|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
First, there is no ban on torture that I know of that is a human right except in those States, societies or cultures that have agreed that within their State, culture or society they will ban torture. Even there it is not really a right, rather a proscription on torturing another person and usually even that is limited and has exceptions.
Second, the ban on worshiping other Gods was a tribal rule, and applied only within the membership of that particular culture and society (they were not a State). Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
They claimed that rights were being violated, rights that were afforded British Citizens living in England. The rights were those that had been established by the State known as Great Britain.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
First, there is no ban on torture that I know of that is a human right except in those States, societies or cultures that have agreed that within their State, culture or society they will ban torture. The ban would be a function of States just as any law or treaty. However, the human right to not face torture is not a product of the State. There is a subtle yet important difference between the two. Human rights exist whether or not a State, culture, or society recognizes them, at least according to the arguments that Locke put forward. Playing the Godwin card, there was no agreed upon international rule that said you could not kill Jews by the millions. So how were Nazi officials convicted of crimes where no law existed? I think it is quite simple. Human rights are above any State or society. There is no excuse for violating human rights. Not having a law protecting human rights is NOT an excuse for human rights violations. So yes, bans and procedures are a product of the State. However, these bans and procedures are based on human rights that exist outside of the State.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
They claimed that rights were being violated, rights that were afforded British Citizens living in England. The rights were those that had been established by the State known as Great Britain.
"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."--Declaration of Independence Hmm. I see a reference to self-evident and inalienable rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And so far you have not shown that there is any 'human right not to face torture' as anyone who has ever witnessed or experienced the angst of a first love should know.
The Nazi's were convicted by their conquers who applied the conquers standards. The trials were a clear example of might makes right. Nor were the conquers all that united about how Jews should be treated. Roosevelt for example was perfectly happy to suggest that Jews should be limited in employment opportunities in specific professions, specifically the areas of law, medicine and teaching.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes and also to the fact that it was a position and belief held by a specific State, culture or society. "We", the signers of this document, hold these beliefs.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
The Nazi's were convicted by their conquers who applied the conquers standards. How so? What were these standards?
Nor were the conquers all that united about how Jews should be treated. They were united on human rights as it related to Nazi Germany. They were united in the conclusion that the genocide of the Jews was wrong. This was made clear in the Moscow Document:
quote: This lead to the drafting of the London Charter which included three types of crimes: war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Yes and also to the fact that it was a position and belief held by a specific State, culture or society. If they were simply a product of beliefs then they would not be self-evident nor inalienable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I see a reference to self-evident and inalienable rights. And the Founders were wrong as a matter of simple fact. Clearly the basic rights of which they spoke are not always self-evident, because there have been countless societies that did not have the. Likewise, obviously those rights are not inalienable, because there have been countless societies that alienated them. The same way that they were wrong about the rights stemming from a Creator. The key words were "We hold," not what comes afterward. So long as we agree that we have those rights, we have them. But they can be lost at any time by mutual agreement, or by tyranny. All that's needed to lose the Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional Amendment, or a takeover from a foreign power. And if you're referring to the basic three, "Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," well, those are all a joke already - we restrict all three on a daily basis. If those rights were truly "inalienable," we wouldn't ever put a single person in prison, we wouldn't execute anyone, and our social safety net would guarantee a fair minimum standard of living so that all citizens are freely able to pursue happiness instead of being stuck with two jobs just to keep the lights on and no chance to ever improve. I thought I was the idealist.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Thanks for supporting my position by pointing out yet again that it was through the acts of a State, culture or society that rights are established.
And note that almost no Nazi's were sent back to the countries to be judged and even ther it is an example of a State, society or culture establishing standards.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Why?
And you have not shown that any of those beliefs outlined are self-evident or inalienable. And the document still says "We hold ..."Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
And the Founders were wrong as a matter of simple fact. Clearly the basic rights of which they spoke are not always self-evident, because there have been countless societies that did not have the. Likewise, obviously those rights are not inalienable, because there have been countless societies that alienated them.
Did Pluto only exist once we discovered it, or did it exist prior to its discovery? Human rights are the same. Enlightenment philosophers like Locke discovered human rights. They did not invent them. Secondly, how does a society take away human rights?
The key words were "We hold," not what comes afterward. So long as we agree that we have those rights, we have them. We always have them. What the agreement allows for is a State that protects those rights.
But they can be lost at any time by mutual agreement, or by tyranny. All that's needed to lose the Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional Amendment, or a takeover from a foreign power. A foreign power or tyrant could only violate our human rights, not take them away.
And if you're referring to the basic three, "Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," well, those are all a joke already - we restrict all three on a daily basis. If those rights were truly "inalienable," we wouldn't ever put a single person in prison, we wouldn't execute anyone, and our social safety net would guarantee a fair minimum standard of living so that all citizens are freely able to pursue happiness instead of being stuck with two jobs just to keep the lights on and no chance to ever improve. What you are talking about is the social contract. Human rights are the ideal, and the social contract built on these human rights will always fall short of that ideal. I will not argue that all governments fall short of the ideal, but that doesn't make the ideals go away. Wiki actually has a decent write up of Locke's notion of the social contract:
quote: The government is allowed to govern the interplay of these liberties as they are delegated by the citizens.
I thought I was the idealist. To be fair, I am more of a pragmatist than I let on in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
And you have not shown that any of those beliefs outlined are self-evident or inalienable.
We have already covered this ground. If you found my arguments to be unsatisfactory then it may be better to agree to disagree rather than repeat previous posts. You disagree that empathy and reason can be used to conclude that human rights exist. I think they can be used. I don't see a way past this sticking point.
And the document still says "We hold ..." Help me see this from your point of view. What should the document say if human rights really are self-evidence and inalienable? What are you not seeing in this document that should be there if human rights really are inherent and inalienable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Thanks for supporting my position by pointing out yet again that it was through the acts of a State, culture or society that rights are established. It wasn't the State, culture, or society that established those rights, only the procedures that would be used to punish those who violated human rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
It seems that this thread is stuck in neutral. Do you guys feel like it is time for summations? If so, I would be more than happy to write mine first and let you guys tear it apart.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024