Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: human rights


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: human rights Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: human rights - 11/1/2007 10:44:33 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

...we shall have to agree to disagree on this.
i would interpret this part of that document
"Article 29.

    (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
    (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

    ....as preventing just such the abuse that you point out.


    It comes down to seeing what you want to see. Maybe i want to see some basic setting out of human rights.....some see any universal declaration as infringing on state rights no matter how reasonable they are.
    It comes down to, i think, a basic difference of view on the function  of a state.



By your own example, those human rights shalls and shall nots, are open to interpretation. 
You've chosen to give them a very specific one, but if history teaches us nothing else, it should teach us that when a bad interpetation can be abused to gain power, it will be.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: human rights - 11/1/2007 11:35:34 AM   
pinkme2


Posts: 236
Joined: 8/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy


...we shall have to agree to disagree on this.
i would interpret this part of that document
"Article 29.
    (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
    (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

    ....as preventing just such the abuse that you point out.


    It comes down to seeing what you want to see. Maybe i want to see some basic setting out of human rights.....some see any universal declaration as infringing on state rights no matter how reasonable they are.
    It comes down to, i think, a basic difference of view on the function  of a state.



Because you are a good and just person, Philo.  If everyone in the world was like you in that respect, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.



..perhaps we need a new thread. Why are people not just?

Is this a rhetorical or philosophical question?  Or do you believe people are just?

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: human rights - 11/1/2007 12:08:55 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Phil, how they doing on locating that $22-$24B that's "missing" in the "Oil for Food" scandal?
Making any progress are they?


...about as well as the US is making progress on all the US money that has gone missing in Iraq

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: human rights - 11/1/2007 2:12:47 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		as a general reply it would seem that if rights are inviolable, they can not be restricted for any reason.  I am sure we all agree that violating laws for instance Murder, a person loses liberty, and a host of rights.  So it is really a question of where the lines are drawn.  We mostly all agree that rights can be lost after a punishemnt in a fair trial, right?  And then the whole discussion of what rights exactly has been done nicley.  I do have to say that I agree that barbarity is to be avoided to the largest degree possible, and that doing so is its own reward. 

I am not so sure about your definition of what makes a person a human Philosophy.  I am leery of mindsets where you define others as subhuman for thier views.  And please do not think I define mulsim extremists as less than human.  If only they were.  It is that they are human that they are such a threat.

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: human rights - 11/1/2007 3:41:21 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

as a general reply it would seem that if rights are inviolable, they can not be restricted for any reason.  I am sure we all agree that violating laws for instance Murder, a person loses liberty, and a host of rights.  So it is really a question of where the lines are drawn.  We mostly all agree that rights can be lost after a punishemnt in a fair trial, right?  And then the whole discussion of what rights exactly has been done nicley.  I do have to say that I agree that barbarity is to be avoided to the largest degree possible, and that doing so is its own reward. 


....eminently sensible reply...



quote:

I am not so sure about your definition of what makes a person a human Philosophy.  I am leery of mindsets where you define others as subhuman for thier views.  And please do not think I define mulsim extremists as less than human.  If only they were.  It is that they are human that they are such a threat.


...not sure subhuman is the word i'd choose. To be honest, i'm not sure i think hierarchially about the subject....more, if someone acts inhumanly, then at least for the duration of that act they are not being human......they are outside that definition.  A-human perhaps.
However, it also must be said that they are still an organism that is human, even if their behaviour is outside the range of usual human behaviour......perhaps thats what makes such people dangerous....their similarity coupled with an utter difference?

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: human rights - 11/1/2007 3:43:08 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:

I am not so sure about your definition of what makes a person a human Philosophy.  I am leery of mindsets where you define others as subhuman for thier views.  And please do not think I define mulsim extremists as less than human.  If only they were.  It is that they are human that they are such a threat.

...not sure subhuman is the word i'd choose. To be honest, i'm not sure i think hierarchially about the subject....more, if someone acts inhumanly, then at least for the duration of that act they are not being human......they are outside that definition.  A-human perhaps.
However, it also must be said that they are still an organism that is human, even if their behaviour is outside the range of usual human behaviour......perhaps thats what makes such people dangerous....their similarity coupled with an utter difference?

*GASP* You mean...Being human in form, but not in function?

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: human rights - 11/1/2007 3:47:21 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:

I am not so sure about your definition of what makes a person a human Philosophy.  I am leery of mindsets where you define others as subhuman for thier views.  And please do not think I define mulsim extremists as less than human.  If only they were.  It is that they are human that they are such a threat.

...not sure subhuman is the word i'd choose. To be honest, i'm not sure i think hierarchially about the subject....more, if someone acts inhumanly, then at least for the duration of that act they are not being human......they are outside that definition.  A-human perhaps.
However, it also must be said that they are still an organism that is human, even if their behaviour is outside the range of usual human behaviour......perhaps thats what makes such people dangerous....their similarity coupled with an utter difference?

*GASP* You mean...Being human in form, but not in function?


...nope, or i'd have said it. Human in behaviour is what i was driving at. The difference between behaviour and function is that the former is plastic and the latter fixed. Therefore it follows that behaviour is modifiable, whereas function is not. Two quite different things. Still, i'm glad you're following the conversation......

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: human rights - 11/1/2007 3:52:58 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline 		Well, just gotta help "keep you honest" as the cliche goes...But remember, these sentiments YOU are expressing are the very ones you called me a "hater" for on another thread...am I right?

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: human rights - 11/1/2007 5:05:42 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Somehow saying that some people are not human seems wrong, and extremely judgemental. 

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: human rights - 11/1/2007 5:17:11 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline 		It IS judgemental, but then, all people supposedly have judgement, but people who consistently choose the wrong path ON PURPOSE (Making allowances for being tricked into it, and limited allowance for doing wrong while "impaired" by drugs&alcohol) are either evil, or sociopathic...Humanity, supposedly, is about abridging our own INDIVIDUAL freedoms for the good of the many...
For instance, just because I CAN kill someone or something, does that mean I SHOULD?
If that person is attacking me, then killing the assailant would be self-defense...If I attack THEM, motives are questioned: Was the Other threatening me, my family, my nation? If so, then justified...If I just attack people for fun or material gain, that is reprehensible!
Of course, I picked the most extreme example just for purposes of argument/demonstration, but I am sure this same concept could be adapted to "lesser" crimes...

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: human rights - 11/2/2007 5:33:47 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH

Well, just gotta help "keep you honest" as the cliche goes...But remember, these sentiments YOU are expressing are the very ones you called me a "hater" for on another thread...am I right?


......nope....they're different. As i stated in my earlier post. Do try to keep up.

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: human rights - 11/2/2007 5:35:34 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Somehow saying that some people are not human seems wrong, and extremely judgemental. 


..i'm saying that they are human, but are behaving inhumanly.......in so doing they damage both themselves and others. In many cases, if not most, it is a temporary aberration....or at least amenable to change.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: human rights - 11/2/2007 5:44:39 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Somehow saying that some people are not human seems wrong, and extremely judgemental. 

..i'm saying that they are human, but are behaving inhumanly.......in so doing they damage both themselves and others. In many cases, if not most, it is a temporary aberration....or at least amenable to change.

Once might be aberration, twice coincidence, but three times is deliberate hostile action...Also there are some acts that have been shown to be "unbreakable habits"--check the recidivism rates on child-molestation!
Does your belief-system include loopholes for certain acts that are just too heinous to forgive/change?
Based on your responses so far, I will have to say you're against execution, because you don't believe making an example would work? What consequences WOULD be acceptable for breaking the laws and/or violating others' rights to such an egregious extent?

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: human rights - 11/2/2007 5:52:26 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Somehow saying that some people are not human seems wrong, and extremely judgemental. 

..i'm saying that they are human, but are behaving inhumanly.......in so doing they damage both themselves and others. In many cases, if not most, it is a temporary aberration....or at least amenable to change.

Once might be aberration, twice coincidence, but three times is deliberate hostile action...Also there are some acts that have been shown to be "unbreakable habits"--check the recidivism rates on child-molestation!
Does your belief-system include loopholes for certain acts that are just too heinous to forgive/change?
Based on your responses so far, I will have to say you're against execution, because you don't believe making an example would work? What consequences WOULD be acceptable for breaking the laws and/or violating others' rights to such an egregious extent?


....just about the only mind sets known to psychology to not be amenable to change are sociopathy and  certain types of child abuse. All other mind sets can change.
In my opinion the function of the penal system is to attempt to prevent the perp committing the crime again, by the best means possible. You might argue the death penalty or other draconian measures are the most efficient, and in a sense you'd be right. However as you rightly surmise i am against the death penalty. The reason is, that i believe society has to act ethically if it desires its members to act likewise. Killing someone is something to be ethically avoided if at all possible and the state always has other options to summary execution.
Therefore, in my ideal world, the majority of crimes would be met with a type of prison that teaches its inmates how not to be criminals. With the proviso that those unable to take advantage of that type of education have to be locked up......not just to protect themselves and others.....but to keep the states hands clean too.
i don't expect you to agree with me, in fact id be surprised if you did....but figured you deserve an honest answer to an eminently sensible question.

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: human rights - 11/2/2007 5:58:21 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Well we have made a hell of a bunch of examples throughout history, and people still killing and making bad judgements so don't quite see in the general sense what the fuck the difference is.

Bruno Hauptmann


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: human rights - 11/2/2007 6:01:08 PM   
Invictus754


Posts: 521
Joined: 12/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
.....do you consider human rights to be inviolable, or are there circumstances under which they can be suspended?


It depends on whether you consider the individual's needs or society's needs as more important.
 
If religion and order are what you want in your everyday life, the individual rights need to be abridged and society's needs usurp human rights. 
 
If freedom from religion and chance are what you want in your everyday life, the needs of individuals should trump society's needs.
 
But how do we decide whether society or the individual is more important?

_____________________________

You never know your limits, until you push them
If slavery is a gift, the Africans were pretty fucking generous in the 1700 and 1800s, weren't they?

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: human rights - 11/2/2007 6:32:00 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
....just about the only mind sets known to psychology to not be amenable to change are sociopathy and  certain types of child abuse. All other mind sets can change.
In my opinion the function of the penal system is to attempt to prevent the perp committing the crime again, by the best means possible. You might argue the death penalty or other draconian measures are the most efficient, and in a sense you'd be right. However as you rightly surmise i am against the death penalty. The reason is, that i believe society has to act ethically if it desires its members to act likewise. Killing someone is something to be ethically avoided if at all possible and the state always has other options to summary execution.
Therefore, in my ideal world, the majority of crimes would be met with a type of prison that teaches its inmates how not to be criminals. With the proviso that those unable to take advantage of that type of education have to be locked up......not just to protect themselves and others.....but to keep the states hands clean too.
i don't expect you to agree with me, in fact id be surprised if you did....but figured you deserve an honest answer to an eminently sensible question.

Well, America has arguably the MOST prisons, and definitely the most LUXURIOUS prisons, but we still have more criminals than we have room/money for! (Admittedly, the former may or may not CAUSE the latter!)
As to rehabilitation, a certain old joke about the psychiatrist and the light-bulb may bring up some inconvenient truth: "It has to WANT to change!"
Our justice/prison-system has earned a reputation for being a revolving door! Drunk/drug rehab programs don't seem to "take"--ask pretty much any celebrity these days!
Hell, we can't even reprogram foreigners to dump their old "culture" once they get here! And if we deport foreign criminals, other countries--often including their OWN countries--won't take them...so they end up here again!
Remember, just because a society behaves ethically doesn't mean their competitors (other "societies") will!

In my own ideal society, a pure meritocracy would emerge, the smart people being assigned more education, but also jobs geared toward their respective points of expertise, and pay accordingly. (I.e., it would once again pay more to TEACH Shakespeare than perform it--that's how you know this is fictional!) Muscular-but-stupid people would get more "heavy-lifting" jobs.
Internal order would be enforced by our best and brightest, augmented with the best armor/weapons/etc we have available, and granted the authority to do whatever it takes to stop criminals, from negotiation to intimidation to extermination.
Our borders would be enforced by automatic turrets and/or minefields (The most "fair&equitable" way I can think of: Don't violate our borders, and you won't die!)

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: human rights - 11/2/2007 6:56:08 PM   
kirby104


Posts: 94
Joined: 6/6/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH

Bingo and well-said, LadyEllen! "The System" has been bent too far in favor of "criminals' rights", and this often rides roughshod, if you will, over the rights of their victims!


I have experienced this personally. The justice system protects THE guilty.

(in reply to EPGAH)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: human rights - 11/2/2007 7:07:35 PM   
EPGAH


Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirby104
quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH
Bingo and well-said, LadyEllen! "The System" has been bent too far in favor of "criminals' rights", and this often rides roughshod, if you will, over the rights of their victims!

I have experienced this personally. The justice system protects THE guilty.

I've experienced this too, as I related on another thread: Mexicans killed some of my friends back in college, cops caught 1 of the 10, but with no CORROBORATING witnesses, they had to let it go...His own gang killed him...Some might call that poetic justice, but please realize, that also means he couldn't be "persuaded" to reveal his 9 friends!

(in reply to kirby104)
Profile   Post #: 59
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: human rights Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109