Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

EMF wrote:Is there a right and wrong? A moral code that ALL human beings should abide by? Is it relative? What is it for you?

Yes this question is as broad as a cricket bat nailing a pin into the side of a barn... or something along those lines .

@Manchu-To answer your question,...both.

We live in a world that constantly tries to set right and wrong in stone but fails to recognize such is situational.

Setting such codes in writing, trying to lock in their meaning means that they are too rigid to be applied effectively.

So then begins the attempt to twist the written word to make it more flexible. This undercuts the foundation of the written code and eventually renders the written word meaninless.

When looking to set a code down "in stone" as it were it is important to be really careful. Channel your inner rules lawyer and inspect closely because if you don't someone looking to manipulate or abuse will.

These people will subvert the law to their uses without one care for the destabilizing effect it has upon society. Just so long as they gain the power, money, and or control they want.

This was what I was attempting to show.

Would you consider this on-topic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

I have a few minutes, but not too much brain power, so I will diversify the information we can base this conversation out of.

Read through the Wiki article a little, and I will be posting some interesting stuff about this as I find it. To be perfectly honest, my opinion is pretty close to what G. Carling was talking about in the video I posted earlier. It is hard to put my opinions in a light that doesn't directly offend people. Talk about rights to an angry pack of dogs, or a charging bull, or even another human being that just wants to get a bite to eat, and your wallet seems to be a good a way as any... just give them the wallet, and take another street next time; guns kill, wallets don't (bank accounts are not wallets, nor are huge piles of cash being waded in on the weekends).

Umm... let us start here shall we? Seems a good a place as any .

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327166.200-do-crabs-have-rights.html

Poor crustaceans... and crazy people...

This is why the question at hand is pretty much a crizzidy-crock that will only allow people to berate others opinions. Doesn't anyone ever just have water fights anymore? Water balloon to the FACE!!! What do you think of THAT opinion huh?
http://bus.utk.edu/stat/mee/books/quest/q2.html

My main question that I hope to find out a little more information regarding during this discussion is:
Do morals provide a tug-of-war that keeps people wary enough to avoid total and utter disconnection from nature? If everyone agrees did we just break some universal rule?

IMHO this is by far as close as we are going to get to some sort of external rationalization to the degree of ACTUALLY compromising in a way that effects the human species in a positive way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Natural_selection
(Apply this "practical fact" to the current discussion if you want to actually accomplish something)

I think we are just not smart enough to actually enforce such insanely complicated measures like a universal human rights declaration; but our tenacious and adaptable generic traits should be able to see some portion of our group evolve beyond a need for such ludicrous measures.

Yes... I am the guy with the wrench at the end of the assembly line, and I am one of many who will perform their "duty" to mess your "Utopian"...(erm... this looks more like hell to me.) plans up... then pick up the good parts and try to make something out of it... just a thought really...

Frazzled wrote:

No, they don't. They do have the fundamental right to be left alone. Anything else is the sweet siren call of the dictator.

This is a classic example of the difference between positive and negative rights. Typically conservatives will believe only in negative rights, the right not to be subjected to the actions of another person or group. Typically liberals will believe in positive rights, the right to be provided with something. For instance, a person believing in negative rights would believe that no-one has the right to dictate how they might spend their own money, while a believer in positive rights would believe there is a right to take a portion of some people's money to pay for universal education.

Point 29 on that list is a pretty good example, it's basically a statement that some people's freedom can be curtailed a little to guarantee other rights for everyone. This sounds horrible to a person who believes in negative rights, apparently it sounds so horrible they feel the need to use bold, underline and size 24 font.

@Sebster-Your last line sounds good, but one wonders how you would feel if on the recieving end. If your words were viewed as destabilizing and dangerous to the community. How would you feel about your rights being curtailed under those circumstances?

Not an attack. Just an example pointing out that when attempt to put morality into words and set into written law it is always a double edged sword

@focusedfire: I think your criticism (I think it is usually called cynicism but sometimes realism), which is certainly on-topic in this form, has a kind of general applicability to law but is not very helpful to analyzing the UDHR. That document has been interpreted as aspirational. Rather than being twisted, it has simply been ignored where inconvenient (by the United States, for example). I think that's because it does not, as I was attempting to draw out earlier, grant rights but recognizes them as already existing a priori to the law.

"Positive rights" are a flawed concept when they rely on others serving you for those "rights" to be maintained. Which is most of the time.

Manchu wrote:@focusedfire: I think your criticism (I think it is usually called cynicism but sometimes realism), which is certainly on-topic in this form, has a kind of general applicability to law but is not very helpful to analyzing the UDHR. That document has been interpreted as aspirational. Rather than being twisted, it has simply been ignored where inconvenient (by the United States, for example). I think that's because it does not, as I was attempting to draw out earlier, grant rights but recognizes them as already existing a priori to the law.

Thing is that the OP finished with saying it was dead on. There are a lot of individuals who would move to ratify such a code into an enforceable law without thinking of the consequences. I work from the thought process that no matter how noble in origin of something like this, Time and people will corrupt it. Whenever you seek to give power to a good leader you are just giving power to the despot that follows after.

Now recognition of such before applying law is good but even then we must not be afraid to address the possible contradictions. This prior recognition also goes back to the point of my first post and that is that the concepts of good and evil, right and wrong are situational.

An example:

Where it states that we all have the right to start a family. In the 19 40's and 50's when this was drawn up it seemed like a no brainer(By the way I support this right). Even now we still think in the west of this as an inalienable right.

But what about when the worlds oceans are empty, the Earths population is pushing 20 million, and starvation affects all but the richest families? The same people that support this right, in the present, would call for population limiting legislation in the future.

A certain dictator was evil. He tryed to create a master race. This concept is thought evil because he force bred humans in an attempt to produce superior humans. People transfer his evil to the idea. At the time it was also considered evil because it removed free choice from the couple and the children where products and property of the state.

Now make a certain international pandemic only survivable by having the right DNA that is possessed by a very few people. How long before these people would be "required" to donate their genetics (Men semen/women forced child bearing) to the great quest for human survival. How long would women rights stand up in the face of possible extinction?

I can go on.

Your label of realist is the most appropriate, I think. I have been reffered to as such before in complimentary statements.


Edit for spelling and puctuation

focusedfire wrote:the Earths population is pushing 20 million

Oh no!

( )

Orkeosaurus wrote:

focusedfire wrote:the Earths population is pushing 20 million

Oh no!

( )

Thank you for the perfect example of a Dakka misquote : Wonder who you learned that from ?

focusedfire wrote:But what about when the worlds oceans are empty, the Earths population is pushing 20 million and starvation affects all but the richest families. The same people that support this right, in the present, would call for population limiting legislation in the future.

A certain dictator was evil. He tryed to create a master race. This concept is thought evil because he force bread humans in an attempt to produce superior humans. People transfer his evil to the idea. At the time it was also considered evil because it removed free choice from the couple and the children where products and property of the state.

Hmmm... need I say more?

Really... REALLY? REALLY???

Seriously, that is just Godwins Law with a hat on it man, and if I am not mistaken you are rationalizing the "plan" for some "master race" as a way to... wait what are you meaning here anyway?

Clarify or offend please.

focusedfire wrote:Thank you for the perfect example of a Dakka misquote : Wonder who you learned that from ?

I dunno.

@Wrexasaur-Ready to follow the rabbit into its hole?

Doesn't have to be Goodwin's law. Could be reffering to biblical times when another superior race was bred and every nation around them thought their leader(Jehovah) was evil. Thing is they won their war during that time and the winners write the history books.

Same comparison for the Spartans, mongols, or Attilla and his boys. We view Spartans as good because of how their history was written after their greatest victories and view Attilla as not good because he was stopped short.

These are societies that have similar stories about race perfection and what to do with sickly deformed babies. But we view them as good or evil depending upon the situation and who got to write the histories about them.

Now all of this adds to my point.

You asked for clarity or offend.

The clarity is already there and there is no need to be offended by talking about history.

One of the greatest absurdeties of modern society is the demonization effect. Someone does something viewed as bad/evil so nothing they ever said/did, say/do, or will say/do is considered credible. By todays standards Socrates would never have been important. We allow ourselves to have knee jerk reactions as an excuse to not face the difficult truths that controversial people represent.

Getting back to your question. Do I believe in the creation of a master race or not?

Both............... I support the right to choose your mate and make whatever you can but at the same time I can see that by pure logic we should be breeding to improve the species.
Is this a cop out? No, it is the simple realization that our view of what is right and wrong is completely dependent upon our personal circumstances and the situation in which we are confronted with the question. I beleive in the right to choose but when confronted with the threat of extiction I'd do my part to help the race survive.

I must also admit to finding the though ironic that any who play a game dominated by scientifically created genetic supermen would be offended by the thought of breeding for superior effect.

Does that Help?

@focusedfire: People only view spartans as good becuase they watch 300 and go 'ooooooh'. Looking at history, you'll realise that Sparta SUCKED. That it was a military dictatorship who enslaved and brutally supressed anyone who wasn't a purebred spartan. Forcing them to do the 'non-soldier' tasks.

l ol, I get your (last) point about breeding people. (A lot of it didn't make sense though).

Also, your points about the 30 pieces of the Universal Declaration is UTTER FAIL. You asked them to define what they're saying, claiming they're to broad and inspecific. They're ARTICLES, each one of these points are desribed in detail. But to save on PAGES on legislation, I just posted the basic pieces.

focusedfire wrote:Getting back to your question. Do I believe in the creation of a master race or not?

Very thin ice you appear to be skating on then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race

focusedfire wrote:Both............... I support the right to choose your mate and make whatever you can but at the same time I can see that by pure logic we should be breeding to improve the species.
Is this a cop out? No, it is the simple realization that our view of what is right and wrong is completely dependent upon our personal circumstances and the situation in which we are confronted with the question. I beleive in the right to choose but when confronted with the threat of extiction I'd do my part to help the race survive.

By pure logic we already are breeding to improve the species, this is quite obvious to most people. Soon we will lose our pinkies and our fingers will start to get quite a bit longer. You can see people on the planet like this now. What you are describing is a wishy-washy liberal version of eugenics. Although you say we should decide to have "better" partners, what you appear to mean is that we need to speed up the "loose change". The "strong" do not automatically override the weak, the weak are systematically taken out by nature, whether the strong have anything to do with it or not. You are stating that we will need to take DRASTIC measure at some point to step in for natural selection and somehow perform better than the planet that spawned us. Technology, etc... etc... etc... POMPEII!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Study and think a bit more before you type out psuedo-Godwin-esque statements.

Try and spin as you like, but who are you to say we are not on track right now? Why does one man (in this case a small group of people) have the right to decide anything about the groups life? Where is your scientific data stating that this is in any way a necessity, beyond the fact that overpopulation appears to scare you?

focusedfire wrote:I must also admit to finding the though ironic that any who play a game dominated by scientifically created genetic supermen would be offended by the thought of breeding for superior effect.

Dot, dot, dot. The part about being toys appears to have escaped you.

Still don't get it. Even in detail, once written they become to inflexible.

I know they go into detail but they still fail at what they purport to uphold. They are more glorified loopholes than anything effective.

I also think you miss the point in that I hope they stay that way. I don't care how much of a saint the person or group is, you give them that much power and within two genrations it would create the most world dominant, totalitarian, and dictatorial government ever seen.

Greatest tool in the world can be used for the greatest evil if left in the wrong hands.

So your point about the article being dead on and applicable on a world wide basis would be a form of fail, No?

focusedfire wrote:@Sebster-Your last line sounds good, but one wonders how you would feel if on the recieving end. If your words were viewed as destabilizing and dangerous to the community. How would you feel about your rights being curtailed under those circumstances?

Not an attack. Just an example pointing out that when attempt to put morality into words and set into written law it is always a double edged sword

I'm not talking about putting morality into words, I'm saying that a lot of people, and I'm one of them, believe people have rights beyond being left alone. A classic example is a right to education, it would be a positive right to say every child in the country deserves access to a certain level of education.

And yeah, what one person considers a right may infringe on something someone else considers a right. Whether you're looking at negative or positive rights that's going to happen. So we all debate the merits of the different options, come to our own conclusions and then hope the right we think is most important gets priority.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:"Positive rights" are a flawed concept when they rely on others serving you for those "rights" to be maintained. Which is most of the time.

Every right relies on it being maintained by the rest of society. It would be a negative right to say 'I can say whatever I want', and I would still be relying on the rest of society to agree with that and not come around and tar and feather me for my opinions on the umpiring in the Ashes series.

@focusedfire: You're never happy, are you? First you complained that they weren't specific enough, and now you complain that they are too inflexible?

Also, this is about how, as far as morals go, The Declaration is accurate and pretty much represents all peoples views. This thread wasn't about whether they worked in practice or not, it's about whether they are something good to aspire too.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@focusedfire: You're never happy, are you? First you complained that they weren't specific enough, and now you complain that they are too inflexible?

Also, this is about how, as far as morals go, The Declaration is accurate and pretty much represents all peoples views. This thread wasn't about whether they worked in practice or not, it's about whether they are something good to aspire too.

Wow, Way to behave like a politician and conviently forget what you posted. In your first post you didn't state that the post was about whether they were something to aspire to. Instead,

You said that they,"Should be followed to the letter. Without exceptions." You were the one that suggested that they should be put into practice. Yet you try to shift the blame to me when I point out that they wouldn't work in practice.

I've said it before elswhere and will say it again here. You can't legislate morality any more than you can legislate a soul. Law is about justice which is about trying to be fair. there is a reason why justice is represeted by a blind woman. Its because the law applies to everyone whether good or bad. Being fair is not the same as being good.

Now to answer your first question. Actually, I'm quite happy for the most part.

Now a question from me. Is it so hard to grasp the basic concept that these articles can be both overly specific and not specific enough at the same time? This is why I refer to them as being to "inflexible". The "situations" where they might be applied will not always be identical. Its like this:

A man that walks into a store, pulls a gun, and shoots someone thus killing them. What do you call him?

Now what if that man was a Cop and the other man was A known felon. What do you call him then?

Now what if the Cop was settling a personal score hiding behind his badge? What do you call him then?

Can't make my point much clearer. Either you will get it or you won't.


@Wrexasaur-

What shaky ground? Admiting to understanding the logic behind a breeding program to improve the human species is no worse than saying I understand the logic behind emminent domain when applied to making way for our AutoBahm...err Interstate system....yeah that is what we amercians will call it, the Eisenhower Interstate system.

I support the right of the individual. I don't "feel" we should be bullying individuals out of their personal property just because it suits the needs of the group. This tyranny of the masses/majority I feel is wrong but it doesn't make me bad or a hippocrit to admit that I understand the logic behind why poeple support such things and why the government does them.


Now, your next point about us already breeding to improve the species is completely fallacious. By your answer you either completely missed my point or wish to try and cast me in a negative light(Wishy-washy liberal) because you are afraid or unable to contemplate what I was saying.
We are not breeding to improve the species and here are some of the signs:

First, Birth defects are going up around the world, not the missing a finger kind but the horribly debilitating going to be a vegetable for life kind.
http://www.obgyn.net/newsheadlines/womens_health-Birth_Defects-20031106-5.asp

Second, We have the Tech to identify whether someone has gentic defects but are not applying such to keep the defects to a minimum or eventually breed the defect out of the species.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080403/NEWS/804030329

Third, Your mentioning natural selction as still applicable is laughable. We live in a world where our technology and very society flies in the face of natural selection. We use our science and medicine to keep weaker members of the species alive and then allow them to breed.


Now, I make a good case(Could use emotional wording to make it more compelling) for starting such a program. Do I believe we should do such? Heck No. I could make just as good of a case for not starting such a program but I would never dare to imply that we are currently breeding to improve the species. If we are in the future confronted with the choice of having to institute such or fail as a species. I'll understand when the governments start rounding up the best genetic specimens.

PS Wiki isn't a credible source. Start looking at the sites with credible sources. Study them and think befor you attempt to school someone who has a better grasp and knowledge of the situation.


Your line after your attempt to school me with wiki(chuckle) shows that you are behaving in the knee jerk way that I mentioned earlier. I never said I was proponent of such a program. I actually stated that, "I support the right to choose your mate and make whatever you can but at the same time I can see by pure logic why we should be breeding to improve the species."

That statement says that I support the right of the individual to breed however they want but that I understand the logic behind breeding programs. Your Knee jerk response to the term master race is an emeotional response rather than a logical one. I beleive a banana is a banana and a rose is a rose, *No matter what name you may call them by*. Any attempt to improve the human species by controlled breeding will be an attempt to create a master race. You can call it breeding for superior effect or the Human genome project. It still boils down to being the same thing. Whether it will be consider good or evil will be the needs of the times.


As to your last statement,...Duh, it takes "toys" to play the "game". I called it a game, it seems that the concept of Irony has escped you my friend.


Edit for spelling

sebster wrote:Every right relies on it being maintained by the rest of society. It would be a negative right to say 'I can say whatever I want', and I would still be relying on the rest of society to agree with that and not come around and tar and feather me for my opinions on the umpiring in the Ashes series.

That's beside the point; I'm talking about requiring the labor of others to preserve your "rights", not the inaction of others.

Also, negative rights don't require the maintenance of others when a person is not interacting with others. "Positive rights" (often) cease to exist without others working for you. In that sense, negative rights do not rely on others for their maintenance, others merely jeopardize their existence.

@focusedfire: That was my personal opinion. I didn't actually mean that to be the focus of discussion, but what-the-hell, this discussion's getting interesting as it is.

In answer to all your questions. It's murder, plain and simple. As far as I can see, the man offered no resistance and was given no chance to surrender. In all cases, the man was shot in cold blood. In fact, even the LAW (in Aus) would see it that way. The 'cop' would most likely be jailed.

You still haven't asnwered my question, is the UN Dlecaration of Human Rights something to aspire too, and would pretty much make a perfect world? Or do you disagree with some (any) of the articles? Do you think the very idea of human rights is a waste of time?

EDIT: I misread some of the things that focusedfire posted, and I would like to apologize to him directly for any offense. I mean no harm by what I say, I just get a bit worked up from time to time.

focusedfire wrote:I support the right of the individual

A.) Agreed to a point
B.) Stop telling me to find "verifiable" sources and source information to back up what YOU are saying.

Verify what YOU say, do not tell me I am wrong because I choose to quote one of the fairest sources of information on the interwebz. BTW, you sir have absolutely no rationale to compare toys to the points you are making; doing so lowers my confidence in your ability to focus on a single point to the area most refer to as conclusion.

focusedfire wrote:Your line after your attempt to school me with wiki(chuckle) shows that you are behaving in the knee jerk way that I mentioned earlier. I never said I was proponent of such a program. I actually stated that, "I support the right to choose your mate and make whatever you can but at the same time I can see by pure logic why we should be breeding to improve the species."

Chuckle less, and prove more.

http://www.obgyn.net/newsheadlines/womens_health-Birth_Defects-20031106-5.asp

http://www.obgyn.net/newsheadlines/womens_health-Birth_Defects-20031106-5.asp wrote:Birth defects are on the rise, both in the United States and worldwide. Premature births have risen 20% in the past 20 years, with about 1,280 premature babies are born daily worldwide, according to the March of Dimes

And? What does this exactly have to do with our natural selection? Could this be due to the chemicals introduced by man over the past century?

You quote a study based on ONE group, possibly more, over the past 20 years... Think about that then tell me how you cannot cross-reference information from the beautifully summarized Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Studying has a lot more to do with MY research, and the information that has been so successfully organized (and moderated) into Wikipedia; next time you feel like insulting me by saying something about Wiki, just P.M. me, or send a obnoxious e-mail to Wikipedia and their staff. Or post something about the fallacies that Wikipedia so liberally vomits onto your screen.

I took a look through your second link and it still fails to explain what your are actually talking about.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080403/NEWS/804030329

Look through this and explain to me how it is not some sort of "Bionic man" program perceived through the eyes of the media.
"Teh technology is there, we have the information (where is this BTW?) to make him better, faster, stronger than before!"

Do you have any idea the kind of technology we have access to right now? More importantly do you realize the actual factual determined negative outcomes that this type of advanced technology to a morally conflicted species reliant on fossil-fuel, and in some cases reliant on philosophies that bear no relevance to the current state of affairs?

Due to re-reading focusedfire's posts again, most if not all of this is not directed at him, and it should be so duly noted.

@Wrexasaur-AHH, That was what happend. I had gone through and done a complete line for line reply and it wouldn't post. I must have tried to do so as you were editing. Might I suggest that you remove the parts where you indulge in name calling and the part where you imply that I am a Nazi or nazi sympathizer in a libelest statement. They are clearly a violation of the dakka behaviorial policy.
It is the line where you say," your master race plan". I have no such plan and have never put such a plan forward. This being written, untrue, and of a possible defamatory nature makes your statement libel.
Discussing a breeding program that society may someday view as good but right now would consider very bad is not the same as having a plan. What I have been saying all along is that when society gets to the point of thinking it is good it will still be the same thing that has been done before, no matter what politically correct name they give it.

Honestly, If you feel anything else needs to be redone then go ahead. I will admit that when I got to the part with the name calling and the implied slur I almost hit the mod button.

I'll give you time to make what ever changes you feel the need for and then read your edited post without any prejudice.

PS. If you want to know why I am down on wiki as a reliable source, go to their frontpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

In the upper corner it says it can be edited by anybody.

There is more but I'll get into it later.


@Emperors Faithful- Nice discussion corner you have me in at this point. So I'll cop-out with this.

In answer to your question, Do I feel that the Declaration is something to aspire to? Unable to answer without having the entire document in front of me. It has been a while since I read the whole thing in detail.

I will say that there is nothing wrong with them as a personal credo as long as you can deal with the areas of contridiction without throwing off your own personal moral compass.
I just don't want them as a written Law. Such a thing would have to be voted on district by district and if it fails to ratify in a district then it doesn't apply there.

Now, Interesting on your answer. Mine would have been that I couldn't say until I got more details and knew the "situation".

There was no right or wrong answer, really. It is more of a psychological question designed to reveal things about ones personality.

Think about it and let me know what you think.

Later.

focusedfire wrote:PS. If you want to know why I am down On wiki as a reliable source, go to their frontpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

In the upper corner it says it can be edited by anybody.

There is more but I'll get into it later.

I agree, but most if not all of the information is checked on a regular basis by people that have the time, and care about what the site represents. Any information on there can be verified through other links, and I would not base a paper of it alone by any means (the ole' wiki-homework trick).

Wiki is actually a great site to talk about here, because they exercise the right to free speech in a fantastic way. A great point to talk about is the fact that Scientology offices were actually perma-banned from editing articles for many of the reason you do not like Wiki I am sure. This shows the legitimate concern over censorship and bold-faced lies, but it is not meant as much more than an interactive encyclopedia with a bunch of fancy features and the option to update information. The articles that get messed with the most are usually not scientific or all that "important" in any way, and there are pieces that are actually owned by people/companies if I am not mistaken (I could be ); in some way people are responsible to not lie, that is the long and the short of it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

17) Everyone has the right to own property and the right not to be deprived of his or her property.

No they don't, and no they shouldn't. If you hold this to be true, then every government in the world should be required to just give someone property, regardless of whether they have earned it or not. This is both illogical and unethical. You don't reward people for nothing. The ownership of property is a privilege, not a right.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
21) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his or her country, directly or through representatives, i.e. the right to vote and elect representatives. [This is often defined as the right to democracy.]

This is just sheer foolishness. The idea that democracy is the best form of government only highlights the arrogance and idiocy of some Western idealists. Each country should be free to determine its own government. Be it democracy, monarchy, totalitarianism, etc. Democracy, which doesn't really exist anyway, only works in a very unique setting. And in most cultures it just won't work. Montesquieu had it right when he declared that not one type of government will work for every nation.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
22) Everyone has the right to economic, social and cultural security.

Idealized rubbish at its finest. It also has a strong whiff of socialism....which I personally find appalling. But, as I have already said, that is for each country to decide on their own.

Emperors Faithful wrote: 25) Everyone has the to an adequate standard of living.

See previous statement....

Emperors Faithful wrote:
30) No one should act in any way that will damage the rights and freedoms of another person.

This statement of course inhibits natural rights, ie speech, religion, etc., because some actions of various groups will be taken as an infringement on another persons rights. For example, a Catholic mother teaches her children that homosexuality is a sin, that can very easily be taken as an infringement of another person's rights because it, in some viewpoints, labels homos as second class citizens. I find this to be absolute lunacy, and that the free exercise of your natural, God given rights, should not be limited by the government...of course this takes us to a whole different thread of conversation....

Orkeosaurus wrote:That's beside the point; I'm talking about requiring the labor of others to preserve your "rights", not the inaction of others.

You're neutering the notion of rights. If a right requires no considerate action on the part of others, then it is simply a tautological statement. For example, the right to life is necessarily fulfilled when discussing any possible human as the human in question must exist in order to be the subject of discussion. Thus, stating that all people have the right to life simply means that someone who is alive must be alive.

For the concept of rights to be meaningful at all there must be some form of outside labor.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:You don't reward people for nothing.

Since when?

JEB_Stuart wrote:
This is just sheer foolishness. The idea that democracy is the best form of government only highlights the arrogance and idiocy of some Western idealists. Each country should be free to determine its own government. Be it democracy, monarchy, totalitarianism, etc. Democracy, which doesn't really exist anyway, only works in a very unique setting. And in most cultures it just won't work. Montesquieu had it right when he declared that not one type of government will work for every nation.

I agree, the right to representation is only problematic when its equated with the right to democracy.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Idealized rubbish at its finest. It also has a strong whiff of socialism....which I personally find appalling. But, as I have already said, that is for each country to decide on their own.

Really? Actually, this question can only be asked in sequential process: really, really, really? Because what you're questioning is a fundamental premise of capitalism.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
See previous statement....

Yep...

JEB_Stuart wrote:
This statement of course inhibits natural rights, ie speech, religion, etc., because some actions of various groups will be taken as an infringement on another persons rights. For example, a Catholic mother teaches her children that homosexuality is a sin, that can very easily be taken as an infringement of another person's rights because it, in some viewpoints, labels homos as second class citizens. I find this to be absolute lunacy, and that the free exercise of your natural, God given rights, should not be limited by the government...of course this takes us to a whole different thread of conversation....

One which renders the entire concept of 'right' impotent.

Huzzah! The world is not simple, which means I can expect to have my brain-power/knowledge employed for some time.

*Pats Own Back*

Orkeosaurus wrote:That's beside the point; I'm talking about requiring the labor of others to preserve your "rights", not the inaction of others.

So you're opposed to taxation to ensure a minimum level of education for everyone?

Also, negative rights don't require the maintenance of others when a person is not interacting with others. "Positive rights" (often) cease to exist without others working for you. In that sense, negative rights do not rely on others for their maintenance, others merely jeopardize their existence.

Which is the kind of thing that sounds very important when talking about things at a hypothetical level, but ends up making little real difference when looking at what rights people find very important in the real world. We are social creatures living in a very complex society, where everything we do is governed by our interactions with others. To ignore those interactions when deciding what rights are most important makes no sense.

dogma wrote:
Since when?

Sorry for the lack of clarity, you shouldn't reward people for doing nothing. It is unethical and unfair.

dogma wrote:
I agree, the right to representation is only problematic when its equated with the right to democracy.

Thank you, yes democracy is not an innate right. To be sure, it is merely a form of government that the West trumpets because of its own self-assured political superiority.

dogma wrote:
Really? Actually, this question can only be asked in sequential process: really, really, really? Because what you're questioning is a fundamental premise of capitalism.

Again I need to clarify. The ability or freedom to pursue a better living standard is of course a powerful and appealing element to capitalism, but I do not believe every person is guaranteed to economic security. As for my thoughts on the adequate standard of living, I hate that rule simply because it puts such a vague term on how a person should live. Both the more spartan and the more gluttonous can abuse this terrible phrasing, especially to subjugate or to garner votes. I would go into more detail, but I just don't want to type that much.

dogma wrote:
Huzzah! The world is not simple, which means I can expect to have my brain-power/knowledge employed for some time.

Agreed this world is not simple, nor should it be. But I will say that I am thankful for the freedom we have to discuss this, especially in the face of so much oppression in the world.

dogma wrote:You're neutering the notion of rights. If a right requires no considerate action on the part of others, then it is simply a tautological statement. For example, the right to life is necessarily fulfilled when discussing any possible human as the human in question must exist in order to be the subject of discussion. Thus, stating that all people have the right to life simply means that someone who is alive must be alive.

For the concept of rights to be meaningful at all there must be some form of outside labor.

I didn't say that they require no consideration from others, I said they require no labor from others. Someone who is alive is alive so long as no one intervenes.

sebster wrote:So you're opposed to taxation to ensure a minimum level of education for everyone?

No, and I'm not opposed to roads either.

That doesn't mean those things are inalienable rights. Just civil services.

Which is the kind of thing that sounds very important when talking about things at a hypothetical level, but ends up making little real difference when looking at what rights people find very important in the real world. We are social creatures living in a very complex society, where everything we do is governed by our interactions with others. To ignore those interactions when deciding what rights are most important makes no sense.

How am I ignoring them?

If rights are fundamental and inalienable, they need to be able to be attained by a person without interaction with anyone else. Because despite the fact that most people today live in fairly social circumstances, that's not the only possible circumstance for a person to live in. (Unless you want to start blaming nature for violating people's rights!)

I agree completely Orkeo, but let us not forget one incredibly important rule concerning rights: these are merely ideas and liberties that the average citizen should expect to enjoy, without fear of retribution or otherwise from the government. Rights are specifically labeled as a matter to govern the relationship of the people's various expressions and the authority of the government, this is not however relevant to citizens relations. It has been theorized, and I find this theory to be sufficiently adequate, that no one citizen can violate another citizens rights, rather they can only commit a crime. The government is the only entity that can actively suppress one's rights because it suppresses them through official and not private action.