Human Rights Discussion

[Jules]

Well, at least that got a laugh.

Hihihi.

[Sotiris]

A bit off-topic but I did a little "research" and controversial topics such as abortion, religion, drugs etc almost always ended up getting locked on UD. How come it's seems so difficult for people to have civil discussions even if it is for someting controversial? It's just sad.

[Jules]

Ah, but my original religion thread is still open for business!

http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 85&start=0

[Disneyphile]

Human rights are most certainly not 'God-given'. If they were, why are so many people in the world who have no rights at all? Did God pass them over? Does he like only certain people? And if human rights, as written down in the US Bill of Rights, are 'God-given', does that mean God was doing sloppy work, because it was amended an additional 18 times? If human rights are 'God-given', how come they get so easily taken away, by our governments and others?

I can answer all of that with one statement: We live in a fallen world.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If men were ruled by angels, no restrictions on government would be necessary.

To the extent that we've gotten away from that concept, we've introduced a lot of problems in our country

Is this code language to say we shouldn't have had the 1964 Civil Rights Act or Roe v. Wade?

Actually, I'm more concerned about the US being on the brink of bankruptcy because of the ever-creeping welfare-warfare state that has been occurring under both parties for most of the last century.

[Goliath]

Ahem.... I believe this topic is for human rights, not a loophole to continue the divorce topic. I have already stated earlier in another thread, that continuing a discussion from a closed thread is circumventing moderation. In other words, it is not allowed. If the subject of divorce continues in this thread, this thread will be locked too. Those of you who were warned earlier are now on extremely thin ice. I suggest you stop before you earn yourself a suspension or worse.

That doesn't seem right. The right to divorce is considered by many people as a human right. So that's part of what's being discussed here. If you read my reply below, you'll see how it fits in a much broader point on the human right to decide over one's own life.

By the way, abortion is being discussed in this thread, yet I remember a thread being locked over half a year ago because of the subject. Does this mean it's no longer on the verboten list?

I'm not picking on Julian below (see my new thread), but just because we had argued in another thread doesn't mean I can't respond to him anymore for all eternity, does it? I'm responding to him because I disagree with him, that's all. I don't do it to get a rise out of him, or anything like that.

If it is a right, then it's one that can be abused. God knows how many men or women take advantage of divorce to leave their wife/husband in favour of another person. Is that fair?

I think that's extremely fair. I think it's a basic human right to be able to decide for yourself how you want to live your life. This obviously has to exclude things that fysically hurt other people (abuse, violence etc.). But other than that, I think people should be free to do whatever they want. For instance, if people couldn't decide for themselves whether or not they could get a divorce, how is that any different from deciding for people that they can't marriage somebody of the same sex, or that they can only have one child (China)?

Absolutely not.

Abortion is totally a human right, because it's part of the right to decide over one's own life and body. Nobody should have any say about what you do with your own body, as long as it doesn't harm others. I imagine you would argue it would hurt the 'baby', but generally speaking (extreme exceptions not included), the fetus can't survive on its own until the term up to which abortion is usually allowed. Another point: abortions will be made nonetheless, whether or not it is legal. But often in such cases, the mother is injured or dies as well. And the anti-abortus crowd knows this perfectly well, yet they still persist. Sometimes I get the impression it's more about ideology than the practical saving of lives.

I can answer all of that with one statement: We live in a fallen world. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If men were ruled by angels, no restrictions on government would be necessary.

Yeah, and if I had a money tree in my garden, I would never have to work anymore...

Actually, I'm more concerned about the US being on the brink of bankruptcy because of the ever-creeping welfare-warfare state that has been occurring under both parties for most of the last century.

Actually, the so-called 'wellfare state' has been thoroughly dismantled and demolished by Republicans and Democrats alike, starting with Ronald Reagan (his race-baiting fables about 'wellfare queens') and continued by Bill Clinton (the biggest traitor to the working class that the Democratic Party has ever reproduced). If I recall correctly, the worldwide financial and economic collapse was the result of Wall Street gone loose, the direct result of 30 years of deregulation. You are correct about it being a 'warfare' state, though. Both of Bush's wars were not accounted for and literally put on the credit card and passed on to his successor --as were his tax cuts for the richest 1%, accounting for a few hundred billion dollars. Doesn't sound like wellfare to me --or you'd have to call it wellfare for billionaires. And as long as multibillion dollar corporations like General Electric keep paying zero dollars in taxes (like they did last year), the problem won't be solved.

[Disneyphile]

I can answer all of that with one statement: We live in a fallen world. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If men were ruled by angels, no restrictions on government would be necessary.

Yeah, and if I had a money tree in my garden, I would never have to work anymore...

You're right about that. I don't understand what point you're trying to make, though.

Actually, I'm more concerned about the US being on the brink of bankruptcy because of the ever-creeping welfare-warfare state that has been occurring under both parties for most of the last century.

Actually, the so-called 'wellfare state' has been thoroughly dismantled and demolished by Republicans and Democrats alike, starting with Ronald Reagan (his race-baiting fables about 'wellfare queens') and continued by Bill Clinton (the biggest traitor to the working class that the Democratic Party has ever reproduced). If I recall correctly, the worldwide financial and economic collapse was the result of Wall Street gone loose, the direct result of 30 years of deregulation. You are correct about it being a 'warfare' state, though. Both of Bush's wars were not accounted for and literally put on the credit card and passed on to his successor --as were his tax cuts for the richest 1%, accounting for a few hundred billion dollars. Doesn't sound like wellfare to me --or you'd have to call it wellfare for billionaires. And as long as multibillion dollar corporations like General Electric keep paying zero dollars in taxes (like they did last year), the problem won't be solved.

Whether it's for billionaires or for those who should legitimately be on the receiving end of voluntary charity, all welfare amounts to the forcible transfer of income from those who have earned it to those who haven't.

[Goliath]

You're right about that. I don't understand what point you're trying to make, though.

My point is that you were saying vague, nonsensical and irrelevant things. I mean, what do angels have got to do with human rights? You didn't adress anything I said. You just said strange, goofy things.

Whether it's for billionaires or for those who should legitimately be on the receiving end of voluntary charity, all welfare amounts to the forcible transfer of income from those who have earned it to those who haven't.

So you're an ultra-libertarian? Do you also not believe in taxes? Look, it's very simple: having a roof over your head; having enought to eat to survive; having access to education are human rights. It's in the UN Human Rights Treaty which almost all countries have signed onto. If people are not capable of working (they are sick; or handicapped; or they're mentally retarded), that means we should provide that for them. We do that through taxes. That doesn't mean those people "haven't earned" it. If we would abolish that, people would die left and right. Crime would rise tenfold, because people have to eat anyway. It would be chaos.

By the way, the mass transfer of income from those who have earned it to those who haven't has been going on for decades in the US: the redistribution of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. They didn't have to do a single thing to earn it... well, except wrecking the global economy and give some campaign money to the Republican Party.

[Disneyphile]

Whether it's for billionaires or for those who should legitimately be on the receiving end of voluntary charity, all welfare amounts to the forcible transfer of income from those who have earned it to those who haven't.

So you're an ultra-libertarian? Do you also not believe in taxes?

Yes and yes. Before passage of the 16th Amendment, government at all levels raised money by putting tariffs on foreign imports.

Look, it's very simple: having a roof over your head; having enought to eat to survive; having access to education are human rights.

No, a house, food and education are all goods. Goods that can only be produced at someone's expense.

It's in the UN Human Rights Treaty which almost all countries have signed onto.

You don't want to get me started on the UN. Suffice it to say that it was created for the purpose of creating a world government, and continues working toward that goal.

If people are not capable of working (they are sick; or handicapped; or they're mentally retarded), that means we should provide that for them. We do that through taxes.

Or we could do it with private charity. That's the way it was done before. See above about the 16th Amendment.

[quote="Goliath]If we would abolish that, people would die left and right. Crime would rise tenfold, because people have to eat anyway. It would be chaos.[/quote]

Again, people could turn to private charity for their needs. Americans are generous by nature, and they would be moreso if they had more of their own money to keep, rather than having it taken by the government.

By the way, the mass transfer of income from those who have earned it to those who haven't has been going on for decades in the US: the redistribution of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. They didn't have to do a single thing to earn it... well, except wrecking the global economy and give some campaign money to the Republican Party.

I'm not any fan of corporate cronyism, believe me. But the answer is to give the government less authority to facilitate it, not to take even more money from the working men and women of the world.

[Disney's Divinity]

Not wanting to get into a government debate, but the whole idea of millions of people relying on "private charity" sounds a little naive. If I had to rely on the good will of others, I'd prepare for death. Y'know..if I would have the money to prepare the funeral arrangements.

[Goliath]

Yes and yes. Before passage of the 16th Amendment, government at all levels raised money by putting tariffs on foreign imports.

I don't know if you have noticed, but things have changed slightly since the beginning of the 20th century... Different times ask for different measures.

No, a house, food and education are all goods. Goods that can only be produced at someone's expense.

They're defined as 'human rights' in the UN Human Rights Treaty, which the US signed onto. You may not like that; you may disagree with that; you may wish it were different... but it's in there and that makes them 'human rights', even if you hold your breath 'till you're blue in the face.

President Roosevelt once made a beautiful speech about a 'Second Bill of Rights', which would have to include every American citizen's right to decent housing, food on their tables, a living wage, an education etc. It was little known until Michael Moore discovered it and put it in his documentary Capitalism: A Love Story. It's sad that Roosevelt's dream never could be realized. Even sadder is that the *original* Bill of Rights have been trampled on for decades; and that his New Deal has been almost entirely dismantled by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Roosevelt made this speech on January 11th, 1944. This is what a Democrat once sounded like:

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/UwUL9 ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/UwUL9 ... 3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

"We've come to a clearer realisation of the fact, however, that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independance. [...] People who are hungry, people who are out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. [...] Among these are: the right to a useful and remunerative job [...]; the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation [...]; the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, and sickness, and accident, and unemployment; and finally, the right to a good education. [...] After this war is won, we must be prepared to move forward in the implementation of these rights."

Roosevelt is consistently ranked in the top 3 of American presidents by scholars and public alike. However, if Obama should give a speech like that today, he would be crucified as an anti-American communist. But we need not worry... he would never do that. Obama, sadly, is not the next FDR; far from that.

You don't want to get me started on the UN. Suffice it to say that it was created for the purpose of creating a world government, and continues working toward that goal.

I thought that was the job of the Illuminati? I think you have forgotten to put on your tin-foil hat before you entered this thread.

Or we could do it with private charity. That's the way it was done before. See above about the 16th Amendment.

Yes, it was done that way before. And people were dying left and right. Poverty was rampant. There was far more crime. Most people, and society as a whole, were far worse off. Sadly, even today private charity is needed to feed so many poor people; or to help pay for medical operations. I've read stories about bake sales to collect money for cancer operations, because people couldn't afford it. I believe the number of people who die every year because of lack of medical coverage was around 45,000. That's a disgrace to the richest nation in the world.

The number of your fellow Americans who would die annually would be at least tenfold if your political fantasies were realized and all wellfare was stopped. If you had your way, society would degenerate and fall back to the 19th century. Look it up in the history books. Not a good time to be an ordinary working man.

Just do me one favor, okay? If you're so against the big evil government and evil wellfare... don't ever use it. And if you grow old, don't collect any Medicare, okay? Oh, and don't drive any highways anymore, because they're paid by tax dollars. And don't ever call the police when you need them. They're paid by tax dollars. And when your house catches fire, don't call the fire department. They're paid by tax dollars. Don't send your children to public schools. If you have been to a public school, burn your diploma's. They're paid by tax dollars. Stand by your principles.

Again, people could turn to private charity for their needs. Americans are generous by nature, and they would be moreso if they had more of their own money to keep, rather than having it taken by the government.

That's a textbook reality. It sounds nice in theory, but anyone who has been out in the *real* world, knows it doesn't work that way. The existing charity that exists nowadays could never, ever suffice. It's parrotted right from the libertarian guidebook, but it isn't fully thought through.

I'm not any fan of corporate cronyism, believe me. But the answer is to give the government less authority to facilitate it, not to take even more money from the working men and women of the world.

Giving government less authority, less oversight and deregulate the financial system was the no. 1 reason for the financial crisis. Learn from the past, will you?

[PeterPanfan]

Can we discuss the discussions of human rights in here? How in, usually America, we are usually told to silence ourselves when a "controversial" topic arises. "Let's just avoid this topic so we don't hurt one another's feelings. "

Um no?

This is in no way a criticism on UD's moderation, but in one of my classes today this discussion was brought up. In most European countries, it seems as if debates are freely brought about, and that they can be handled in a civil way, yet still each person is forceful and strong in their opinions.... it also seems as if Americans are more worried about stomping down someone else's idea instead of being able to logically and reasonably argue it. Of course, arguing without knowing any information about the said topic is just stupid.

So what does everyone here think about people's right to debate openly, and if everything is in civil bounds, it being questioned and criticized. Hopefully I'm making at least some sense.

[Scarred4life]

PeterPanFan, I couldn't agree more. I am constantly being told not to argue so much, and people hesitate to bring up certain subjects because they know I'll debate with them on it. And if I do start to debate someone, they'll say, 'here goes Alexa again...." I'm not mean when I debate, just passionate. I don't insult the person I'm debating with, so why aren't I allowed to express my opinions? And forget about finding a person who will debate back, it's hard enough to find someone to listen. People seem to have forgotten how to talk about disagreements.

[PeterPanfan]

To be honest, and while it shouldn't, sometimes if I strongly disagree with a person on a certain topic I find it hard to continue being friends with them. I know that this is not the right thing to do, but it's hard for me to differentiate between where this line begins and ends... something I need to work on.

[ajmrowland]

6same here. if im trying to convince someone who just wont listen, i get pissed for days at a time.

[jpanimation]

I've just got to say, being a libertarian myself, I back Disneyphile up on the majority of his opinions. I'm not going to go into detail, because I hate arguing but our government has a simple job: to defend our liberty and in-turn, keep us safe. They fail at those tasks miserably, since they instead concentrate all their energy on becoming some giant corporation that (unconstitutionally) keeps expanding to provide every goods and service imaginable.

As far as human rights go, I wish people would read up on it. The problem with most American's not knowing what Human Rights are is that it only makes it easier for our government to exploit the unfortunate ignorance on the subject to further expand (unconstitutional) entitlement programs and (unconstitutional) regulations promoting favoritism most deceptively under the guise of "Human Rights".

[Scarred4life]

To be honest, and while it shouldn't, sometimes if I strongly disagree with a person on a certain topic I find it hard to continue being friends with them. I know that this is not the right thing to do, but it's hard for me to differentiate between where this line begins and ends... something I need to work on.

If it's a really important topic, my overall opinion of them might change, but I usually don't stop being their friend.

[Disneyphile]

Okay, I'm not going to spend the rest of my life going back and forth on this topic. I've said my piece, and you either agree with me or don't. And if you don't, you're wrong. (Just kidding, please don't take the bait on that one.)

[Chernabog_Rocks]

PeterPanFan, I couldn't agree more. I am constantly being told not to argue so much, and people hesitate to bring up certain subjects because they know I'll debate with them on it. And if I do start to debate someone, they'll say, 'here goes Alexa again...." I'm not mean when I debate, just passionate. I don't insult the person I'm debating with, so why aren't I allowed to express my opinions? And forget about finding a person who will debate back, it's hard enough to find someone to listen. People seem to have forgotten how to talk about disagreements.

Just going to chime in on this with my own experience. I think I can understand where your friends might be coming from. I have a friend that's kind of like you, a passionate debater. The thing with this is, it feels like every little thing can be up for debate, and personally I don't want to debate everything. Sometimes I just want to talk and say my piece instead of turn it into some big debate. I think (and I heavily stress that) that this is where your friends might be coming from, there's a chance they too don't want to have to debate everytime one of those topics comes up.

I don't mind listening to someone talk about what they have to say, and I will offer my own bits here and there if I agree on a point especially if they ask for it.

So, in short it's not always about being mean but just wanting to not debate everything, everytime.

[Goliath]

Okay, I'm not going to spend the rest of my life going back and forth on this topic. I've said my piece, and you either agree with me or don't. And if you don't, you're wrong. (Just kidding, please don't take the bait on that one.)

Too bad. I worked long and hard on that reply. I was looking forward to your counter-arguments.

[...] As far as human rights go, I wish people would read up on it. The problem with most American's not knowing what Human Rights are is that it only makes it easier for our government to exploit the unfortunate ignorance on the subject to further expand (unconstitutional) entitlement programs and (unconstitutional) regulations promoting favoritism most deceptively under the guise of "Human Rights".

I don't know what exactly you mean with 'entitlement programs', but if you mean Social Security: I can't say that it's very expansive in the US (especially when compared to other industrialized nations) and it certainly doesn't seem to be expanding. Like I said to Disneyphile: it has been diminished for decades now, unfortunately. I don't think 'regulation' has anything to do with 'human rights'. But, if we want to insure human rights for all citizens (like all the rights FDR talked about), we should immediately reinstate all the regulations that Reagan, Clinton and the Bushes took away from the 'free market'.

I agree with Libertarians when it comes to their defense of Constitutional Rights, and the rights of individuals to do with their lives/bodies as they see fit. I oppose them when it comes to economic issues. I believe their ideas on that front are textbooks fantasies which are mostly naieve and have been disproven by the financial and economic crisis. But you can't expect a socialist to agree with a libertarian.

[Scarred4life]

The thing with this is, it feels like every little thing can be up for debate, and personally I don't want to debate everything. Sometimes I just want to talk and say my piece instead of turn it into some big debate. [...] there's a chance they too don't want to have to debate everytime one of those topics comes up.

So, in short it's not always about being mean but just wanting to not debate everything, everytime.

Well, if we've already run a topic to the ground, I won't start it up all over again (with the same person, obviously), because we've already discussed it. And I'm not constantly debating, maybe a real serious debate will happen once a week, if that.

And I'm not forcing anyone to debate. It's just frustrating for me when no one will ever debate with me.