Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs)
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 226 of 300 (660780)
04-29-2012 11:05 AM


Will Self article
quote:
Do "human rights" really exist, when they can be so easily taken away, asks Will Self.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17866473
This article talks about what we have been discussing.
Although I am not putting this forward as evidential support, I am willing to discuss what he has written.
I more thought that it would be an interesting on-topic read.
(I have always found Will Self to be a funny and articulate writer.)

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Taq, posted 05-09-2012 4:02 PM Panda has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 227 of 300 (661317)
05-04-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Taq
04-11-2012 5:20 PM


man the funniest tactics ever.
(how i see Taq): neener neener...nah uh. you didn't answer me, because you know I am just going to deny anything ainsgt me and move the goalposts.
you are the funniest, maybe funnier than Dr semantics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 5:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Panda, posted 05-04-2012 1:01 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 233 by Taq, posted 05-09-2012 4:03 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 228 of 300 (661322)
05-04-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Artemis Entreri
05-04-2012 12:24 PM


AE writes:
man the funniest tactics ever.
(how i see Taq): neener neener...nah uh. you didn't answer me, because you know I am just going to deny anything ainsgt me and move the goalposts.
you are the funniest, maybe funnier than Dr semantics.
Sobriety is not your enemy.
Don't fight it.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-04-2012 12:24 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 300 (661659)
05-09-2012 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Panda
04-26-2012 8:09 AM


Re: Questioning the line of reasoning...
Since some people are imprisoned for cannabis possession and some people consider cannabis possession to not justify imprisonment, are the governments that imprison people for cannabis possession breaching their human right to liberty?
Maybe such imprisonment is a breach of a natural right. But simply counting people who agree or disagree is meaningless, because even legal rights are subject to being disrespected.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Panda, posted 04-26-2012 8:09 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Panda, posted 05-09-2012 5:33 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 230 of 300 (661661)
05-09-2012 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by NoNukes
05-09-2012 4:57 AM


Re: Questioning the line of reasoning...
NoNukes writes:
Maybe such imprisonment is a breach of a natural right.
But Taq said that it wasn't.
And the fact that different people feel differently about something that only happens in certain countries shows how non-universal the human right of 'liberty' is.
NoNukes writes:
But simply counting people who agree or disagree is meaningless, because even legal rights are subject to being disrespected.
Then who's opinion should we use and why?

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by NoNukes, posted 05-09-2012 4:57 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by NoNukes, posted 05-09-2012 4:28 PM Panda has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 231 of 300 (661705)
05-09-2012 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Panda
04-26-2012 7:41 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Sorry for the absence. . . now, where was I . . .
And you have not provided a single human right that is not situational, conditional and subjective.
How does being situational and conditional prevent these rights from being inherent and inalienable? Physical laws are situational and conditional. The force of gravity depends on the presence of mass and the distance from that mass. These are conditions and situations that affect the force of gravity. Does this make gravity subjective, or not an inherent property of the universe?
If a person's liberty was taken away then the perpetrator would be committing a breach of that person's unconditional human right to liberty, yes?
Yes.
So....that would be a situational, conditional and subjective human right, then.
That would be an outcome of the interactions between inherent, inalienable, and objective human rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Panda, posted 04-26-2012 7:41 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Panda, posted 05-09-2012 4:06 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 232 of 300 (661712)
05-09-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Panda
04-29-2012 11:05 AM


Re: Will Self article
A Point of View: Do human rights really exist? - BBC News
This article talks about what we have been discussing.
Although I am not putting this forward as evidential support, I am willing to discuss what he has written.
I more thought that it would be an interesting on-topic read.
(I have always found Will Self to be a funny and articulate writer.)
Excellent find. From the article:
"I only throw this proposition out in a spirit of humane enquiry - could it be that human rights simply don't exist? After all, in my understanding it's difficult to conceive of a person's rights as obtaining at all unless an effective sanction is in place in the event of their violation."
This sentiment has been put forward by others in this thread. The problem is that this conflates two separate issues. One issue is whether or not human rights exist in the first place. The other issue is how we are punishing those who vioilate those rights. Again, these are SEPARATE issues.
Also, the statement above all but confirms that human rights do exist. Why? How did the author determine that human rights violations were going unpunished in the first place? If I asked anyone for examples of people who went unpunished for human rights violations would most people be able to name at least 1 person? Probably. Why is that? Obviously, we can determine that human rights have been violated without needing a legal finding from an official judicial system.
What the author and others are really saying is what good are human rights if they are so easily trampelled. I think the last 200 years of European and American history demonstrate what happens when societies strive to protect human rights. Yes, there will be hiccups, atrocities, and mistakes along the way, but if we decide that human rights do not exist then they cease to be atrocities and mistakes. They just become every day occurences.
Let's say you are at a little Mom and Pop diner. You are at the front counter getting ready to pay your bill and you notice that the cash drawer is ajar. You look around and no one is watching you. You know that you could take a few 20's out of the drawer and no one would be the wiser. If you will not be caught or punished does it make it OK to take the money? Does right and wrong cease to exist if punishment is not involved? More importantly, do we want to live in a society where morality is based on whether or not we can catch a perpetrator?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Panda, posted 04-29-2012 11:05 AM Panda has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 233 of 300 (661713)
05-09-2012 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Artemis Entreri
05-04-2012 12:24 PM


man the funniest tactics ever.
(how i see Taq): neener neener...nah uh. you didn't answer me, because you know I am just going to deny anything ainsgt me and move the goalposts.
you are the funniest, maybe funnier than Dr semantics.
man the funniest tactics ever.
(how i see Taq): neener neener...nah uh. you didn't answer me, because you know I am just going to deny anything ainsgt me and move the goalposts.
you are the funniest, maybe funnier than Dr semantics.
At least I attempt to add something of substance to the thread. Perhaps you could give that a try?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-04-2012 12:24 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-16-2012 10:03 AM Taq has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 234 of 300 (661714)
05-09-2012 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Taq
05-09-2012 1:27 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Taq writes:
How does being situational and conditional prevent these rights from being inherent and inalienable?
Because if a situation can take away an 'inalienable' right then it is not inalienable.
Because if conditions remove an 'inherent' right then it is not inherent.
If a human right can be removed then it is neither inalienable nor inherent.
That's what inalienable and inherent mean.
Let's start with the first word and work from there.
Inalienable: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
So - tell me again about how these inalienable human rights are taken away....

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Taq, posted 05-09-2012 1:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Taq, posted 05-09-2012 4:56 PM Panda has replied
 Message 237 by fearandloathing, posted 05-09-2012 5:17 PM Panda has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 300 (661719)
05-09-2012 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Panda
05-09-2012 5:33 AM


Re: Questioning the line of reasoning...
But Taq said that it wasn't.
And the fact that different people feel differently about something that only happens in certain countries shows how non-universal the human right of 'liberty' is.
I don't care what Taq says.
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Panda, posted 05-09-2012 5:33 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Panda, posted 05-09-2012 5:52 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 236 of 300 (661724)
05-09-2012 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Panda
05-09-2012 4:06 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Because if a situation can take away an 'inalienable' right then it is not inalienable.
The problem is that you point to violations of human rights and claim that it is the same as taking those rights away. That is wrong. They are not the same thing.
So - tell me again about how these inalienable human rights are taken away....
You are the one claiming that they are taken away. Why don't you show us how this is done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Panda, posted 05-09-2012 4:06 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Panda, posted 05-09-2012 5:20 PM Taq has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 237 of 300 (661728)
05-09-2012 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Panda
05-09-2012 4:06 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Let's start with the first word and work from there.
Inalienable: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
So - tell me again about how these inalienable human rights are taken away....
Just wondering what a inalienable human right is, got any examples?
I can't imagine a right that couldn't be taken away under certain circumstances.

"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Panda, posted 05-09-2012 4:06 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Taq, posted 05-09-2012 5:20 PM fearandloathing has replied
 Message 240 by Panda, posted 05-09-2012 5:22 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 238 of 300 (661729)
05-09-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Taq
05-09-2012 4:56 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Taq writes:
The problem is that you point to violations of human rights and claim that it is the same as taking those rights away. That is wrong. They are not the same thing.
No. The problem is you aren't able to rad back and remember what is being discussed.
Taq writes:
You are the one claiming that they are taken away. Why don't you show us how this is done.
Certainly.
I will use the examples of human rights being legitimately revoked, which you have previously agreed with:
taq writes:
jar writes:
Yet the governmental entity that was the Nuremberg Tribunal revoked the rights of life and liberty from those tried and found guilty.
Justice is built into human rights. If you violate the human rights of others then you can be punished.
taq writes:
panda writes:
Well, if I bought some heroin for my kids from an undercover policeman, first they would take my cocaine from me (loss of property) and then they would imprison me (loss of liberty). Certain countries would then sentence me to death (loss of life).
Would that government be prosecuted for breaching my inalienable human rights?
Would the European Court of Human Rights demand I be released?
Would Amnesty International even raise an eyebrow?
Would even you object?
It has been determined that drug trafficking threatens the human rights of others, namely the increase in crime rates. This is why drug commerce is punished.
Is imprisonment a breach of a human's right to liberty?
Or is a human's right to liberty taken away when they commit certain crimes?
You can't have both.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Taq, posted 05-09-2012 4:56 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Taq, posted 05-09-2012 5:26 PM Panda has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 239 of 300 (661730)
05-09-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by fearandloathing
05-09-2012 5:17 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Just wondering what a inalienable human right is, got any examples?
You have the right to not be tortured. If someone does torture you they have violated this right, but they have not taken the right away from you. You always have the right to not be tortured. It is inalienable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by fearandloathing, posted 05-09-2012 5:17 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by fearandloathing, posted 05-09-2012 5:35 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 247 by jar, posted 05-09-2012 6:00 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 249 by fearandloathing, posted 05-09-2012 6:16 PM Taq has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 240 of 300 (661731)
05-09-2012 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by fearandloathing
05-09-2012 5:17 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
fearandloathing writes:
Just wondering what a inalienable human right is, got any examples?
That is a question for Taq, not me.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by fearandloathing, posted 05-09-2012 5:17 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024