human rights

human rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

philosophy -> human rights (10/31/2007 12:17:13 PM)
.....do you consider human rights to be inviolable, or are there circumstances under which they can be suspended? My take on it that observing human rights is as much for the observers benefit as anything else. To not observe them is, in my view, to stop being human..........however, thats just my take on it......

joanus -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 12:19:01 PM)
That would depend upon the circumstances in which the person or persons are involved.

pinkme2 -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 12:23:04 PM)
What type of human rights are we discussing, Philo? (These could be basic or very detailed, and hence the question)

EPGAH -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 12:28:13 PM)
Once you commit a crime, I believe that the "rights" should be severely abridged...Some parallels with parenting can be drawn here... If you make decisions that harm others...or you harm others out of "need" or "instinct" (I believe those people are called "sociopaths"?), shouldn't your rights be stripped as thoroughly as your victims'?

LadyEllen -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 12:32:42 PM)
How ironic! Joanus' human right to free speech has been suspended! Anyway..... my view Phil, is that human rights are certainly inviolable - so long as the human concerned observes the human rights of others. Those who feel free to disregard the rights of others should not expect to then benefit from the same rights. Now, that is not to say that we should have a free for all - but merely to say that violators of others' rights must expect a diminuition of regard for their rights. An example - convicted criminals on community service sentences were recently relieved of the health and safety requirement to wear reflective jackets when performing the tasks allocated - on the grounds that wearing the jackets was an infringement of their human rights since it identified them as community service criminals. My view? STFU, put the jackets on and be thankful youre not in prison. And, if we could be sure that the justice process was 100% accurate in reaching convictions, I would go much further in removing rights. And I dont mean treating occasional convicts as subhuman in this instance - but the hordes of habitual criminals who pass through the revolving doors of our prison system - knowing full well every time, that whatever evil they have done, the punishment cannot be made to fit their recurrent and often disgusting crimes, because of their human rights. E

EPGAH -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 12:39:10 PM)
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!

seeksfemslave -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 12:40:35 PM)
Since there is all most certainly no general concensus on what constitutes human rights the question is at root meaningless !

pinkme2 -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 12:46:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH Once you commit a crime, I believe that the "rights" should be severely abridged...Some parallels with parenting can be drawn here... If you make decisions that harm others...or you harm others out of "need" or "instinct" (I believe those people are called "sociopaths"?), shouldn't your rights be stripped as thoroughly as your victims'? What if your crime is participating in a certain religion, or speaking out against what you believe is wrong?

philosophy -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 12:57:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 What type of human rights are we discussing, Philo? (These could be basic or very detailed, and hence the question) .....as a starting point for that, i'd suggest this.... http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html ...do try to over-ride any disinclination to give credence to the UN for doing anything right. As you have earlier said, in some cases they get it bang on...this may be one of them.

EPGAH -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 1:03:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH Once you commit a crime, I believe that the "rights" should be severely abridged...Some parallels with parenting can be drawn here... If you make decisions that harm others...or you harm others out of "need" or "instinct" (I believe those people are called "sociopaths"?), shouldn't your rights be stripped as thoroughly as your victims'? What if your crime is participating in a certain religion, or speaking out against what you believe is wrong? Well, that depends on the TENETS of your religion...Such as if your "religion" requires you to train your kids to be walking bombs, or sacrifice virgins, or some other way violate the Greater Good(TM)

pinkme2 -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 1:10:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH Once you commit a crime, I believe that the "rights" should be severely abridged...Some parallels with parenting can be drawn here... If you make decisions that harm others...or you harm others out of "need" or "instinct" (I believe those people are called "sociopaths"?), shouldn't your rights be stripped as thoroughly as your victims'? What if your crime is participating in a certain religion, or speaking out against what you believe is wrong? Well, that depends on the TENETS of your religion...Such as if your "religion" requires you to train your kids to be walking bombs, or sacrifice virgins, or some other way violate the Greater Good(TM) Actually, that's not what I'm even talking about. What if your religion believes in evolution, or in any bizarre (not harmful) thing? I'm reluctant to give the state/feds the sort of power where they could target groups they don't agree with or like. And what the hell is the Greater Good? That could mean anything.

LadyEllen -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 1:11:29 PM)
do we not better serve the interests of establishing human rights as a valid notion, by removing the rights of those who wilfully disregard them? To maintain an offender's rights is surely to demonstrate that the rights they have violated are not a serious consideration? E

pinkme2 -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 1:11:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 What type of human rights are we discussing, Philo? (These could be basic or very detailed, and hence the question) .....as a starting point for that, i'd suggest this.... http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html ...do try to over-ride any disinclination to give credence to the UN for doing anything right. As you have earlier said, in some cases they get it bang on...this may be one of them. The Human Rights council is a travesty. Are you suggesting improvements on that or something else new but with these ideals?

pinkme2 -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 1:23:05 PM)
quote: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Being in a jail cell or being forced to wear orange jumpsuits could be considered degrading. quote: Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. What of those that are asked to leave? What about inmates? quote: Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. Why would this be required? quote: Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. This right here equals socialism. And what does "existence worthy of human dignity" mean? What sort of living does that entail? quote: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. More socialism. quote: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. More socialism. sigh quote: Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Even worse than socialism. quote: Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. Now it's just getting scary. There are good things and bad... but way too many "rights". Questions- Enforcement? What of biases that I spoke of earlier? Ever notice that in terms of human rights, the US and Israel are targeted when there are far wider issues in most of the world? Why does it veer so far into socialism and requiring certain types of thought processes and development in education? How can you enforce that? In one article, you have freedom of thought and expression, in another, they discuss practically brainwashing. Which is it?

EPGAH -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 1:26:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen do we not better serve the interests of establishing human rights as a valid notion, by removing the rights of those who wilfully disregard them? To maintain an offender's rights is surely to demonstrate that the rights they have violated are not a serious consideration? E I think I said this, but in reverse, in Posts #4 and #6...Or were you simply reiterating?

farglebargle -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 1:36:12 PM)
If they're not INALIENABLE, then they're not RIGHTS. PRIVILEGES may be granted, and restricted at will by The Sovereign. Of course, in a Constitutional Republic, THE CITIZEN is Sovereign, so we need to rely on Legislation to manage the issue.

popeye1250 -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 1:44:43 PM)
And where are the human rights of American Citizens not to have our country invaded by illegal aliens? Where's the fuckin' "U.N." on that?

pinkme2 -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 1:48:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 And where are the human rights of American Citizens not to have our country invaded by illegal aliens? Where's the fuckin' "U.N." on that? LOL In the link, one of the rights was to be able to go into another country at will. So that would "solve" our illegal issue. LOL

NorthernGent -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 1:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 And where are the human rights of American Citizens not to have our country invaded by illegal aliens? Where's the fuckin' "U.N." on that? Kofi Anann is stood on the border with a baseball bat whacking aliens as they climb the fence. He's doing what he can, but he's like fuckin' King Cnute trying to stem the tide.

EPGAH -> RE: human rights (10/31/2007 2:01:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 And where are the human rights of American Citizens not to have our country invaded by illegal aliens? Where's the fuckin' "U.N." on that? LOL In the link, one of the rights was to be able to go into another country at will. So that would "solve" our illegal issue. LOL As I read it, the only "right" to switch countries is under asylum from "persecution"--does their home-countries' economic failure constitute "persecution"? Or put another way, (why) does a failure to plan on THEIR part constitute an emergency on OUR part? And also notice one of the "rights" is to RETURN HOME if they don't like it...So that would "solve" their attempts to force America to go bilingual. If they don't like America, warts&all, AS-IS, they can just go home! After all, their "old country" is where their money--I mean LOYALTY (Yeah, right! [;)] )--goes anyways, right?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125