More crudely, will you lose your rights, if a majority of people aggress upon you? The answer is no. The robber, no matter how much people they have, comes back to rob you a thousand times. You are still in the right, Justice still on ur side.
When someone relates to a particular kind of thing as shameful, that is like a chronic tension or preoccupation for them. If they have suppressed aggression and then witness something hat they have been programmed to relate to as shameful, they will explode in contempt: “THAT politician is EVIIIIILLLL!”
Also, I have a discipline of knowledge, which I earned thru research and reading, and discussion. It is called negative rights. Do not reduced it to mere claims.
I do understand, this rights are infringed and defeated against the treat of brute force of the state.
I am an absolutist, but how to strategically and prudently get us to freedom is a totally another discussion.
One way, i think is by talking to people about what it is.
There are no virtues and good outcomes by adopting defeatist attitudes in in the face of what is dire.
I might recommend skepticism in regard to organizing one’s interactions around a narrative of “let’s all join together as victims against our common oppressor.” Maybe that is favorable at times. Maybe something else would be more favorable….
I opposed rule by majority. I Stand for nobody should rule. It is call Anarchism.
Please i am no Social justice warrior to pander for support, to overthrow power to gain my own power.
U are pre-judging me by a far margin. Please clarify with me, what do i think of something. I do not think i used words loosely. But, u seem to have another set of linguistics interpretation.
i.e. Many people can relate to the right to vote as a DUTY, like it is “wrong or shameful” to fail to exercise the right to vote. Others relate to voting with much less stress or distress, like simply as an option or opportunity.
Does it automatically means that I am intolerant to others peoples reasons and/believes?
Does it even mean that I have to imposed my set of morality on to others that might not share it?
I can follow a recipe and measure a particular amount of water to pour in to a bowl. The numerical measurement could be “half a gallon” or “eight ounces.”
Those are discrete “units.” Those are “objective.”
There are “binary” linguistic categories (dualities), but there are also spectrums.
Then, someone reads the label and says “bring me that gallon of distilled water.” They might be sincere, but they are not accurate. That is still only eight ounces. The water is still not distilled.
Is it important that she carries a sword? Perhaps….
But all we are saying, they are certain objective code all humans can agree. And it can be said to be objective. And this should be the basis of law.
Liberty is much more interesting, and more essential to get the word out.
In that same regard, all men need a code of values to guide them in their lives to pursue a specific value. What universal value is this? Once again, I invite you to hazard a guess?
It is within categories, like mammal and animal. Here is something close to a cat, but not a cat:
Further “objective reality” is symbol in language that means “everything except for language.” Language is the realm of subjectivity. No matter how hard you look for subjectivity “out there,” it is simply does not exist without some commentary being made on what is ***fundamentally non-linguistic.***