.

What amazed me was he preaching in a 100% Muslim community.......


By the way, I was the only one in the 'crowd'.