Humanitas

Tired of all this lefties-righties quarrels I think it is time to open a new group: Humanitas
The members commit to the ideals of humanitarianism:
- Philanthropy, Humanity and Charity: Love all human beings (men, women, children, old ones, colored ones, invalids, pagans, bad people)
- Equality
- Human Dignity
- Pacifism: Rejection of any War of Aggression
- Ahimsa
- Political and Religious Tolerance
- Freedom of Conscience
Authorities are limited to the protection of the people’s rights.

Everybody who is in another association is welcome. However, racism, nationalism and every other form of disrespect will not be tolerated!

P.S.: All drinks are free ~:cheers:

Good luck with the club! ~:)

And since you said that anyone in any association is welcome, please count me in! I think liberals and humanitarians go well together.

Im sorry Franconicus but i cant join this club.Most of these ideals are what i support.But i cant say that im pacifist,because i thinks its illusion in this world we live. :bow:

You really think that Wars of Aggression is a must? ~:confused:

I dont like wars,but i think wars are part of human nature.Not a nice part anyway. :bow:

I think pacifism is misunderstandable here. Humanism does not exclude the right to defend oneself or the option to use violence to stop an obvious evil.

Originally Posted by :
I dont like wars,but i think wars are part of human nature.Not a nice part anyway.

Sorry, butwhat you say is meaningless. Poking your nose is part of human nature, or not. It neither explains, nor justifies, nor condemnes anything.

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus:
I think pacifism is misunderstandable here. Humanism does not exclude the right to defend oneself or the option to use violence to stop an obvious evil.

Sorry A.Saturnus but where is your moderator robe?

You have no idea how one sweats under that one. It`s simply to hot to be Mod.

Originally Posted by :
Political and Religious Tolerance

How will you enforce that?

[QUOTE=A.Saturnus]I think pacifism is misunderstandable here. Humanism does not exclude the right to defend oneself or the option to use violence to stop an obvious evil.QUOTE]
In my personal definition it excludes any War of Agression. Beyond that everybody can decide how far his pacifism goes.

Saturnus, what a great honor to have a senior here :bow:

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus:
You have no idea how one sweats under that one. It`s simply to hot to be Mod.

Ok.Have some beer to cool of. ~:cheers:

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah:
How will you enforce that?

By living the ideal. By having laws like THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THE UN CHARTA; THE GRUNDGESETZ ...

Originally Posted by kagemusha:
Ok.Have some beer to cool of. ~:cheers:

Thanks! Btw, I`m way too good looking to hide under rags all the time.

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus:
Thanks! Btw, I`m way too good looking to hide under rags all the time.

I dont know about that eyeliner though. ~;) But let us not spam this fine thread of Franconicus. :bow:

Great new group. :thumbsup:

I do have some issues with the ground rules though.

Originally Posted by :
Philanthropy, Humanity and Charity: Love all human beings (men, women, children, old ones, colored ones, invalids, pagans, bad people)

Bad people? Do you support a prison system, or simply aggressive rehabilitation? Its easy to love all those other people but the mechanics of loving bad people is tricky. How would you treat murderers, rapists, ect?

Originally Posted by :
Equality

Thats pretty broad. If I were to adapt this principle would it mean I would have to treat illegal immigrants the same as legal immigrants? Do i have to treat those equally who dont treat me the same way?

Originally Posted by :
Pacifism: Rejection of any War of Aggression

What about wars for liberation? Wouldnt this rejection of any war conflict with your love of humanity? What about the humans living under tyrants? Shouldnt they live equally?

Originally Posted by :
Political and Religious Tolerance

How far does this go? Does it cover hate speech? Humanists of the past havent been very tolorent of hate speech, how will you address it?

Originally Posted by :
Freedom of Conscience

Please explain. Does this mean people should do whatever they want with no fear of being judged? How would you enforce that?

Good luck, great principles youve got.. :yes:

Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
Bad people? Do you support a prison system, or simply aggressive rehabilitation? Its easy to love all those other people but the mechanics of loving bad people is tricky. How would you treat murderers, rapists, ect?

Prison system is necessary. Humanism rejects punishment for the purpose of revenge or retribution, but not for the purpose of social coherence. For the humanist, prison has four goals:
general prevention
individual prevention
detainment
order of law

These things are necessary for the working of society.

Originally Posted by :
Thats pretty broad. If I were to adapt this principle would it mean I would have to treat illegal immigrants the same as legal immigrants? Do i have to treat those equally who dont treat me the same way?

How someone treats you has no bearence on the way you have to behave. Illegal immigrants are criminals and may be treated as it is necessary for society.

Originally Posted by :
What about wars for liberation? Wouldnt this rejection of any war conflict with your love of humanity? What about the humans living under tyrants? Shouldnt they live equally?

Well, as I said above the wording may not have been optimal. Defence and humanitarian aid may require the use of violence.

Originally Posted by :
How far does this go? Does it cover hate speech? Humanists of the past havent been very tolorent of hate speech, how will you address it?

Good question. Some say that tolerance can tolerate anything except intolerance. It might be reducable to an empirical question: how much harm is actually caused by hate speech?

Originally Posted by :
Please explain. Does this mean people should do whatever they want with no fear of being judged? How would you enforce that?

Not do but think. People should be free to think and feel as they want to, but that doesn`t grant them the right to interfere with the rights of others.

Thanks for the informative answers. It doesnt seem so idealistic now. :bow:

Human dignity and still posting here ?? :confused: ~:grouphug:

I think these are great values and I support the philosophy of Humanitas...

...but I'm really suspicious about how well this thread seems to be going...

~:confused:

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus:
. Humanism rejects punishment for the purpose of revenge or retribution...

Says who?

(love the Classical metro-sexual look!) ~;)

Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
It doesnt seem so idealistic now. :bow:

O.K., I work on that ~:cool:

Ahimsa

n : a Buddhist and Hindu and especially Jainist doctrine holding that all forms of life are sacred and urging the avoidance of violence.

phi·lan·thro·py ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-lnthr-p)
n. pl. phi·lan·thro·pies
The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.
Love of humankind in general.
Something, such as an activity or institution, intended to promote human welfare.

hu·man·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hy-mn-t)
n. pl. hu·man·i·ties
Humans considered as a group; the human race.
The condition or quality of being human.
The quality of being humane; benevolence.
A humane characteristic, attribute, or act.
humanities
The languages and literatures of ancient Greece and Rome; the classics.
Those branches of knowledge, such as philosophy, literature, and art, that are concerned with human thought and culture; the liberal arts.

Originally Posted by Wiki:
Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience) is the freedom of an individual to hold a viewpoint, or thought, regardless of anyone else's view. The suppression of freedom of thought is a prominent characteristic of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, while freedom of thought is one of the fundamental principles of most democracies. Freedom of thought can be limited in several ways — through censorship, arrests, book burning, or, more subtly, through propaganda.

Originally Posted by Wiki:
A government displays religious toleration or religious tolerance when it legally permits or does not interfere with religious activities associated with sects other than than the state religion.

A group (or individual) displays religious toleration or religious tolerance when it does not oppose by force, does not oppose by rhetoric, or actively supports religious beliefs or activities of which it is not a part.

Religious tolerance does not mean one must view any or all other religions as equally valid to theirs but simply that one accepts other's right to hold religoius beliefs different from own's own and practice their religion as they see fit, within reason.

Freedom of religion is based upon the legal concept of having freedom of belief as a matter of right, while freedom of worship is the freedom to engage in religious expressions and activities as a matter of right. Religious toleration by a state is a legal theory founded upon endurance and the absence of that basic freedom, because a religion has been previously established by the state.

There seems to be a logical break or a religion by stealth attempt here. Humanitas talks about religious tolerance while at the same time promoting the doctrine of a certain religion above others? Surely equality would mean that no religion is used as the basis or all have to be used?

Or has the list already disproved the validity of the arguement that there is such a thing as equality when the basis of this code just happens by chance to align itself with a particular religion putting it accidentally in the forefront of the group?

Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Ahimsa

n : a Buddhist and Hindu and especially Jainist doctrine holding that all forms of life are sacred and urging the avoidance of violence.

phi·lan·thro·py ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-lnthr-p)
n. pl. phi·lan·thro·pies
The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.
Love of humankind in general.
Something, such as an activity or institution, intended to promote human welfare.

hu·man·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hy-mn-t)
n. pl. hu·man·i·ties
Humans considered as a group; the human race.
The condition or quality of being human.
The quality of being humane; benevolence.
A humane characteristic, attribute, or act.
humanities
The languages and literatures of ancient Greece and Rome; the classics.
Those branches of knowledge, such as philosophy, literature, and art, that are concerned with human thought and culture; the liberal arts.

There seems to be a logical break or a religion by stealth attempt here. Humanitas talks about religious tolerance while at the same time promoting the doctrine of a certain religion above others? Surely equality would mean that no religion is used as the basis or all have to be used?

Or has the list already disproved the validity of the arguement that there is such a thing as equality when the basis of this code just happens by chance to align itself with a particular religion putting it accidentally in the forefront of the group?

Pape, of course our ideals have intersections with different religions. How could they not. The idea to love all men even your enemy can be found by Jesus, too. So what?

Originally Posted by Pindar:
Says who?

(love the Classical metro-sexual look!) ~;)

A humanist. A metro-sexual one.

Originally Posted by :
There seems to be a logical break or a religion by stealth attempt here. Humanitas talks about religious tolerance while at the same time promoting the doctrine of a certain religion above others? Surely equality would mean that no religion is used as the basis or all have to be used?

Only if you accept the fallacy that humanitas is itself a religion. It does not have a religion as basis, though some religious believes are more compatible with it than others.

Originally Posted by Franconicus:
Pacifism: Rejection of any War of Aggression

Although I support your Idea fully i will have to say that pacifism cannot be taken lightly. Alot of people think it's just walking away when trouble comes, and it probably is, but what it also means is even if you saw your brother being murdered slowly and painfully, calling for your help you would not be able to punch the guy in the face to stop him...for you are a pacifist
i will help you as much as i can, but i cannot call myself a pacifist.
EDIT: I do want to join though

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus:
A humanist. A metro-sexual one.

That's what I thought. Now if another humanist (who may or may not be metro-sexually inclined) argues for a retributive notion of justice, where does that place our Humanitas?

Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16:
Although I support your Idea fully i will have to say that pacifism cannot be taken lightly. Alot of people think it's just walking away when trouble comes, and it probably is, but what it also means is even if you saw your brother being murdered slowly and painfully, calling for your help you would not be able to punch the guy in the face to stop him...for you are a pacifist
i will help you as much as i can, but i cannot call myself a pacifist.
EDIT: I do want to join though

ian,
I think that there should be some discussion about the notion 'pacifist'. My opinion is that violence is not accepted as a mean to solve problems. I do not think that it is realistic to say selfdefense is forbidden. Or that you should not try and help your brother.
Anyway, your support is welcome! ~:grouphug:

Thats good...basically don't go around looking for fights, starting fights or encourage fights. Only use as self-defence

I wonder why why nobody asks for the free drinks! This is something that is really different from all the other clubs. ~;)

Originally Posted by Franconicus:
I wonder why why nobody asks for the free drinks! This is something that is really different from all the other clubs. ~;)

Where I can get those?