Luke Ford

01:00 Every major religion regards masturbation as a sin
02:40 The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqtFJZB27M8
06:00 What’s wrong with human rights? https://www.theamericanconservative.com/whats-wrong-with-human-rights/
14:00 Christopher Caldwell: Against Human Rights, https://thelampmagazine.com/issues/issue-21/against-human-rights
18:00 Christopher Caldwell: The E.U. Is Revealing Its True Identity. Europeans Don’t Like It., https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/23/opinion/european-union-elections-nationalism.html
38:00 The Ethics of Violence: Recent Literature on the Creation of the Contemporary Regime of Law and War, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=155758
44:00 Mike joins the show for the first time
54:00 You can’t discriminate in hiring because of religion, https://www.commerce.gov/cr/reports-and-resources/discrimination-quick-facts/religious-discrimination
1:20:00 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
1:33:00 Sam joins from Haifa
1:38:00 Sam was driving a cab in NY on 9-11
1:46:00 Hezbollah’s threat to Haifa
2:13:10 Was revulsion to the Holocaust the origin of Human Rights?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGumg1zCfno
2:22:20 Claire Khaw joins
2:33:00 Does Claire get the Koranic kick?
2:34:00 Where do human rights come from? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFGu6T1Qe48

Full transcript.

Podnotes AIM summary: Dennis Prager’s views on masturbation and religion are controversial. He argues that labeling it as sinful alienates people from God rather than bringing them closer.

On legal matters, there’s debate over whether certain cases would proceed if not for high-profile names like Donald Trump involved – suggesting bias in justice.

The origin of human rights is often likened to Christian church history by historians – an idea that prevailed because it was true and valid. However, Samuel Moyn from Harvard challenges this view; he sees human rights as emerging more recently due to other ideologies failing.

In media discussions about “human rights,” academics like Paul Gottfried argue these terms are used too loosely without considering historical context or cultural differences among societies.

Christopher Caldwell discusses how human rights have become intertwined with American power abroad through NGOs backed by Western billionaires like Soros and Gates Foundation – sometimes serving as pretexts for military action or economic sanctions which can have devastating effects on populations.

Finally, universalizing human-rights doctrine risks imposing one set of values globally without respecting individual nations’ sovereignty or democratic processes – leading to potential conflicts when those global ideals clash with local customs or interests.

If a nation must defend itself with force, it’s often seen as justified. French theorist Julian F pondered why people believed in a peaceful universal state that would end war. In such a world, politics and human nature wouldn’t change much; wars might simply be labeled civil wars.

Human rights can limit democracy and sovereignty. Political thinker Gu shows how the rise of human rights has altered democracy—it empowers individuals over the collective will of the people. This shift means that sometimes citizens’ right to decide is overridden by individual human rights.

In California, for instance, voters passed Proposition 187 to deny welfare benefits to illegal immigrants, but the courts struck it down—another case where democratic decisions were suspended for human rights.

Rights advocates have challenged traditional values like gender roles and marriage purposes. As we evolve from natural states, we think special roles are necessary—but activists push against this notion.

Internationally, some ideologies like Pan-Africanism or communism also aimed at global influence but differed from human rights movements. Historian Samuel Moyn suggests that modern understanding of human rights isn’t directly derived from past notions like “rights of man” but emerged in response to failed political utopias in the 1970s.

There’s always a trade-off between more rights and less democracy—and vice versa. Rights could come from God or reason or be socially constructed based on environment and genetics.

Before universal human rights concepts existed, violence was acceptable if it protected one’s nation—like an extended family defending itself against threats. Now terms like genocide are used differently than they were before their widespread application post-1970s.

Right-wing thinkers focus more on responsibilities than left-wing proponents of expansive interpretations of international law do when discussing humanitarian issues. Moyn argues that while advocating for universal solidarity with humanity may seem noble, it can weaken local bonds within communities.

Christopher Caldwell notes Viktor Orbán’s criticism: liberal societies allow too much freedom without considering its impact on others—a paradox since actions inevitably affect other people.

Moyn acknowledges there’s little evidence showing major improvements due to global advocacy for universal human rights despite changes in sensitivity being significant.

Rights versus sovereignty remains an ongoing debate—with no clear resolution about whether expanding individual freedoms justifies overriding national self-determination or democratic choices made by citizenry at large.

Illegal immigrants shouldn’t be protected by our constitution. I’m not easily riled up, but the topic of gender transition is intriguing to me. The debate on what defines a woman, highlighted in a recent interview with a Supreme Court justice nominee, was embarrassing.

I believe society swings too far sometimes and then self-corrects. With kids and puberty blockers, we should let nature take its course instead of rushing into medical interventions based on studies showing most gender dysphoria in teens is transient.

Regarding children transitioning before 18 or same-sex marriage being imposed on states that oppose it, I think civil unions were a decent compromise. It doesn’t bother me if people of the same sex marry each other; perhaps government should exit the marriage business altogether. People might be better off forming contractual relationships tailored to their needs.

Morality seems good when it’s about treating others well and bad when it involves harmful behavior. Different groups have diverse skills shaped by culture and environment – like Japanese versus West Africans – which can persist through generations even after migration.

My views lean conservative due to experiences as a landlord dealing with welfare dependency among tenants; this has reinforced my belief against certain social safety nets like welfare without work requirements.

As for different ethnicities as tenants, there’s no notable difference except none applied from Asian backgrounds known for low crime rates suggesting they could be responsible renters.

Finally, regarding employment discrimination laws such as disparate impact theory from Griggs v. Duke Power Company – I disagree with them because tests should fairly assess all applicants’ abilities regardless of background differences.

A war should be conducted cleanly, with precision and minimal harm to civilians. This aligns with the human rights focus on protecting the weak and preventing genocide and crimes against humanity. War is not just a cultural artifact but also a biological necessity—organisms compete for survival, altering environments to thrive at others’ expense.

Cultures that fail in warfare often perish, as do many life forms. Survival is paramount; even our closest relatives, chimpanzees, engage in warlike behavior. The Netflix documentary “Chimp Empire” illustrates this through its depiction of chimp society.

The contemporary ideal of regulated humanitarian warfare exists among some groups but fades when survival is at stake—as wars escalate, ideals are overwhelmed. Our hero system shapes which violence we accept or glorify; it’s deeply ingrained within communities.

Despite the disconnect between ideals like international humanitarian law and reality during survival wars, these concepts remain exciting because they evoke strong emotions without necessarily impacting real-world suffering. Amnesty International’s founder suggested their work needn’t make a tangible difference—it provides an outlet for those passionate about utopian ideals.

Similarly, both human rights activists and evangelical Christians hold powerful emotional beliefs despite limited practical support. I dream of building a world filled with love—a place where people live in harmony—but recognize that visions like mine are often disregarded by those in power due to differing hero systems.

At the turn of the century optimism for peaceful interventions existed but was soon overshadowed by endless violence post-9/11: torture, drone strikes, global policing persisted—highlighting skepticism about moral progress among realists who don’t prioritize individualistic human rights frameworks above all else.

In conclusion, while aspirations toward humane conflict exist amid ideological divides and societal challenges—the harsh realities of geopolitical strife continue unabatedly shaping our worldviews and responses to emerging threats.

Sam: I enjoyed late-night variety shows in New York during the nineties; it was a fun time. Growing up, my education was split between public school and yeshiva—half of each. I attended Edward R. Murrow High School in Brooklyn, a top-ranked institution where I mixed with diverse students.

My orthodox Jewish parents sent me to this public school because it offered quality education, and many from my community competed to get in. It had standards above average public schools.

However, going there led me towards secularism as I immersed myself in popular culture and arts like photography and music. This influenced my decision to attend the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan.

During that period, I became more liberal and explored different aspects of life including relationships. My first serious girlfriend was German; we met later since I delayed intimacy due to fears surrounding AIDS at the time.

This lifestyle affected my marriage prospects—I believe it contributed to difficulties in finding success within marriage despite having strong Jewish foundations which eventually brought me back on track after becoming disillusioned with American pop culture.

From age 20 until 38, before getting married, I lived quite freely especially when stationed with the US Army in Europe where social norms were different compared to America. Relationships there were straightforward without expectations beyond casual encounters—a stark contrast from dating within Jewish circles which often seemed materialistic particularly back home in New York City.

Throughout this journey including both positive experiences and challenges faced due to cultural differences or societal expectations around relationships or career choices such as not seeking wealth but rather preparedness for change—my identity as a Jew remained important even while navigating various international environments free from significant anti-Semitism at least during those times.

Guatemala in 1954, Brazil in 1964, and Chile in 1973 saw US interventions that often prioritized security over democracy. For instance, after Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006 against US-backed Fatah, America sought to destabilize the new government.

Claire joined a discussion about her recent debate on a religious channel regarding a Quranic verse suggesting Zionism. She argued for considering diverse religious perspectives but was dismissed without an answer to her question.

She also touched on how history shows failures tied to not following Quranic governance principles. Claire admires historian Sam Mo for his insights on human rights as an alternative for failed leftist utopias and questions whether biblical laws already provide certain rights.

Discussing societal strength, Claire sees uniform political orthodoxy as necessary despite various religions within society. She criticizes American secularism’s lack of depth compared to other countries’ intense religious practices.

Lastly, she notes America’s “happy holidays” greeting reflects its non-official religion status leading to cultural confusion and cults—a result of individualistic freedom without shared orthodox beliefs.

John Mearsheimer’s work suggests liberal democracies are not inherently peaceful or virtuous; strategic interests often override moral considerations during conflicts. The belief that all humans have innate rights is based more on secular faith than concrete reality.

Some tactics involve using NGOs to support institutions and politicians in a target state, linking aid to human rights records, and shaming states by exposing their violations. However, these can backfire as major powers may see it as illegitimate interference. The U.S.’s strained relations with China and Russia illustrate this.

The concept of human rights took root post-WWII due to the Holocaust’s aftermath and anti-colonial movements. Yet, its origins aren’t solely tied to that era; historians argue awareness of the Holocaust’s atrocities grew slowly over decades.

Soviet influence on Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions was strategic rather than altruistic. They supported protection in conflicts unless it threatened communism. Justice is often seen through personal or national interests rather than an objective standard.

Scholar Amanda Alexander highlights how international law is shaped by politics and historical context—not just state interests but also advocacy networks’ pressures. Despite this shaping, powerful nations rarely let international law restrict their actions.

Genocide scholars sometimes use broad definitions for personal gain—careers depend on highlighting threats they’re expert in mitigating. Human rights discourse creates jobs but doesn’t always translate into real-world change—it’s contingent on political will more than moral arguments.

The modern human rights movement emerged from disillusionment with past ideologies like revolutionary nationalism, especially after events like the Prague Spring forced activists to rethink strategies focusing more on morality than direct opposition.

In emergencies, democracies can resort to dictatorial measures for public interest—a reality acknowledged even within constitutional frameworks designed for checks and balances. Ultimately, whether through legal structures or social movements advocating for human rights or against genocide—the effectiveness boils down to power dynamics and political agendas rather than universal principles or laws.

Big events and various forces have shaped history. Notably, Americans’ role is significant; they once supported Vietnam but shifted after 1973. The election of Jimmy Carter marked a change—he advocated for atonement and a human rights-focused foreign policy, the first statesman to prioritize it so openly.

Across the North Atlantic, many who rejected socialism and moved past the ideologies of the ’60s embraced human rights as a more modest cause. They backed leaders like Carter who promoted exporting human rights over waging war. This led to an unprecedented surge in discussions about human rights.

Christianity played a role too, with organizations like Amnesty International having Christian influences such as Quakerism. The Catholic Church also contributed, reflecting Christianity’s strong universalist tendencies compared to Judaism’s more nationalistic ones.