|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
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 |
this reminds me of the seal hunt in Canada every year, and the people who want to somehow stop the Canadians from doing what they want with their own resources, to me its silly. If Canadians want to hunt seal? let. If Fishing in Japan means whales? let em. So you see no positive benefit of keeping species from going extinct? Also, japanese whalers are whaling in international waters, not in Japan.
If people get married in Colombia at 10 years old? so what? Humans rights do not stop at the US border.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Human Rights only exist by consensus of Governments.
I kind of like the idea some guys back in the 1770's had. They thought that human rights were inalienable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Actually, if you read all of that in context, the say "We hold these truths to be...", and then listed several specific rights. Also the "WE" referred to a particular place, government and society. It did not say "And you should too".
Unalienable rights are natural rights that no government can take away from a citizen. That is what they were speaking of. Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
There are no such things as "natural rights". At most, there are what we deem to be natural rights. But different peoples at different times may disagree about such deeming.
The same logic could be applied to legal rights. At the end of the day, what people consider natural human rights do not stop at the US border, which is the point I was trying to make.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
There are no "Natural Rights" that cannot be taken away by a government. No, they are unalienable, at least according to this school of thought. If a government violates the natural rights of a person then the government is in the wrong. This was used as a justification for the split between America and the British monarchy. Their natural rights were being violated, so they declared the British government dissolved and established their independence.
They certainly believed that the government could take those rights away from other people. For example women and blacks certainly had no natural rights. Hypocrisy was certainly one of their flaws. What I am ultimately responding to is the idea that we can tell other countries what they should do with respect to human rights. Natural laws is the justification, or at least the proposed justification. From wiki, "Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
The wiki then is factually wrong since there are nations that can and do dismiss just about any so called "natural right" you care to mention. That would be tatamount to a government declaring that water is not wet. "unalienable - incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another"Unalienable - definition of unalienable by The Free Dictionary By definition, unalienable rights can not be taken away.
Rights in reality evolve and change over time as a matter of consensus. Certainly we are free to tell any other country that they are wrong, and of course, they are free to say "Nah, nah nah, it's YOU who are wrong!" Also the justification for an illegal act (the US Revolution as one example) is far too often simply sloganism while the real causes are most often just power, wealth, pride. There are two ways to look at this, IMHO. There is what we can do, and what we should do. What we can do comes down to power. What we should do comes down to morality and natural rights. They do not always intersect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Maybe by definition they cannot be taken away, but reality does not depend on definitions. We CAN force our idea of "natural rights" on others, but only so long as we wish to remain the despot. I will fully agree that this topic wil forever be debated so I will just leave it here. To swerve this back on topic, the two extreme views may very well be around government sovereignty and the idea of natural rights. Artemis is on record as stating that what goes on in other countries, and other states within the Union for that matter, are not our concern. I hold the other view where human rights are universal (and unalienable ) and should be fought for no matter where those humans may call home.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
It really depends on what you mean by "fought for". If it means speak out, argue a position, try to build consensus then I doubt anyone would object. If it means impose YOUR idea of what are "natural rights" on others, then I most certainly would object.
That certainly is the conundrum. If another government is committing genocide can we justify the use of military force to stop the genocide, thereby enforcing our view of "natural rights"? I would think we could justify military force, and we have in the past. One of the unalienable rights is to practice the religion of your choice without facing death at the hands of your government. In the case of Yugoslavia, the US/NATO stepped in to stop the genocide of muslims at the hands of the military which had support from senior government officials. If Milosevic had said, "It is our natural right to ethnically cleanse our country" would we have had no recourse but to stand back and watch? Were we in the wrong for intervening? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Had genocide been the only issue that led to the Yugoslav wars, then yes, I think we might have been in the wrong for intervening. Interesting. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
do you have any idea how sustainable the seal population is? Do you have any idea how sustainable the Minke Whale population is? I know how sustainable the blue whale population is . . . not very. Nearly went extinct due to whaling. We almost lost walrus populations as well. Are you really unaware of this?
Lets take a look at the difference of human rights in Ciudad Juarez and across the border at El Paso, Texas. Human rights are the same for everyone, no matter their nationality. That is why they are called unalienable. Do governments violate human rights? Yes. Does this mean that human rights don't exist? No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I know right. Democrats....the best thing you can do is not vote for them, and hope they stop destroying the constitution.
How are they destroying the Constitution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Ergo, your rights aren't unalienable... Proof: Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia Most of them were american citizens.
Their human rights were violated. That is quite different from unalienable rights not existing. You might as well claim that speed limits do not exist since your car can go 70 mph in a 55 zone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
So if you loose your rights, how do you still have them?
You don't lose your rights. You always have the rights that all humans have. Whether those rights are violated is a separate issue.
Right, to the person claiming that, because of the speed limit, I can't drive faster than 55 I would... those signs don't really limit your speed. Correct, but doing 70 in a 55 does not make the speed limit go away. It is still there. You can still be ticketed for breaking the speed limit. Violating a person's human rights does not make those rights go away. They are not lost. They are still there. Human rights are not things that humans are physically incapable of doing. They are moral guidelines of how we should treat each other. To reference Hume, human rights are an ought, not an is. We can say that slavery is bad because it violates human rights. Showing that someone owns a slave does not make this human rights violation go away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I simply responded to the idea that human rights don’t stop at the US border, with an example of human rights that do stop at the US border. You actually didn't give any examples. Is there something intrinsic in Mexicans that prevents them from having human rights? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that they are sub-human and deserve the same treatment as dogs or cattle simply because of their geographic position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Speed limits are a great example to refute inalienable rights. Speed limits were merely an analogy.
There is no "right of speed limits", rather they are a consensus of a government. No one is saying that speed limits are an unalienable right. They were simply an example of the difference between absence and violation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024