"Article 32 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, to which Saudi Arabia is party, guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to impart news to others by any means, HRW said. Article 28 guarantees the rights to peaceful assembly and association."

I see this as a conflict of interest...

This cuts to the core of why it is not a matter of hate that I call religon poison. But as a statement that it is our species ignorance of our own evolutionary grouping. 

The same behavior you can see with Christians in America who want to monopolize public venues but throw a fit if other religions want to do the same thing. 

It is our evoluitionary social structures. Everyone is fine with a subordinate up and until that subordinate wants to do the same thing as the majority.

Dawkins explains this in the God Delusion, talking about an alpha male bird in a flock reacting violently to a subordinate, even if that subordinate is offering help.

Religion sets up social structures to the point of being selective about human rights. It allows our species to set up social structures but also ignores the selective nature to which it does, as per your example.

 

Religion is why they ignore this part of their constitution.

The Saudis belong to the UN there's no way they could make such laws. As it looks,  no one else should either. So much for a UN.

 

"Religion sets up social structures" contradicts with "It allows our species to setup up social structures.."

 

 

Assuming that any feature of humanity is separate, separable, or in any other way distinguishable from animal nature; is foolish. We are animals, and our nature is animal. There is no such thing as non-animal, human, nature.

to the mental/mind, not the physical. All physical is very much the same and simular. The dictionary also has a mental application for animal. We all have a "human" mental condition and an animalistic mental condition. I think---animal is derived from "animate" which means the ability to move and related to the physical. Animalistic realtes to--having a state of mind that is the same as the dog or cat for instance. It referes to---within "what" state of mind one related to others. The animal stste of mind seeks power and authority and status over others. The human mind doesn't. That makes the difference--and in this case the concern isn't of the physical. Aslon as "we" seek power, authority, and status above others as the cats and dogs do then our social problems cannot be solved, no more then the cat and dog can solve theirs. We have a special adaption called --higher intellect which gives us the ability to understand the consquences of an anamlistic mindset. If one believes that they are no different then the cats and dogs mentally we underfgo the same fate--as history shows. The cat and dog don't have the facility to figure it out. One needs to understand that we don't have any mental traits different then that of the cat and the dog--BUT---we can reason to put away the superiority complex and be different--and-- leave off seeking superiority over others.

     The present mental condition of the world is that of the cats and dogs, and this isn't a matter of the physical--it the mental that make the changes.  If we go -survival of the fittest- then there is no way to solve social problems and we remain the same as the cats and dogs. Case in point--and with no ill intent--- Aheists as well as others complain about history and all it's killings and mis-deeds, asthey are referred to. BUT, what is the proposal tosolve the problem. If there is no solution thast Atheists can put forward for analysis then what's the pouint in complaining---everyone is just doing what dogs do to cats. How does this get changed if there's no solution submitted to the masses. What good does it do to complain and go on as always. It's very simple---the masses are trapped in a state of mind as you say---we're all animals and----so what--no social problems can be solved with this idea. What you're saying is--we're stuck with what we've got----if so--then why complain about old time Christianity when you have no way to change anything. Why not just--eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. The proposition seems to be--we'll just be fussy about "how" we die. The universe doesn't care whether we live or die--we all do. So why care about it if there's nothing that can be done about it.

  Everyone has to see that there's two sides to their person--on one side is the human traits--on the other is the animal traits(state of mind). once one understands and sees that then one can make a choice. It's the "mind/person" that counts, not the body. The mind is made(evolved) with both of these sets of characteristics not just one. The problem is--the person is being seen as human with all characteristics combined. But that's not true. Each id these carateristics can be set into the huiman catagory or the animal catagory, and, when one does that they can decide which they wish to aspire to. If one thinks their an animal that all you're going top end up with becasue the empasis on life is placed in the animal catagory and---no result but samo samo. We all have "human" and animal traits and they are seperable. The reason why the world has these social problems is because people don't understand themselves. Each individual must understand when they are being human or when they are being animalistic. The human and animal are YOU. Knowing that gives you a choice. If the world is run by those who dominate and they promote that concept you're going nowhere, and that brings about the samo samo. You can't get rid of the animal mind if it's promoted as the solution to a social problem. Superiotity creates superiority, and can't solve itself, so, on with the problem. The animal mind is the one that seeks the advantage, promotes predtorism, promots superiority, and superiority is sonhow suppose to solve the problem---when it's the problem. The animal mind is the one that also seeks status and domination of others, that whole idea and process is what brings about your social problems--which are no different then a society of the Lion pride. Can a lepard change it's spots. Your society is claiming to be human while at the same time promoting animal mental concepts-------------------------------------That is an impossiblity to ever work--and that why history always ends up in the same place, the very same place it's been fo 7000 years. A leopard without spots is still a lepard--Leopards begat Leopards, and it cannot change unless the people know what to change. If there were animal only then there would be no such word as human--these two are opposites not sames.

The world you are in exists on the animal mind, and as long as it does nothing will change except next year model car, or computor, or clothes but that doesn't change society. You'll find that your society is exactly the same as the Lions, and all societies that have come before any existing today--samo samo.

What do you propose be done.

I intended to include--(to be compatable with the OP).

laws never ever solved a single social problem. The laws in one country subject the masses to the will of those who promote the problem---and create laws to protect their beliefs, preferences, or opinions. laws work mostly tio keep the operators (the few) in the position they're in and along with police and military powers maintain tier superiority over the ones they rule. Laws solidify "their" position over people. The very ones that rule are the ones being the first problem, it is they that construct the course that things are on. Their existance is the worlds first problem. People are as those who rule--and then--what is the origin of social problems. If the masses follow the rules and the world is a mess---then what is the problem. The mental problems of leaders are passed to the masses. Civil law does not make one any more hu8man then without it, as civil law only establishes the animal mind as the way of being but then has to control the degree and type of animal behaviour is acceptable. The biggest Lion in the pride is the prides biggest problem, and so with any animal society, and so it is also what is considered human society which mistakes civil as promoting humanity when in reality it'they promote controlled animal behaviour. So then, the mental condition of the rulers construct the mental condition of the masses--and---so also, is the social messes created. What's wrong (so to speak) with the rulers is also what is wrong with the people. Rulership over others is from the animal mental condition, and so then likewise will the ones forced to follow will be victims of those who lead. Laws only make the people suffer the consequences of being ruled by others instead of the self, but the rukles don't pay the consequeces of their laws as they are noramlly exempt--ior find ways to circumvent theirmown laws. History proves this to be correct. The laws in Saudi Arabia serve the same purpose as the laws anywhere else. Rulership is seated on the animal premise, not the human. From rulership comes social problems.

From one's will and drive to be better then others one also seeks to be above others. This concept creates contention and strife as all being as those that lead then create the social climate of competition and predatory practices which eventually produce the social problems we all experience. No predatory society has survived itself. The lions go on as always because they cannot reason to be what they are naturally, and wee can reason to be a predator and become worse then the lion. The Lion does not have the cognation to reason to be beyond itself and there-fore limited allowing the pride to go on without destroying the Pride. We are using cognative ability to reason beyond what the lions can and become destructive enmass to our own kind. This is why civilizations have never survived themselves as they predatored themselves into the destruction of their own society by blind reason--thinking themselves human but not being so.

Indeed. There is no such thing as human nature vs animal nature. Noone has ever shown even a simple characteristic of humanity which was not found in any other species. Humans are animals in every sense of the word.

hu·man

adjective \ˈhyü-mən, ˈyü-\

: of, relating to, or affecting people

: typical of people

: having good or bad qualities that people usually have

 

Full Definition of HUMAN

1 :  of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 2 :  consisting of humans 3 a :  having human form or attributes  b :  susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human — P. E. More> — hu·man·ness noun See human defined for English-language learners »See human defined for kids »

Examples of HUMAN

1. problems that have occurred throughout human history
2. She is a very kind and human person.
3. The dog's expression was almost human.
4. The assembly line was a human machine.
5. Everyone held hands and formed a human chain.

Origin of HUMAN

Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being — more at homageFirst Known Use: 14th century

Related to HUMAN

Synonyms

earthborn, mortal, natural

Antonyms

nonhuman

[+]more

Other Anthropology Terms

ectomorph, ethnography, prehistory, yurt See in example 2---thats a state of being--mind. see human item 3--that is also a state of being--mind.   Or--do you have your own dictionary.  

 

This is what you society depends on and it's results. This is what is considered greatness and human. This is where the worlds idea of greatness is derived from.

having or showing the nature and appetites of a lower animal <with animalistic fury the boxer tore into his opponent>

Synonyms animalistic, beastly, brutal, brute, brutish, feral, ferine, subhuman, swinishRelated Words animal, bodily, carnal, corporal, corporeal, fleshly, physical, sensual; barbaric, barbarous, cruel, heartless, inhumane, sadistic, savage, vicious, wanton; coarse, crass, crude, gross, ill-bred, lowbred, rude, uncouth, uncultivated, uncultured, unrefined, vulgar  [This is where politics originates from, and the forces you were brought up under. This is the fuel your world runs on. This is what excites and entertains the masses. Check the recent movies list]

 

 

 

 

 

So, your saying that the floks that produce the dictionaries are wrong. Do you recall from history anyone that meets the criteria below. If so--they had an animalistic state of being/mind. What is discribed below is all mental, not physical. Under universal law most everything has it's opposite. If there is human then there is animal. if there is a state of mind of one, then there is also a state of mind of the other. You're attempting to defy universal construction/law. The only thing I can think of off hand is that hot is not opposite cold. Cold is merely the absence of heat. Cold is only relative to the affects of less heet on the physical. The universe relative to itself (if that's possible) isn't hot or cold--it just is. Hot or cold has to do with us and it's measured effects on us. Bob Spence may correct this as he is more up on these matters then I. But sorry to say--there is humane and inhumane. If they did not exist there could be no label for them or discription nor use for the term. Something that does not exist cannot have a name/label/discription that can be understood. Humane and inhumane is describing something that exists and is given that name or label---so we all know what another is referring to. OK, back to law---that's why laws are made, to control ones negative (animal) behaviour in accordance with others. It can be seen that it has not gotten rid of any social problems. The Saudi family is making sure that they cannot be opposed so they can maintain their supeiorty of their ---subjects. To allow beliefs other then their may very well bring about their downfal.    adjective 1. lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like; cruel; brutal: an inhuman master. 2. not suited for human beings. 3. not human.

 

understands and gives up the will to be the Alpha Animal---problems solved. What is there to go to if everyone does so. ?? What would that be?? So, you have no solutions to your social problems-is that what I'm to understand here. OK, why all the complaining about past Christianity (we say the Euros never were Christians on the first count) they were only doing what comes naturally. If your promoting and agreeing with the "survival of the fitist" philosophy--how is that supposed to work. This is in essence what you're complaing about, and that's all the Euros were doing, the survival of the fitist. If that's not what you were proposeing ans forwarding--then what is your personal advice and solution to the world's social problems. If Atheism has no solution--then what's the point of it. We suggest giving up the Alpha animal syndrome. Can you do better? If you think it can't be done then why all the complaining about the shortcomings of and ancient people who knew nothing about living in peace. You're saying that no one else can either---so---what now. If it's never goi8ng to come about then why keep making all the laws that are supposed to creat (somehow) a better world---that hasn't happened yey, and looks like a long time coming. What do you propose. What insights do you have that can bring about this better world that the politititians keep extolling. What can you personally contribute to the cause.  

You are saying every thing I would have said... so I'll let you handle it. I don't think it is fair to have to people posting the same stuff.

Humans are animals. I can't believe Old Seer is trying to prove it isn't so. I'm speechless.
Are we sure Old Seer isn't Brian in disguise?

No. I'm stating demonstrable fact. Name anything you think to be unique human nature, and I'll show you animals doing the same thing.

It most certainly has. Or do you still piss and shit in a bucket in your bedroom, that you dump out the window when it gets full? Do you still chase prey and pick vegetables yourself, without tools more sophisticated than rocks? Do you never go to the doctor or use the internet?

The answer to all these things is no. Quality of life in society is so much better than it was 5000 years ago that cities with millions of people who, more often than not, live well into their 70's are commonplace. 5000 years ago the largest population centre would have numbered in the thousands, at most. The majority of those populations were slaves, death during childbirth was common, stillbirth was common, disease was rampant and completely misunderstood, travel beyond about 100km was exceptionally rare, communications between societies was non-existent. In every single aspect, life in society today is exponentially better for every single person on the entire planet, no matter how bad they have it, than it was 5000 years ago. All thanks to an increasing level of education.

You don't have a grasp of the actual causes for the problems of the world, and your solution defies all logic and reason. It is actually impossible, and it takes no effort on my part to see as much.

 

                                                Including those invented devices known as "gods".

The social priciples of today are no different. The cave man made an ax to 1- cut wood, 2-kill for food, 3- kill another man. If he understood and not been a predator--which one would not have taken place. It is the same today--with different weapons. Man has changed nothing since the time of the cave man except the means. The rifle does not change attitudes towards one another any more then the caveman's ax. We've improved the way to kill, but not our relations with one another. The ax did not make him a better person toward his fellow man, and the rifle has not made people today any better toward one's fellow man either. What material invention do you propose will cause us to get along with each other. Attitudes toward one another persist from cave man to us today. You are thinkling as those who believed that the machine gun would end war. Changing the priciples of our relationship with one another will end wars. Wars are not created by the masses, wars are created by those who rule. If we relate to one another as leaders do we have no solution to any social problems.

We are stuck with the problem untill the masses change it. And it is the proper infromation that they need to make those chages. Everyone to their own house and land, and mind one's own business, and seek to take no rulership over the other and their 40 acres. We're all in it for the duration. When the people see the differnce between the animal mind and the human mind will they see to change it. Competition is an animal characteristic and creates enmity and is not necessary for us to engage in to live on planet earth. It is needed for the operations of the way things are set, but not necessary in a differently mentally orientated society.  If a society of people relates to each as the cats and dogs relate to each, then you have a society of cats and dogs in a different body. We all are a matter of mind.

Since Oldseer is incapable of supplying any response to this, I will challenge this statement. I think there is little question that the anarchy in Spain and in Somalia were improvements over the governments that existed before by whatever measure you care to use. Life expectancy improved, violence decreased, education levels improved, economic conditions improved both on average and for the median etc. Granted, the societies that existed before didn't set the bar very high. It is hard to argue that anarchy is the best possible since the modern innovations we enjoy were not discovered in anarchic states and it is impossible to know whether or not they would have come about and anarchy has never been preferred by the majority- few truly anarchic systems have survived more than a few years aside from familial/clan social systems which could be argued to be anarchic in that there is no governmental structure, but remain very structured in that there is a leader (usually the father) who creates and enforces rules. But I think it can be demonstrated without a doubt that an anarchic society is not the worst possible regardless of what metric you decide to use to measure quality. 

Comparing any modern government to social structures as they existed even 10,000 years ago is absurd. The technology we have available today has dramatically changed everything about society to a point that you are comparing apples to oranges. Technology has always been a huge influence on preferred social structures, and I believe a strong argument can be made that it significantly influences what social structures are best for achieving any particular goal.  

Edit: I think it is relevant to note that "anarchic" does not mean the complete absense of social structure. Anytime you have two humans interacting or choosing not to interact you have a social structure of some type. The complete absense of social structure is impossible. Anarchy solely refers to a lack of government and government can be defined as a social structure imposed on a group of people supported by force and/or the threat of force. 

I merely used it as an example. Normally (if you've noticed) I refer to past generations as "the ancients". So you disagree, then do you have any solutions to our social problems. What do you propose. We propose to cease the the obsession to rule over each other, if not--nothing will change. Social problems are derived from the creation of enmity caused by a system of greaters and lessors. Competion is war, which eventually gets to a battlefield and weapons of destruction.

Nope--the social concepts are the same, and so also with a Pride of lions or chickens. What you are saying by holding to what you believe--there is no solution to social problems. The rudiments and sructures of all societies are the same, except one. And that's the one that rejects the values of lions, foxes and chickens. The social order of chickens is no different then what is deemed human society. If chickens have a pecking order and you society also--then ??????     

Of course it doesn't. Nothing else you can imagine will either. Domination, superiority and status seeking exist anytime two humans have any kind of relationship (indeed, anytime any two random animals meet) They are words we created to describe relationships. Our conversation here is an example of domination and superiority. Social problems exist because we have a society and will always exist as long as more than one human exists. Vastet was exactly right about that, and that should be blatantly obvious to everyone. 

 

Nor has anarchy, nor will it. The largest problem anarchic societies have faced is the reality that you need a common defense otherwise some group of peoples will take over and institute their version of governance. As soon as you have a common defense, you have a government and are no longer anarchic. 

 

There are dozens of different kinds of anarchy. The reason why I responded to Vastet is that it is clear you have little exposure to anarchic theory or the history of actual anarchies that have existed. Your ideas are simplistic, idealist and childish. An intelligent anarchist would never claim that anarchy is going to lead to an elimination of social ills.

 

Yeah, rainbows, puppy dogs and little ponies. All nice. The reality is that not all humans are going to choose to be harmless as long as you give them a choice. One of the fundamental roles of government is to attempt to control who, if anyone, can make the choice to be violent. 

The solution is to kill off your ego. No ego, no suffering.

Your idea of social concepts is warped. First on the list, you are comparing two animals fighting each other to control a herd to an elected offical who creates laws through a democratic election. While not all countries function in a democratic manner, many do. We also have revolts where people overthrow a leader because they don't like the policies or the economy. I mean, seriously, you are comparing the complexity of human politics to various animal social structures?

Also let's reverse engineer your logic.

With your logic ALL animals, ALL species function in the same social manner?

So bees operate in the same manner as lions? Octopuses? Duckbill Platypuses? If all animals function like humans then that means that ALL animals function in the same social structure?

 

I'll take your word for it. I have about as much interest in the history of Spain as I do the bible. They are remarkably similar in brutality and cruelty. Somalia I just never got around to.

I certainly won't argue that anarchistic societies are incapable of improving pre-existing conditions, under certain conditions. But I would argue that anarchy wouldn't improve anything in present-day Europe or N America. I can't think of a single system that would so thoroughly and completely destroy everything that has been accomplished in the last few hundred years. Even a brutally vicious dictator would have to have an agenda against science and progress to destroy it all, and would never succeed as quickly or thoroughly as anarchy would.

FYI, I'm referring to total anarchy here, because that's what Old Seer is referring to, so far as I can tell. A little anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing (indeed I would say a little anarchy is necessary for society to both flourish and be free), but total anarchy is impossible and indefencible. In more than one way.

 

 

   No  room  in the Inn ? 

---

---

 

   Ooo fun ..  0P

 

     SOMETHING Exclusively  On- Site ::

 > What do the Social & societal INSTITUTIONS and GOVERNANCE have to do w/ individual  adoption of human or compassionately humane minds ?

     Ooo fun

 

 

    IMHO, It does  seem likely your animal/human dialectic may well be misattributed to a scalability as large a scale as the social /societal (customs and) institutions. " Have you no compassion for a fellow human being with selfless concern FOR OTHERS and the outcasts and dispossessed ? " Is that so ? Is it really enough ? Man doesn't have a good trackrecord, afterall!!

 Practical solutions

  Well,  I guess Technology has one solution seeing socio-political systems have failed to achieve the wider systematic breaking of people over time, mankind is likely to be too selfish to do anything other than adversely harm the human race, anyway  . . 

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG5h0sP9htA {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG5h0sP9htA}  slave collar

      Those Kree, They form a hive-mind, linking each member by a telepathy-like system (View/See :: YouTube Video from the Silver Surfer comic) . .

   Edit  :: Edit  Added  one additional  Image and  it's breaking and not braking  . . opps

all the social problems would have been solved by now, not even close. You're say we're wrong when nothing through the centuries has worked. A pedator society under goes the consequences of a predatory society. The proof is all around and you're saying we're wrong when I can see what's going on here is complaint after complaint at how things are and what happened back in history at some time. . No one needs a predator society to live on planet earth--it's not necessay. There is an alternative which you refuse to comprehend. That means you want what you've got. If you want this thing don't complain about it's consequences. Your complain about the consequences but don't understand what to change. Then--you're stuck. Sorry about the broken record, but that's history ain't it. So keep going and we'll keep watching to see the results--which will be the same as always. So-predator onward and upward. Lets see if next year if any changes have taken place. There's no sucsess or faliure ging on on our part, we only give our insights, This is not an attempt to succeed at anything --you understand or you don't, it's not opur place to change another's mind--you have to do that yourself. We're not competitors or predators so there's nothing for us to win or gain. That's your world--and that's why we aren't understood easily. If you need the threat of police force to keep you from harming each other---so be it--we don't.

is a predator society. It requires taking advantage of others, especiaslly when they are in a vulnerable condition. The 2008 ecnomy meltdown was directly due to predatorism. The Wall Street prdators were let loose by congress when they repealed the Glass-Steegal act that controlled predatory practices beyound what the law allows. The intelligent predator (historically) figured out a way to get from it's prey without killing the prey so it can be fed off of another day. It's predatorism without killing. As can be seen by the  consequences of 2008 to the masses. Capitalism is a predatory process, nothing else but. You have a society of everyone being a predator and a grazer,an exact replica of the animal world. On one hand you can be a predator, on the other when someone is a predator on you you were a grazer.  The lower masses are grazers most of the time--but it's the those who are the best predators that run things--namely the elites. The predatory class now has become the government by purchase of the government officials that favor them. They have contrived an active system of bribery by government changing the meaning of bribery to campaign funding. Bribery by any process is still bribery. You've all ben conned into letting "the ruling few" decide what things are and aren't. The US of A and the rest of the world have been conned into 2 classes--the predator class and the grazer class--and you all forgot to kiss your constitution goodbye. The constituion doesn't matter anymore---money does. 2008 is the best example in history of the effects of predatorism. And--they are in the process of setting things up to do it again--with government help. And, I suspect you will disagree--they were only enacting their right of "the supeiority of the fitest". Do I have this correct.

The predator class consists of the elites in--religions---governments---Industry----finance. Who gets invited to to White House Parties---it ain't the homeless is it. Think---you've been conned. The federal reserve is the biggist Ponzy scheme on the planet.If you allow governments to change the meaning of words and things then you're the looser. You system is one of loosers and winners---someone has to loose. They have you believing everyone can be a winner. If anyone believes them that same is a sucker. There's never been a time when everyone was a winner. and there never will be. 

No they wouldn't. According to what I said, some social problems will never be solved. Some will. Some things that aren't problems will become problems. Some solutions to problems will become problems. If humanity knew everything, then your ridiculous assertion that we'd have solved everything by now if I was right would be accurate. But humanity does not know everything. Not even by half. Nor will it ever. Thus, all the problems in society will never be solved.

As we and our societies evolve, there will forever be new problems arising. It is absolutely impossible to cure all the ills of society, because even if you pull it off another problem will show up almost immediately. Society is not stagnant, it is constantly changing.

Until you understand these fundamental facts, you will continue spouting meaningless bullshit. I will ensure that said bullshit gets buried by facts until you give up spouting meaningless bullshit.

I'm still waiting on facts, not hyperbole you picked up from conspiracy theory website.