h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"You said that science doesn't explain anything, it just describes things. That is true I guess, but bringing gods and stuff into it doesn't explain anything either, does it? All it says is "you can explain these things with this (insert something that you can't explain, therefore leaving the things you just said you explained not, as it were, explained either) it just adds a layer of abstraction and therefore simply raises more questions."

Very true that adding something unexplainable doesn't help explain things, but does the goal have to be to explain things? Mind you, I think that is a noble goal, but just a bit impossible. But I do think it makes sense to find it most reasonable that there is one force behind all physics, rather that a conglomeration of random seeming equations. Like an equation-giver kind of deal.

"Actually, Iluvatar seems to be saying that he's sickened by the idea that democratically agreed on laws should be binding on everybody. ie by democracy itself."

Exactly

>>Does the goal have to be to explain things.<<

Explaining things has given us, the non stick frying pan, the computer, antibiotics and vaccines, fridge-freezers, alternating current, flash-drives, synthetic fibres ad super-glue.

To name just a few. Where has being satisfied with mystery and and the awe of ignorance ever improved our lot by a single iota?


>>But I do think it makes sense to find it most reasonable that there is one force behind all physics, rather that a conglomeration of random seeming equations. <<
It's an instinct shared by most physicists (as physcis does seem to be at an impass with the quantum/relativity/standard model sysnthesis. Next chapter will be written at CERN in Switzerland. Watch this space. Physics suffers unlike say biology or chemistry which each underwent their defining over-arching theoretical framework in the previous century. (In biology - evolution, in chemistry - atomic theory) Physics and Cosmology are hampered by beign more fundamental - so it bound to take longer be more difficult. the L.H.C is the latest tool in trying to push back the barriers of our ignorance. Still think explaining things is a bad idea. Let's press on....

>>Like an equation-giver kind of deal.<<
Or a fine-tuning argument perhaps? Mmmm not an original idea. Then we shall truly know the face of god, so said Hawkings in A Brief history of Time, endlessly quote -mined.

Why suppose there has to be something to 'give' or 'tune' or otherwise provide a nice neat and tidily packaged answer, why approach this mystery with that conclusion already forming in the recesses of your frontal lobes?

>exactly<

Oh dear.

I predict a riot.

First off, why should children have all these rights that adults don't have? This treaty, if ratified by the US, would make these supposed "rights" enforceable by the government.

1 All children have the right to what follows, no matter what their race, colour sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, or where they were born or who they were born to.

So far so good. I don't know who would call a child of different race or gender not a child, but whatever.

2 You have the special right to grow up and to develop physically and spiritually in a healthy and normal way, free and with dignity.

Problem with this. Why does the government get to decide what is normal? This is the parents' job, as long as they are not endangering their child. Healthy is also kind of gray. What constitutes healthy?

3 You have a right to a name and to be a member of a country.

This one is absolutely ridiculous. Sure its nice to have a name. I think its up to the parents though. Eventually the kid and his/her freinds will figure something out.

4 You have a right to special care and protection and to good food, housing and medical services.

I think protecting children under the law does need to be slightly more strict than protecting adults. But if a parent and his kid have no housing, what can be done? There is a fine line between doing all one can for ones child and ignoring the child. It is a judicial problem though, I think. And what do you do with a child without housing? Hopefully people stop wasting money and learn to do more with donations.

5 You have the right to special care if handicapped in any way.

Again, very vague. No government has the right to determine what special care I must buy for my neighbors child.

6 You have the right to love and understanding, preferably from parents and family, but from the government where these cannot help.

F*** this one. This right here is the biggie. Giving power to the government to do pretty much whatever it can define as "understanding".

7 You have the right to go to school for free, to play, and to have an equal chance to develop yourself and to learn to be responsible and useful.

No, no you don't. Schooling costs money. Ever heard the saying, there is no such thing as a free lunch? Well school doesn't come free either. It's a lot closer to free if you don't have a huge disfunctional system doing it though...


Your parents have special responsibilities for your education and guidance.

Why yes they do! We got something right!

8 You have the right always to be among the first to get help.

Why does the government get to decide who is more important again? I though all men (people) were created equal?

9 You have the right to be protected against cruel acts or exploitation, e.g. you shall not be obliged to do work which hinders your development both physically and mentally.
You should not work before a minimum age and never when that would hinder your health, and your moral and physical development.

Again, don't tell me my kid isn't ready to work just because all the immature public school products aren't yet.

10 You should be taught peace, understanding, tolerance and friendship among all people.

Of course you should. As long as the government stays the hell out.

Clive, I almost chose not to reply, because you obviously are not paying any attention to what I am saying but rather what you imagine some classic religious crazy would say.

">>Does the goal have to be to explain things.<<

Explaining things has given us, the non stick frying pan, the computer, antibiotics and vaccines, fridge-freezers, alternating current, flash-drives, synthetic fibres ad super-glue."

If you read all the posts, and even just my post, you would know that I and others agree that physics describes - not explains. Precise descriptions have given us all these things. descriptions of what?

"Where has being satisfied with mystery and and the awe of ignorance ever improved our lot by a single iota?"

hmm,other than in books and at the movies, not much. Your point is? I am certainly not one to be satisfied by these things. It is actually quite comical imagining that if you know me in person.

">>But I do think it makes sense to find it most reasonable that there is one force behind all physics, rather that a conglomeration of random seeming equations. <<
It's an instinct shared by most physicists (as physcis does seem to be at an impass with the quantum/relativity/standard model sysnthesis."

Exactly. We agree so far.

Next chapter will be written at CERN in Switzerland. Watch this space. Physics suffers unlike say biology or chemistry which each underwent their defining over-arching theoretical framework in the previous century. (In biology - evolution, in chemistry - atomic theory) Physics and Cosmology are hampered by beign more fundamental - so it bound to take longer be more difficult. the L.H.C is the latest tool in trying to push back the barriers of our ignorance. Still think explaining things is a bad idea. Let's press on....

The collider is quite exciting, but as I keep saying, it can only help us describe things. A very interesting study indeed. I am not saying god DOES explain things, but rather that things are by nature unexplainable.

">>Like an equation-giver kind of deal.<<
Or a fine-tuning argument perhaps? Mmmm not an original idea. Then we shall truly know the face of god, so said Hawkings in A Brief history of Time, endlessly quote -mined.

Why suppose there has to be something to 'give' or 'tune' or otherwise provide a nice neat and tidily packaged answer, why approach this mystery with that conclusion already forming in the recesses of your frontal lobes?"

Either the physics we may one day fully describe (we won't, as I believe it is impossible), has some source, or it is all a self perpetuating illusion. The latter is quite plausible, actually, but I still think an illusion must have a source.

Ooh, politics: something I can *really* sink my teeth into for a change.

>>First off, why should children have all these rights that adults don't have?<<

Because children (and the elderly to some degree) are more vulnerable to a whole raft of negative things than an adult is. An adult who is in an abusive relationship with a partner can, at the end of the day, walk away. A child can't do that.

Children are far more likely to be victims of poverty than adults are, and than poverty is likely to have a disproportionate effect. A child who can't afford to eat properly is more likely to become seriously ill than an adult who can't eat properly.

Kids are at a significant legal disadvantage to adults: they can't work, they can't claim benefits, they don't have freedom of movement or of assembly, they have few rights of legal representation and, depending on age and specific jurisdiction, their evidence in court might not count as a full adults would.

Children aren't fully developed and one of the most crushing things you can do to a child is deprive them of a proper education, it's one of the few things that is more or less guaranteed to mess a person up during their most productive years - their 20s and early 30s. I'm proud that the UK now recognises failure to formally educate a child as child abuse.

Children should have special rights because they are especially vulnerable: they need protections that adults do not.

>>1 All children have the right to what follows, no matter what their race, colour sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, or where they were born or who they were born to.

So far so good. I don't know who would call a child of different race or gender not a child, but whatever.<<

Quite a lot of people, given the chance: Israelis and Palestinians, Arab Sudanese and Darfuris, Pashto Afghans and Hazaras, Sinhalese and Tamils, Burmese and Karen, Joseph Fritzl and his off-spring, the KKK or Nation of Islam against, well, everyone who isn't them.

Point one is the sine qua non (without which, nothing) of the treaty. There are a significant group of people who would claim that, if this wasn't specifically enunciated to refer to *all* children, that the children of their enemy is exempt for some reason.

>>2 You have the special right to grow up and to develop physically and spiritually in a healthy and normal way, free and with dignity.

Why does the government get to decide what is normal? This is the parents' job<<

Who elects the government? Parents (mostly, though in the UK at least single people are more likely to vote than couples). Democracy means that government reflects the morality and values of the governed: that's its purpose.

And the government gets to decide what is normal all the time: it decides normal speed limits and acceptable levels of additives in food and drink. It decides what constitutes normal behaviour and criminal behaviour, what time it is, what currencies are worth and what is allowed on TV.

>>3 You have a right to a name and to be a member of a country.

This one is absolutely ridiculous. Sure its nice to have a name. I think its up to the parents though. Eventually the kid and his/her friends will figure something out.<<

I disagree. I think it's essential to have a name. The things we don't name are objects, are possessions. They aren't human. You mention friends - what if the kid isn't allowed to have friends, isn't allowed to interact with other human beings? It might sound rare, but it does happen.

>>4 You have a right to special care and protection and to good food, housing and medical services.

I think protecting children under the law does need to be slightly more strict than protecting adults. But if a parent and his kid have no housing, what can be done? There is a fine line between doing all one can for ones child and ignoring the child. It is a judicial problem though, I think. And what do you do with a child without housing? Hopefully people stop wasting money and learn to do more with donations.<<

I'm sorry, but you've really lost me here. I'm glad you accept kids need extra protection but you posit questions and make assertions out of nowhere: what can be done about homeless kids? Socialised housing - the state has a bank of property for this express purpose - that's a pretty simple idea.

Relying on the generosity of people is an idea that's doomed to failure and it's totally unjust - some people take on a much higher burden and others get a free ride? A wealthy society benefits all- why should only some have to pay for it? And what happens if not enough people are generous?

>>5 You have the right to special care if handicapped in any way.

Again, very vague. No government has the right to determine what special care I must buy for my neighbours child.<<

For a start, it's not vague: governments have very clear guidelines on what they consider to be a handicap and what constitutes special care.

And no-one is saying that you've got to pay for your neighbours kids stuff, in general the government pays for the special care. Unless you're talking about taxes, in which case you're fighting a battle that was lost, long, long ago.

>>6 You have the right to love and understanding, preferably from parents and family, but from the government where these cannot help.

F*** this one. This right here is the biggie. Giving power to the government to do pretty much whatever it can define as "understanding".<<

I'll go back to what I said in point 2: in a democracy, government reflects the mores of the governed and if you want to change things, get involved, get active. If you still can't convince people that yours is the best morality then I'm afraid you're on the wrong side of history. Continue to try, but you might have to accept you are in a minority.

>>7 You have the right to go to school for free, to play, and to have an equal chance to develop yourself and to learn to be responsible and useful.

No, no you don't. Schooling costs money. Ever heard the saying, there is no such thing as a free lunch? Well school doesn't come free either. It's a lot closer to free if you don't have a huge disfunctional system doing it though...<<

National defence doesn't come cheap - do you pay for that above and beyond your taxes? How about the road, rail and telecommunications networks? How about policing and fire services?

>>8 You have the right always to be among the first to get help.

Why does the government get to decide who is more important again? I though all men (people) were created equal?<<

I think this is as close to a fundamental human rule of society as you are ever going to find: children do deserve special protection because they're the ones who'll carry on the species.

Children aren't men - you wouldn't call a 9 year old a man, you'd call him a boy. Distinctions like that exist for a reason.

Plus in your answer to point 4 you've already said you accept that kids are worthy of especial protection over adults.

>>9 You have the right to be protected against cruel acts or exploitation, e.g. you shall not be obliged to do work which hinders your development both physically and mentally.
You should not work before a minimum age and never when that would hinder your health, and your moral and physical development.

Again, don't tell me my kid isn't ready to work just because all the immature public school products aren't yet.<<

Note that the UN doesn't say what that age should be - it leaves that up to the governments of the member states (as it does with the prior definitions of 'healthy' and 'normal'): in your case Iluvatar it's down to individual States, meaning you do get to choose what it is by (scratched record time) participating in your government. You might find yourself outvoted/outnumbered, but that's the way democracies work some times, you have to accept the decisions of others.

>>10 You should be taught peace, understanding, tolerance and friendship among all people.

Of course you should. As long as the government stays the hell out.<<

I don't understand this - you agree with it, so why do you have a problem with the government promoting it apart from a knee-jerk opposition to government itself. Except I'm assuming you don't have a problem with the government promoting the idea that murder is wrong or rape should be punished with gaol.

Apologies for the long post, there was just a lot of ground to cover.

Ohno
Re: Declaration of the Rights of the Child

I'm pretty much in the middle, on this one ...
ie. govt. does have a role to play, but parents rights should NOT be encroached upon, either

>>You might find yourself outvoted/outnumbered, but that's the way democracies work some times, you have to accept the decisions of others.<<
I like that! I don't agree with anarchy, at all.

I hope that if the majority decide that it's to 'smack' your children to admonish them in the future, you would rethink your position, and not consider others with a different view to yourself, 'child abusers'.
Peace

>>I'm pretty much in the middle, on this one ...<<

Don't lie warner, you've already said that if one of your daughters chose to marry an non-Muslim, you'd abandon her. Meaning you don't agree with the first clause, which makes the rest of the treaty a bit pointless.

>>I hope that if the majority decide that it's ok to 'smack' your children to admonish them in the future, you would rethink your position, and not consider others with a different view to yourself, 'child abusers'.<<

Stop trying to draw a false affinity warner. It will not help you excuse your treatment of your children.

There is a difference between using corporal punishment (which I am opposed to, but lacking kids isn't much of an issue for me) and wilful and boasting abuse which I consider to be an abomination.

So me have now established that the part of International Law that 'sickens' Iluvatar is clause 8 of the UNDRC

>>You have the right always to be among the first to get help.

Friendly advice: Wouldn't go saying that to anyone's face, guy.

If I have boasted or am guilty of wilful abuse, then I ask God Almighty for forgiveness, but I'm not aware of it, and you haven't given us a link showing it (I shouldn't waste your time looking for it, if I were you ...), but I request you to stop acusing me of 'child abuse', please!

You state that many people agree that I'm guilty of this, but I believe this is because being atheists, you have an entirely different viewpoint to me.

>>you've already said that if one of your daughters chose to marry an non-Muslim, you'd abandon her. Meaning you don't agree with the first clause, which makes the rest of the treaty a bit pointless.<<

No, sorry, that's not logical ... if a daughter of mine was marrying an atheist(for example), she would no longer be a child to START with!

Also, I have EVERY right to hold the view that parents have the right to educate their children according to their religion (assuming that the 'religion' is not evil worship or something), and Islam teaches us that:

Good men are for good women, and good women are for good men.
Bad men are for bad women, and bad women are for bad men.

Family life is important to ALL societies, and a young Muslim lady who marries against her religion/parents wishes, is causing family instability.
I could go on, but as you don't agree, there's not really much point.

Peace

PS I'm NOT saying that anybody who's not a Muslim is bad, but I hope you understand the 'gist' of what I'm trying to get across. It's more about culture (Sikhs and hindus / Indian culture has similar values) than religion, although the 2 ARE connected; Indian culture is more 'spiritual' in nature!

>>If I have boasted or am guilty of wilful abuse, then I ask God Almighty for forgiveness, but I'm not aware of it, and you haven't given us a link showing it (I shouldn't waste your time looking for it, if I were you ...), but I request you to stop acusing me of 'child abuse', please!<<

There's at least four witnesses in this thread who remember you posting it. Now you've just conceded that you may have said it, so I don't really feel the need to go through your many attempts at trolling.

I'll make you a deal - you stop talking about raising children and the morality of being a parent, and I'll stop pointing out that your behaviour has exhibited many striking similarities with the behaviour of a child abuser. How does that sound?

>>No, sorry, that's not logical ... if a daughter of mine was marrying an atheist(for example), she would no longer be a child to START with!<<

Fine, replace 'marry' with 'date' and we have exactly the same scenario. My point is, you consider non-Muslims to be less than Muslims and you would not support a child if they starting dating a non-Muslim or following a non-Muslim lifestyle.

>>Family life is important to ALL societies, and a young Muslim lady who marries against her religion/parents wishes, is causing family instability.<<

And it's that sort of thinking that makes this treaty so essential. If your family is so fragile that it can be disturbed by a daughter dating/marrying an atheist, or a son being gay, then is it worth protecting.

It seems to me that "her religion/parents wishes" are causing the trouble, not her free choices. If the parents are so concerned for family unity, then they should be the ones to yield and be more tolerant.

>>I'm NOT saying that anybody who's not a Muslim is bad<<

Yes you are.

>>It's more about culture (Sikhs and hindus / Indian culture has similar values) than religion, although the 2 ARE connected; Indian culture is more 'spiritual' in nature!<<

So are you following a culture or a religion? Make your mind up! are cultural rules as inflexible as religious ones - can you quote culture like you quote the Qu'ran?

>a young Muslim lady who marries against her religion/parents wishes, is causing family instability.<

No, she isn´t. Her family is.

Iago, Pit
>> "a young Muslim lady who marries against her religion/parents wishes, is causing family instability."
No, she isn´t. Her family is <<

Well, that's very interesting ... I was very much a part of 'western culture' until I discovered Islam when I was 24.

I didn't feel that marriage was very important ... I didn't stop and think about 'a girl's family' and so on. So, I've been on 'both sides of the fence', and am now a father of 8. As a parent, I'm obviously concerned about the future well-being of my children, and would advise them according to my knowledge/experience.

There IS an increase in breakdowns of 'the family' these days, especially in western society, IMO. There is also an increase in 'disrespect of elders', which can only cause strife & misery, in the long run.

As I've already pointed out in the past:
"No lady should be forced to marry anybody against their will", and that is ALSO a part of Islam. The parents also have a right to be 'listened to' and respected (unless they are guilty of major sin, and haven't repented)

Ultimately, an adult can do what they like ... it might be necessary, however, for the welfare/stabilty of the rest of the family, to 'pay less attention' to a 'runaway yp', as they refused to listen to your advice previously!
[ if they repent however, the situation is resolved (prodigal son) ]
Peace

Well, there you go. A family having their daughter´s future in mind and telling her "No. You´ll spend most of your time pennyless and alone, and him constantly being in and out of jail is not romantic" - OK.

But denying her to found a family of her own because her future husband calls a nonexistent deity by a different name? Bigots.

<< but I request you to stop acusing me of 'child abuse', please!>>

i remember the convo as well, because i remember goading you into what size of stick is apropriate to beat your children with.

i pointed out to you that the term rule of thumb came from the legal point of not being allowed to beat your wife with anything thicker than your thumb,

you seemed to like the idea and replyed that women should be kept in their place

we probably cant find it, because it was abhorant and has probably been yikesed, saving you face, as you can now shout 'no page no foul'

Warner : "I have EVERY right to hold the view that parents have the right to educate their children according to their religion (assuming that the 'religion' is not evil worship or something)"

I really can't believe none of you have jumped on this bit!

The problem with what you're claiming there Warner, is that the concept of what constitutes 'evil worship' is as varied as religion itself. Who gets to decide what is evil? Why is your version of evil any more valid than an opposing viewpoint?

>>the concept of what constitutes 'evil worship' is as varied as religion itself<<

Mmm ... we can only go by 'world concensus' here, can't we? Because I don't probably agree with your def. of what's evil and you don't agree with mine.

Going back a few posts, we find billions of people in the world who accept Christianity and Islam as 'the truth'.
Of course, as is often pointed out, the numbers of people believeing something doesn't make it true, but as has ALSO be pointed out, we have to accept things we don't agree with, to uphold democracy.

There are obviously different 'sects' of the major religions, which most people DON'T find acceptable ... in fact they're often psychologically dangerous and damaging to society.
I stress that MOST people don't accept these 'completely unorthodox' sects.
Peace

<>

Oddly enough, this is exactly what physicists think, too. A unified field theory is, perhps, the holy grail of physics. Ultimately science describes things, but accepted descriptions can be used as explanations, where this word is used in its normal way (gravity explains why things fall to the ground, even though gravity is not explained at a fundamental level).


We can quibble about wording and stuff, but the key question is whether a list of rights (or at least aspirations) is legitimate in itself. I say yes.

Noggin

Layers on layers on layers, like an onion. You start with "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" and build up from there. I haven´t yet peeled any onion, as big as some were, and found it had needed to invent a god to grow farther.