User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 58

Thread: Human rights

  1. #11
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    People rarely vote their way into secession, it requires force to break out. I am just being pragmatic, something that seems to go over the head of many on here.
    And now your fighting for the right to redefine pragmatism? I suppose at least that would have some sort of meaning.

    Anyway, I think the notion of an international right to sovereignty is an interesting one, and in sharp contrast to this thread, is worth looking into.

  2. #12
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    That is sad.

    Compared to those five, the ones you posted in the OP seem trivial to me - and the last one downright tyrannical. A state who demands respect but provides none back to its citizens, nor cares about their most basic needs? I'll pass.
    I am not talking about the state, but the collective right of an ethnic group to have their own living space and define their own way of life. Where that place should be has historically often been the problem. At present, the international community denies that most Europoid ethnic groups have a right to national identity at all while simultaneously supporting the idea in other parts of the world. I know why, but that's a separate discussion irrelevant to this thread.

    I don't believe everybody has a right to life; criminals such as murders and rapists, as well as serious white-collar criminals, do not deserve it. Bring back public executions for these scum. I would also argue that people who live with serious diseases, and who have a poor quality of life, probably wish that they weren't born in the first place.

    Besides, it isn't far from saying you have a right to certain conditions to insisting that you have a right to live wherever you want, and to taxpayer-funded social welfare and healthcare. Who is going to create these conditions you talk about if they aren't met in the country you live in?

  3. #13
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,658

    Default

    Considering the mass migrations all throughout history, those claims becomes incredibly hard to substantiate, tbh. One part of my ancestors likely started out somewhere near Siberia, travelled all the way up to Sweden and Norway to settle there, then rape, pillage, plunder and settle down in the place that I grew up in. Another part of my ancestors are from the center of Europe - at least, as far as we can track 'em. Then there's the Romans and their influence in the part where I grew up back when.

    At what point do you stop going back in time?

    For that matter, migration seems to be normal and natural to the human species and re-mixes those ethnic groups all the time. Granted, it gives issues during the transition phases, I won't deny that.

    As for your second part - those criminals still deserve to be free of suffering though, though losing their freedom in exchange for the safety of others seems only fair. I could be swayed towards humane execution in some cases, I suppose, as well as euthanasia to keep people - others and themselves - from harm. Those five needs are to prevent suffering and eventually death from setting in. And I do believe every living being has a right to live free of suffering or choose to die to end suffering.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  4. #14
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    Considering the mass migrations all throughout history, those claims becomes incredibly hard to substantiate, tbh. One part of my ancestors likely started out somewhere near Siberia, travelled all the way up to Sweden and Norway to settle there, then rape, pillage, plunder and settle down in the place that I grew up in. Another part of my ancestors are from the center of Europe - at least, as far as we can track 'em. Then there's the Romans and their influence in the part where I grew up back when.
    Never in history has there been immigration on the scale of millions within a time span of decades, and never has that immigration almost entirely consisted of people of different racial groups.

    Seeing this has turned (predictably) from an abstract discussion about rights into a defense of immigration, I should point out that in past ages, people have always defended their country from invasion; never supported it and made those among them who remain loyal social pariahs. There is no precedent for what you support. There is no advantage for you supporting such immigration anyway. Brought to its logical conclusion, the institution of a new majority group (Pakistani presumably) and the imposition of their culture, you'd lose many of the privileges you take for granted today. I doubt this will change such views because they aren't held for rational reasons. But unfortunately I care enough to try.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    For that matter, migration seems to be normal and natural to the human species and re-mixes those ethnic groups all the time. Granted, it gives issues during the transition phases, I won't deny that.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    As for your second part - those criminals still deserve to be free of suffering though, though losing their freedom in exchange for the safety of others seems only fair. I could be swayed towards humane execution in some cases, I suppose, as well as euthanasia to keep people - others and themselves - from harm. Those five needs are to prevent suffering and eventually death from setting in. And I do believe every living being has a right to live free of suffering or choose to die to end suffering.
    Your rights don't supervene mine, and those who abuse others should be firmly punished to set an example and prevent such behaviour from occurring in the future. The most severe of crimes need to be dealt with in such a way that installs fear in the hearts of those thinking of doing the same. I don't feel that comfortable with the death penalty personally, but can recognize that there are some people who are too dangerous to keep alive.

    Death is a natural part of life. I have stared death in the face already many times in my life and sometimes wonder whether life is worth living. I mainly continue on because committing suicide requires a degree of courage that I admit I don't possess, and there are some things that I still wish to do first, like have a child and write some music.

  5. #15
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,658

    Default

    I didn't defend immigration though, just pointed out that it tends to be a part of life. My comment was geared towards your comments wrt the claims on land based on ethnicity as it is impractical to execute. Im personally pro regularised integration and assimilation, as much as that is possible, since this is an issue that is unavoidable, history teaches us. Might as well channel it in the least harmful way.

    I have no problem with death as that too is part of life - it's pointless suffering I vehemently oppose. The death penalty is severe though, especially with the risk of being 'wrong' about the crime someone committed in the mix.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  6. #16

    Default

    I think it's an interesting question. Whether rights "exist" or not. I mean, rights are not object existing in the physical/corporeal world. Nevertheless, there are documents that purportedly say that people living in particular societies have them.

    For instance, the First Amendment to The U.S. Constitution states:
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

    So this is something, that through a process encoded in the U.S. Constitution became amended to it, that in some sense states a "right". The right itself, however, still does not exist as an object in physical or corporeal form. Nevertheless, there are people who will fight for it. People who will want it enforced. People who will complain when they believe it is violated.

    There will, in addition, be people who will say that this is not a right, or claim the right is not being violated. This "right" is now concept that is codified and can be argued about. Concepts, by their very nature, are fuzzy, not matter how sharp we try to make them.

    Besides that, I think it is only a question of whether or not we support other people who fight for certain things. Rights don't exist in physical or corporeal form.

    In that sense, I will give support to people who fight for people to be given the chance to vote in elections. I will support people who want to have water to drink. I will support people who want to assemble to meet their own aims. All these things, are contingent on a case-by-case basis, but it would take extreme circumstances for me to not support people in these situations.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  7. #17
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    I am uninterested in the metaphysical nature of rights - they are abstract ideas (much like half the things we talk about on the forum) made objective by peoples' actions. But so what. Brooding over such a thing is pointless mental masturbation.

    What I am interested in is peoples' take on which (if any) rights people should have and their reasons for thinking this. When I ask "do rights exist", I mean "is there anything that you are entitled to just for existing?", not "what is a right?". The former is a much less closed and more practical question, and can be expanded outward to other issues very easily (as has already happened).

  8. #18
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    I don't know that I believe in intrinsic philosophical rights, but I do believe that if we want the best society and government we can create, it would protect for each individual unless willingly forfeited:

    Access to basic resources: safe water, healthy food, clean air.
    Land and shelter.
    Freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, petition.
    Basic income and retirement stipend upon reaching a certain age.
    Universal healthcare.
    Democratic input via voting and legal appeal.
    Timely and fair trial by peers.
    Protection from violence, thievery, and oppression.
    Privacy and protection from both government and corporate entities.
    Free education.
    Safe working conditions.

    I think an important component of this which is a bit "silent" would be protection of individuals from capitalistic mega-entities via caps on what amount of resources can be amassed by individual people and organizations. People who are born into wealth did nothing to earn it and corporations who earn it only realistically benefit from so much. IMO it is a crime to hoard resources while others are starving despite working hard to make it otherwise.

  9. #19
    Member ginniebean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    30

    Default

    All rights by definition are philosophical and often ideological. The libertarian ideology uses words like inviolable and inalienable as vehemence in assertion but such vehemence doesn't make these philosophical notions any more solid than an opposing ones.

  10. #20
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    I agree with @ginniebean and I'm a libertarian, but it's not the vehemence in assertion that makes the notion of inalienable rights "solid"; it's the evidence from practicing these principles and the tremendous success of the USA that makes such principles "solid". As they say, the proof of the pudding is in its eating thereof.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

Similar Threads

  1. Should access to the internet be a human right?
    By EcK in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-28-2012, 02:03 PM
  2. Is Internet Access A Human Right?
    By iwakar in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-25-2012, 10:31 PM
  3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    By Kalach in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 10:06 PM
  4. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 06:27 AM
  5. UN rejects water as human right
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO