quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

If something doesn't have basis in a person's humanity, then it isn't a human right. And, it isn't a "very odd claim to make" considering:
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Voting rights aren't human rights.

Most of the world bases their approach to the question of human rights on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the American document) which opens with:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," (emphasis added)
This declaration states as Article 21:
"(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
which, in my reading, adds up to a right to vote as part of our overall human rights.

And, I would argue, is not really a human right. Wasn't that the impetus for this very thread? That there were items on the UNDHR that I didn't agree were human rights? Just because the UNDHR says it is doesn't make it so. At least the Declaration of Independence gives a nod to where our rights come from. If it has to come from a document, is it truly a human right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, I would argue, is not really a human right. Wasn't that the impetus for this very thread? That there were items on the UNDHR that I didn't agree were human rights? Just because the UNDHR says it is doesn't make it so. At least the Declaration of Independence gives a nod to where our rights come from. If it has to come from a document, is it truly a human right?

I have a question for you? Why do you feel we need a law or a court to give someone rights? Wasn't the basis of slavery, the fact that oh, those people don't have rights because we don't recognize them "legally". Did it mean until after the Civil war, those slaves never had human rights? I put it to you, that a right is not something we are given, it is something we are born with, something we always have. It can be taken away, it can be trampled over, it can be crushed. But it can never be gifted

quote:

ORIGINAL: Me.
Anything that relies on someone else to provide isn't a right, but a privilege. Connecticut used to have a math program that was slightly more advanced than my local school's (based entirely on the case of a classmate who moved into my District from Connecticut after our sophomore year in high school; he was where our junior math class was; he took Calculus as a junior where the rest of us took Calc as seniors; and, this wasn't due to his math brilliance). We didn't have a right to the same education. We both had the privilege of the education system where we resided.

quote:

And, I would argue, is not really a human right. Wasn't that the impetus for this very thread? That there were items on the UNDHR that I didn't agree were human rights? Just because the UNDHR says it is doesn't make it so. At least the Declaration of Independence gives a nod to where our rights come from. If it has to come from a document, is it truly a human right?

quote:

Anything that relies on someone else to provide isn't a right, but a privilege.

quote:

At least the Declaration of Independence gives a nod to where our rights come from.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
Hmm, I can see where you can make that distinction. But in this case I don't think people here are making it. People are arguing that there are certain fundamental human rights that one should expect as we exist on this planet. We always had these rights, and we always will. The right to a roof over our head, the right to food on the table, and the right to an education, shared knowledge. The society of man has changed, but these have always been ours, from the time when we hunted with spears, ate berries and roots in caves, and painted on the walls. Since our system of government is set up solely to support us "the people", it should therefore function as a mechanism to extend these basic and fundamental rights, wouldn't you agree?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And, I would argue, is not really a human right. Wasn't that the impetus for this very thread? That there were items on the UNDHR that I didn't agree were human rights? Just because the UNDHR says it is doesn't make it so. At least the Declaration of Independence gives a nod to where our rights come from. If it has to come from a document, is it truly a human right?

There is a long historical discourse regarding human rights by political philosophers since the doctrine of the divine right of kings was weakened by revolutions in England, America and France. Any codification of that discourse on a document does not distract from the ideas that emerged. The expression of Rights on a document is simply the fruition of that discourse wherein there has been some attempt to identify human rights. The body of human rights has its own reality outside of any document and may in fact not be an expression of consensus in any final sense but a work in progress. So, your argument about whether a document lends authority to human rights is specious.

quote:

quote:

Anything that relies on someone else to provide isn't a right, but a privilege.

I have the same opinion of this statement. The right to life and liberty for one person may very well rely upon others individually or upon the community/state to provide it in circumstances where there is a disparity of power. It certainly depends upon the laws and justice provided by the state. The alternative would be that each person would have to arm themselves and assert their own Liberty in a state of nature. But that is not why we agree to abide by a Constitution and a set of laws.

quote:

quote:

At least the Declaration of Independence gives a nod to where our rights come from.

I also take issue with this statement you made above where I take you to refer to the "unalienable rights endowed by their creator." Well, many of us do not believe that shit at all. In the final analysis whether there is a creator or not is immaterial because the Rights of Humans must be discerned and agreed upon by humans. We are not waiting again for a new set of stone tablets. The documents at which you sniff are merely data points in the ongoing discussion. You may disagree with what is a right and what is not in the UN document but it is their consensus and you do not get to make up the rules or guidelines. Of course whether or not the consensus has any practical weight is another matter. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
Hmm, I can see where you can make that distinction. But in this case I don't think people here are making it. People are arguing that there are certain fundamental human rights that one should expect as we exist on this planet. We always had these rights, and we always will. The right to a roof over our head, the right to food on the table, and the right to an education, shared knowledge. The society of man has changed, but these have always been ours, from the time when we hunted with spears, ate berries and roots in caves, and painted on the walls. Since our system of government is set up solely to support us "the people", it should therefore function as a mechanism to extend these basic and fundamental rights, wouldn't you agree?

How is it we have a right to a roof over our head, food, education, shared knowledge, etc.?

Our system of government is not set up solely to support us. It is there to protect our rights, not provide them.

quote:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
How is it that a bird has a right to fly in the air, a fish has the right to swim in the sea? These just are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
How is it that a bird has a right to fly in the air, a fish has the right to swim in the sea? These just are.

These are not rights . They're abilities.

I have the ability to shoot someone who's breaking into my house. Does that make it a right? No. The right is that of self preservation. I think You may be conflating ideas (though I believe it's un-intentional).

Now, if you want to argue that a fish has no choice but to swim in the sea, I'll agree with you but it isn't a right. It's what that fish must deal with in order to survive.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
Actually, self preservation is not a right, it is an instinct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
How is it that a bird has a right to fly in the air, a fish has the right to swim in the sea? These just are. We have been eating, living, learning, etc on this planet since we walked on two legs and started using tools. And yes, our government was set up to support us. I give you these words:

quote:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Written by men who realized that, in order to protect themselves from an oppressive regime, they had to form a new nation where at it's core, the people would be first not the rulers. According to this document, the government "supports" we, its people. At least that's the way I read it

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

I said international students, I didn't call them 'foreign'... you need to own that yourself.

Second, the notion that the 10% figure is the 'defining reason' that international students come to the US is utterly irrational, and I never said anything even remotely resembling it. What I actually posted was that that in many cases the reason is that the government back home decides for the student what their educational and career lot in life will be, and a US diploma is a way to improve one's chances.

And finally, you chose to conceal the most obvious fact, which is that international students don't pay US tuition rates, they pay rates that are 2, 3, even 4 times higher... making any assertion that they come here because it is so cheap, illogical.

So again, the misrepresentations are all yours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather


Nope, if you simply follow what you were talking about from the beginning, that the 10% foreign student ratio was a defining reason for why other countries flock here for education instead of staying in their own, my example proves otherwise. It is because of the cost vs. quality that attracts them. Honestly didn't think I would need to explain that, but there you go

Oh good lord no offense but you are as dense as a pound cake... Foreign is not an insult, it is a classification, so don't get your panties in a bunch over the wording. One could make the inference quite easily from your statements like this:

quote:


Which is why our colleges are around 10% international students... because of US isolationism and our inferior universities...

and replied with this:

quote:


I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from, Japan is 7th on the list of nations represented in US schools. It isn't unusual to see over a dozen countries represented at any given TOEFL session.

Your original assertion stands unproven, and your bringing ethnicity into it seems beside the point.

In spite of a useless primary system, the US universities offer something of value to the world. In many cases, I suspect it because the students would have been denied the right to an education back home because of social standing, or being fast tracked into the trades by the government.

Strange, but those gave me the impression you felt, oh I'll use your word why the hell not, international students came here for the "value". Your word, not mine, correct? And as to the notion that they pay more for a US education, what the hell does that have anything to do with the point?? If anything, it shows that those who can afford it, show how much they are willing to pay for that piece of paper that says Harvard Business School on it. Now does that say its a better school or just a more expensive school? Companies sure do put a lot of merit in a degree from it, but are they looking at that half a million dollar diploma? Cause you can talk to some teachers at community college, and they will tell ya, they are every bit as good a teacher as any at Harvard, they just don't get the big paychecks. And for the record, if you can find anywhere that I have said something to the effect that they come here because it's cheap, please point it out. I said they come here because our colleges are cost effective. You pay big money, you get that diploma. I fail to see how that equates to cheap...

quote:

It is not specious. A document does not actually give us any human rights. Human rights are there simply because we are human. A document can mention, list, codify them, but it is not giving them to us. If the right doesn't exist in the absence of documentation, it isn't a human right.

quote:

Government exists solely to protect our rights.

quote:

Providing protection for someone isn't providing a right, it's protecting a right.

quote:

The Constitution doesn't require the police to protect us.

quote:

What is the point of even having government if there aren't any human rights that exist solely because of our humanity?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It is not specious. A document does not actually give us any human rights. Human rights are there simply because we are human. A document can mention, list, codify them, but it is not giving them to us. If the right doesn't exist in the absence of documentation, it isn't a human right.

We agree that Rights are human based. But who decides what they are and which are actionable? A document conveys that information whether or not you agree with it.

quote:

quote:

Government exists solely to protect our rights.

Not so. You will find other duties enumerated in Article One.

quote:

quote:

Providing protection for someone isn't providing a right, it's protecting a right.

A difference without a distinction. You would have no rights if they were not protected.

quote:

quote:

The Constitution doesn't require the police to protect us.

The states have policing powers.

quote:

quote:

What is the point of even having government if there aren't any human rights that exist solely because of our humanity?

So, who identifies those rights and in what manner are they communicated to others? To say we have human rights solely because we are human is rather circular logic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
Actually, self preservation is not a right, it is an instinct.

Not if you agree that "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights as Jefferson et al. did.

IF life is my right then, preservation of it (by me) is an extension of that right and therefore, a right unto itself.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

That is simply trolling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

I said international students, I didn't call them 'foreign'... you need to own that yourself.

Second, the notion that the 10% figure is the 'defining reason' that international students come to the US is utterly irrational, and I never said anything even remotely resembling it. What I actually posted was that that in many cases the reason is that the government back home decides for the student what their educational and career lot in life will be, and a US diploma is a way to improve one's chances.

And finally, you chose to conceal the most obvious fact, which is that international students don't pay US tuition rates, they pay rates that are 2, 3, even 4 times higher... making any assertion that they come here because it is so cheap, illogical.

So again, the misrepresentations are all yours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather


Nope, if you simply follow what you were talking about from the beginning, that the 10% foreign student ratio was a defining reason for why other countries flock here for education instead of staying in their own, my example proves otherwise. It is because of the cost vs. quality that attracts them. Honestly didn't think I would need to explain that, but there you go

Oh good lord no offense but you are as dense as a pound cake... Foreign is not an insult, it is a classification, so don't get your panties in a bunch over the wording. One could make the inference quite easily from your statements like this:

quote:


Which is why our colleges are around 10% international students... because of US isolationism and our inferior universities...

and replied with this:

quote:


I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from, Japan is 7th on the list of nations represented in US schools. It isn't unusual to see over a dozen countries represented at any given TOEFL session.

Your original assertion stands unproven, and your bringing ethnicity into it seems beside the point.

In spite of a useless primary system, the US universities offer something of value to the world. In many cases, I suspect it because the students would have been denied the right to an education back home because of social standing, or being fast tracked into the trades by the government.

Strange, but those gave me the impression you felt, oh I'll use your word why the hell not, international students came here for the "value". Your word, not mine, correct? And as to the notion that they pay more for a US education, what the hell does that have anything to do with the point?? If anything, it shows that those who can afford it, show how much they are willing to pay for that piece of paper that says Harvard Business School on it. Now does that say its a better school or just a more expensive school? Companies sure do put a lot of merit in a degree from it, but are they looking at that half a million dollar diploma? Cause you can talk to some teachers at community college, and they will tell ya, they are every bit as good a teacher as any at Harvard, they just don't get the big paychecks. And for the record, if you can find anywhere that I have said something to the effect that they come here because it's cheap, please point it out. I said they come here because our colleges are cost effective. You pay big money, you get that diploma. I fail to see how that equates to cheap...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
How is it that a bird has a right to fly in the air, a fish has the right to swim in the sea? These just are. We have been eating, living, learning, etc on this planet since we walked on two legs and started using tools. And yes, our government was set up to support us. I give you these words:

quote:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Written by men who realized that, in order to protect themselves from an oppressive regime, they had to form a new nation where at it's core, the people would be first not the rulers. According to this document, the government "supports" we, its people. At least that's the way I read it

I think we are arguing the same point here, really. The whole point of government, according to the Declaration of Independence, is "to secure" the inalienable rights. I take the view that "support" is less protection and more provision. If government is the provider, then government can also take what they have provided away from us.

And, we may also have different ideas on what constitutes a human right.

quote:

I think we are arguing the same point here, really. The whole point of government, according to the Declaration of Independence, is "to secure" the inalienable rights. I take the view that "support" is less protection and more provision. If government is the provider, then government can also take what they have provided away from us.

And, we may also have different ideas on what constitutes a human right.

quote:

Which one isn't there to protect our rights?

quote:

So, without government, it's okay to kill anyone at any time?