A marginalized group does not receive human rights, they are stripped of them. The removal of your birthrights should be violently opposed as soon as possible.

  • queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well literally everything is natural, the supernatural doesn’t exist. :V

    If the term “natural” is to mean anything at all, it must be “distinct from human choices.” Dying to a predator is natural because it’s something that happens to humans. The primitive commune making weapons to protect themselves from predators is not natural, that’s human struggle against nature. Nature didn’t give us natural weapons like claws or fangs or venom, every weapon we have we have to make ourselves. Our right to not be eaten was hard fought and won through countless deaths and through human ingenuity.

    • Vegan btw (LOUD)@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      but once the struggle to survive is gone. There is no longer any money and people have plenty of food. Everyone has their materials need met plus luxuries. Why would people fight?

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even after we have abolished private property and wage labor, nature will keep creating new threats to our rights that we have to struggle against. Perhaps in some far future under FALGSC we can surpass nature and the eternal struggle for our rights will finally be won, but how could you call the rights we artificially constructed for ourselves “natural”? We only gained those rights by defeating nature!

        • Vegan btw (LOUD)@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok but there must have been a time where people lived in peace. Then the farmers made the concept of money in the world. The word natural is extremely misleading.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            People lived in peace with other people much of the time, but we never lived in peace with nature itself. Drought, flood, fire, predators, disease, infection, and many many other natural threats to our human rights have always existed. Furthermore, natural scarcity meant that even other people could become a threat - people from a different gens/tribe could decide that it’s better if the other gens/tribe dies than if everyone eats a little less to make the food last longer. Nature was humanity’s first enemy, before we divided up into class society and started to war with each other.

            I will say “natural” is misleading, because humans are natural too. That’s why I said in order for “natural” to mean anything at all then it must be distinct from human choices. If we include humans into nature, then natural rights don’t mean anything because everything is natural including human oppression.

            • Vegan btw (LOUD)@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              oppression people is an action(a thought such as making the other village the enemy put into action) while not oppressing people is nothing(natural).

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Animal intelligence and its products and human intelligence and its products are fundamentally the same. If beaver dam is natural then Three Gorges Dam is also natural. Difference is only in degree of sophistication.

                • JucheBot1988@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Animal intelligence and its products and human intelligence and its products are fundamentally the same.

                  This may be true from the “outside” – i.e., from the perspective of some hypothetical non-human observer – but what it doesn’t consider, I think, is the subject-object distinction so important to historical progress. Humanity experiences itself most purely as subject (intelligible) and the non-human worldmost purely as object (alien and unintelligible). Since humanity begins in bondage to external nature, the original traumatic experience is the collective discovery that subject is in fact, and from a certain view that may be considered more “correct,” also object, and this with regard to the brute, unintelligible forces of external nature. Historical progress is humanity asserting and maximizing its subjectivity by control over the external world. Thus, dialectically, a real distinction between humanity and nature develops. Nature is that which cannot be known (by humanity) as subject, and over which humanity is struggling to assert control; humanity is that which can be known as subject, which itself struggles, and which is experienced as struggling. The precise boundary between the natural and the human is discovered and created within the conflict itself.

              • queermunist she/her
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                So a bear choosing to eat me isn’t natural?

                If we say “okay, bears are natural so anything they choose to do is natural” then you have a problem because humans are natural too.

                That’s why I made the distinction between humans and nature. Everything humans do is unnatural, including when we choose to do nothing at all.

                  • queermunist she/her
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Okay, if someone calls me a slur and tells me to kill myself, I definitely have to choose to not take away their right to free speech.

                  • queermunist she/her
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes, anything that can be debated internally with words or even with feelings.

                    The only human behavior I think that can be called natural is truly thoughtless or automatic action. Natural breathing is when you breathe without thinking about it, unnatural breathing is when you become conscious of your own breath and start thinking about it. And it really does feel unnatural! I’m sure you’re manually breathing now too, and I’m sure you’d agree it’s quite different from natural breathing.

          • Vegan btw (LOUD)@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The concept of money was put into the food. But before that people respected each other “naturally”. until those scumbags farmers put the concept of money in the “world” —outside the head

    • Vegan btw (LOUD)@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “food” is the first “money”. Those who controlled the food had the power(the farmers themselves). they started to remove the rights(oppressing people) because they wanted more power. I assume they probably wanted power because of the woman. You know how “these people” are.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The rise of agriculture/property and the historical defeat of the female sex go hand-in-hand.

        The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State is essential proletarian feminist reading.

      • JucheBot1988@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Again, you’ve got to be careful here, because historical and dialectical materialism makes this tricky. The pure idealist position – not saying you’re advocating it, but it’s certainly easy to fall into – is that of Rosseau and his ilk: under primitive communism, humanity lived an idyllic life, and then property and the agricultural revolution entered and started us off on a long train of opression and conflict within the species. There is truth to this, but isn’t the whole story. As every new mode of production brings with it an increase in human power over nature, it also brings an expansion in concrete “rights,” because humanity can now better defend itself against external nature. Thus the great slave civilizations of the ancient world were actually an improvement on hunter-gatherer society, and feudalism was an advance over slavery, since the average medieval peasant lived a better life than the average Roman slave, and the average Roman slave was better off than the average tribesman under primitive communism (if only in terms of life expectancy and being able to preserve his subjectivity in the face of hostile nature). The long view is that humanity moves from primitive communism to advanced, technological communism, with everything in between a neccesary transitional stage as humanity pauses and asserts its control over the external world. But what we need to be careful of is applying a moral valuation to any point in the transition. The level of social development can never be higher than the level of economic development, and at any point in history, humanity basically tends to the most equitable arrangement possible under the current development of productive forces.