Skip to main content

View Diary: What's Your Definition of "Reality-Based" Thinking? (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  then tell me what is the reality and truth in (5+ / 0-)

    is the following scenario.

    Imagine you are a woman living in a small village in Africa in a traditional marriage, her role in the family being determined by her tribe's customs and culture, which means she is in total dependency for her survival on the integration into that tribe's rules. The rules make her a working slave with very little equal human and civil rights of her own.

    If someone like Hillary Clinton would look at this woman, she would consider her dependency as a sign of oppression and abuse of her human rights being violated. If you would ask the woman in question she would consider her role in her tribal extended family as one she is be blessed with, as it guarantees her survival, however slave-like it may look to a Western woman.

    So, who sees the truth, Hillary or the woman and what is the reality, is she poor, oppressed and abused as a work horse, or is she blessed to be integrated in her tribal culture?

    •  Here's it is: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mimi

      You start with trying to understand the objective reality of what it means to be free, and to live with dignity, and to have certain human rights.

      You start there.  You define what that means, objectively.  Then, that becomes the standard.

      And then you compare the situation of any given human being, whether she live in the Appalachian region, or in Chicago, or New York, of in the Congo, or Nigeria, or France, or England.

      If the situation for her deviates greatly from that standard, then you call it for what it is; oppression; servitude; ignorance; etc.

      A good source for this is the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

      In your example, the woman obviously (objectively) is poor, abused and oppressed.

      There are no two realities.  Only one.  Always, for everything.  We, individually can't always be privy to it due to our limitations cause by all kinds of things, like watching MSNBC, FoxNews, or our level of intellect and intelligence, or lack thereof.  There are many factors.

      But, again, for everything there is only one reality, one objective truth.

      PREAMBLE

      Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

      Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

      Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

      Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

      Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

      Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

      Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

      Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

      •  so, even if that woman doesn't see her (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador

        role as being in violation of her human rights, you would fight for her rights and get involved in a war with that country to push for her equal rights? She herself doesn't necessarily wants them, doesn't see them as helping her, it if brings her livelihood to a stillstand due to a war that is fought on her behalf without her wanting to get involved in?

        •  That is a huge leap! Actually, I'm perplexed as (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mimi

          to why you would make such a leap.  Get involved in a war?

          Keeping it real, and keeping it in the realm of objective reality, again, what right does a country have to get involved in the internal affairs of another country?

          If one is concerned about oppressed people around the world, as a country, what type of resources do we have to address the situation?  Diplomacy; making donations; sending educators and experts (if it is safe to do that)?

          Me as a individual acknowledging the fact that this woman lives in extreme poverty, oppression, and servitude is just that, a statement of fact.

          How do you make the leap that I would advocate going to war to impose my will on that country?

          I don't get that.

          •  oh, I didn't mean that YOU would advocate (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador

            going to war to impose war on such a country, the you was meant as a general, generic you. Sorry for that.

            But in reality the Bush adminstration and many people have argued that one of their more "honorable" reasons to get engaged in countries like Afghanistan and Irak were their desire to "help to improve the plight of the women in these countries". I don't say that they want to impose their will on these countries, but at times they use their well-meant "concerns" over the lack of civil rights of women in those countries as a way to gain support for actions that lead de facto to a war-like condition and are de facto engaged in for all other reasons but the plight of those women in those countries.

            It's just something I always wonder about how right or wrong it is to use such an argument.

            •  The Bush Administration was a criminal regime. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mimi

              And, the last few ward we've been involved with have mainly benefited war profiteers.  Everything else about the reasons for starting those wars are lies and propaganda to fool the country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site