|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Is imprisonment a breach of a human's right to liberty? The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others. If you are imprisoned for simply speaking your mind then this is a violation of human rights. If you are imprisoned for commiting murder, then it is not a violation of the human right to liberty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Ok , I see what you are saying. Thanks, I must start at the beginning of this topic.
"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
So, when someone is imprisoned for tax avoidance, that is a breach of their human rights? The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others.And when someone is imprisoned for trespassing, that is a breach of their human rights? And when someone is imprisoned for burglary, that is a breach of their human rights? And when someone is imprisoned for animal cruelty, that is a breach of their human rights? Or perhaps you would like to add some more criteria to your 'right of liberty'?Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
When I am pointing out a problem with Taq's position, it seems silly for you to jump in and say "But that is not what I think!". I don't care what Taq says./shrug NoNukes writes:
And if you read what I wrote (here it is again): And the fact that some people don't recognize some right does not mean it does not exist. It just means that the right is not universally accepted or respected.quote:...you can see that I didn't say that they didn't exist. In fact, you have pretty much repeated what I wrote. Try this:If one person thinks that humans have a right to liberty and another person thinks that humans don't have a right to liberty, how do you determine which of them is correct? Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
So, when someone is imprisoned for tax avoidance, that is a breach of their human rights?
If I understand Locke's arguments correctly, tax avoidance is a violation of the social contract and can therefore result in imprisonment.
And when someone is imprisoned for trespassing, that is a breach of their human rights? When you trespass you are violating the rights of others. The same for burglary. Animal cruelty is a new comer to the list, and is still controversial. That would probably need a thread of its own.
Or perhaps you would like to add some more criteria to your 'right of liberty'? It appears that you missed the criteria in the previous post. "The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
If one person thinks that humans have a right to liberty and another person thinks that humans don't have a right to liberty, how do you determine which of them is correct?
You use empathy and reason to determine which of them is correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
You have the right to not be tortured?
Is that so? If you live in a State, society or culture where it is accepted by consensus or law that you have that right it MAY be true but that has certainly not always been true and is not always true today, even in States, societies and cultures where it is considered a right.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
You use empathy and reason to determine which of them is correct. What if the two have different feelings on the matter, ie, "empathy" tells each of them something different? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset long signature to size=1 font.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
quote:Enhanced interrogation techniques - Wikipedia I may be a little slow but it seems to me that when your nations leaders allow certain forms or torture, then the people being tortured have had the right not to be tortured taken away. How does a human right become inalienable? What is the criteria? If our leaders say they have a right to torture certain people then who is to say they are wrong. The UN? "No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
I'll fix that for you:
"The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others" Taq writes:
The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others, or broken an unspecified social contract.
If I understand Locke's arguments correctly, tax avoidance is a violation of the social contract and can therefore result in imprisonment. Taq writes:
The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others, or broken an unspecified social contract or violated other peoples' rights.
When you trespass you are violating the rights of others. The same for burglary. Taq writes:
The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others, or broken an unspecified social contract or violated other peoples' rights or do certain other things that don't break any of the previous rules but still appear to be enough to remove your right to liberty. Animal cruelty is a new comer to the list, and is still controversial. That would probably need a thread of its own. Sheeesh! Your right to liberty has so many caveats, it looks like a politician devised it. Shall we keep going?I can provide more breaches and you can add more criteria. Eventually your right to liberty has been cut back until it barely applies to anyone. So...
Taq writes:
Well, all those conditions excludes liberty. Panda writes: I have supplied three: life, liberty, and property. You continue to be unable to provide a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective.Let's look at property next... Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others, or broken an unspecified social contract. Correct. The social contract is a system of government based on the liberties spelled out by Locke (life, liberty, and property). Violating the social contract is the same as violating someone's liberties. Three human rights are liberty, life, and property. I describe liberty as doing what you want as long as you do not violate the rights of others. You then exclaim your confusion that someone can be thrown in jail for violating a person's rights of life, liberty, and property. Perhaps I am not explaining this in a clear manner? Why is there any confusion here?
The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others, or broken an unspecified social contract or violated other peoples' rights. Yes. That is what I have said from the beginning. I have even quoted Locke speaking about the right to self defense.
Sheeesh! Your right to liberty has so many caveats, it looks like a politician devised it. I never claimed that this is an easy subject. If this is too much for you to handle perhaps you should try another thread?
Well, all those conditions excludes liberty.
Nowhere have I defined liberty as the right to do whatever you want to whomever you please. You are trying to create a strawman version of human rights, and it appears that you are giving that strawman quite a beating. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I may be a little slow but it seems to me that when your nations leaders allow certain forms or torture, then the people being tortured have had the right not to be tortured taken away. When you torture someone you have violated their rights, not taken them away.
How does a human right become inalienable? What is the criteria? The United Nations has a decent description of human rights here. What it boils down to is the idea that we are morally obligated, as moral agents, to better the human condition. We can determine for ourselves what causes us pain and suffering, such as enslavement or having your home taken from you without due cause. We can also determine that these same actions taken on others will cause pain and suffering. Therefore, we shouldn't do that to other people. It is their inherent right as fellow human beings to not suffer from the actions of other human beings. Of course, the interactions in human societies are quite complex. It is difficult to ferret out specific human rights in very specific cases. This will always be a difficult determination, but the foundations of human rights are actually quite simple to understand, IMHO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
Well, clearly you are struggling with it. I never claimed that this is an easy subject. You claimed that the right to liberty was unconditional....which is shown to be very wrong:The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others, or broken an unspecified social contract or violated other peoples' rights or do certain other things that don't break any of the previous rules but still appear to be enough to remove your right to liberty. Taq writes:
Fascinating. Panda writes:
Nowhere have I defined liberty as the right to do whatever you want to whomever you please. Taq writes:
Well, all those conditions excludes liberty. Panda writes:
I have supplied three: life, liberty, and property. You continue to be unable to provide a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective.Anyway, back to what I actually wrote: All those conditions exclude liberty as an unconditional human right. You have 'inalienable' rights being taken away.You have 'unconditional' rights with numerous restrictions. Look: if you don't know what a word means then stop using it. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
It seems to me that until there is some global/universal agreement of what is and isn't a human right then we cannot say that it is inalienable. There are many countries that are not members of the UN, there are more countries who have no regard for the Geneva Convention.
This is a complicated subject. In the world we live in today who is the authority? "No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Well, clearly you are struggling with it. Not as much as you are. I clearly stated liberty is doing what you please as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. You then tell me that imprisoning a tresspasser is taking away a person's liberty. I think we are talking about two different things.
The right of liberty is the right to stay out of prison if you have not interfered with the liberties of others, or broken an unspecified social contract or violated other peoples' rights or do certain other things that don't break any of the previous rules but still appear to be enough to remove your right to liberty. The right is never removed. You always have the right to stay out of prison as long as you do not interfere with the rights of others.
All those conditions exclude liberty as an unconditional human right. No, they don't. They include prison time for violation of other people's rights. The right to not be imprisoned for minding your own business is not stripped away by any of those conditions. Nowhere have I claimed that you have the inherent right to stay out of prison for committing murder, trespass, or theft.
You have 'inalienable' rights being taken away. Not in any of the situations you have described yet.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024