User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 58

Thread: Human rights

  1. #31
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Just because the police aren't there to protect the right of life doesn't mean it's not a good service to have. The right of free speech just means the government shouldn't shut you up; it doesn't require anyone else to do things for you. The right to practice religion doesn't require anyone to do things for you. Same with all other rights. If it requires someone to get up early and go to work to pay for it, it's not a right.
    I guess that makes sense. I dunno what good a right is if nobody does anything to enforce it, it's just crap people typed up on paper. But that's just me.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  2. #32
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2
    I dunno what good a right is if nobody does anything to enforce it
    The right to practice religion was enforced by the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case. One of the Obamacare regulations required a businessowner to violate his religious beliefs by providing abortion medications; the court struck down that regulation.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  3. #33
    metamorphosing Flâneuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    InFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Posts
    996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    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.
    Great list -- this is my favorite post in this thread so far.

    If something is necessary to protect people's ability to live free* and safe lives (which I consider the principal right), I think it should be accepted as a valid right.
    *Freedom to pursue happiness and to basically live by one's own values (as long as they harm no one), democratic freedom, freedom to seek information, freedom from exploitation and oppression

  4. #34
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    The right to practice religion was enforced by the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case. One of the Obamacare regulations required a businessowner to violate his religious beliefs by providing abortion medications; the court struck down that regulation.
    I wasn't referring to Hobby Lobby. Don't try to change the subject. I respect the attempt, though. The constitutionality of a service like Obamacare (which sucks) is irrelevant to this discussion. I am interested in uncovering your reasoning. I was referring to rights in general. For rights to have meaning, they need to be enforced somehow. Otherwise, it is pure theory with no relevance to anyone but 5s.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  5. #35
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Inequality is just a reflection of diversity and everyone should embrace diversity.
    In his feted book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty contends that wealth inequality is rising inexorably, with negative effects on health, education, welfare and personal safety.

    The USA stands out as the most unequal country in the developed world.

    We are a successful multicultural society far more equal and happier than the USA. And we don't want to follow down the path of the USA.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    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).
    You missed my point. Rights are what societies agree are rights. I already stated some of the ones I would support. I further believe there are cases where rights can be lost(any of them).

    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. #37
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Rights are what societies agree are rights.
    We do have societies today that do not recognise human rights. Instead of human rights these societies have theistic rights. And humans submit to the rights of the deity.

  8. #38
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    You missed my point. Rights are what societies agree are rights. I already stated some of the ones I would support. I further believe there are cases where rights can be lost(any of them).
    If this is true then on what basis did the Nuremberg trials exist? There was no agreement there as it was just one society (or group of societies) forcing their idea of rights on another society.

    Edit: remember also that in the west as a general rule criminal laws aren't retroactively applied out of a basic sense of justice.

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    We do have societies today that do not recognise human rights. Instead of human rights these societies have theistic rights. And humans submit to the rights of the deity.
    Yes. Those societies chose to not uphold rights that we as a global society believe are human rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    If this is true then on what basis did the Nuremberg trials exist? There was no agreement there as it was just one society (or group of societies) forcing their idea of rights on another society.

    Edit: remember also that in the west as a general rule criminal laws aren't retroactively applied out of a basic sense of justice.
    Enough people of influence decided there should be a trial.

    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

  10. #40
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    If this is true then on what basis did the Nuremberg trials exist? There was no agreement there as it was just one society (or group of societies) forcing their idea of rights on another society.

    Edit: remember also that in the west as a general rule criminal laws aren't retroactively applied out of a basic sense of justice.
    Such a poor argument you are building there...

    In the aftermath of the Second World War, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal was the decree that set down the laws and procedures by which the post-War Nuremberg trials were to be conducted. The drafters of this document were faced with the problem of how to respond to the Holocaust and grave crimes committed by the Nazi regime. A traditional understanding of war crimes gave no provision for crimes committed by a power on its own citizens. Therefore, Article 6 of the Charter was drafted to include not only traditional war crimes and crimes against peace, but in paragraph 6 (c) Crimes Against Humanity, defined as

    "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated".

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