NationStates Jolt Archive

I seriously don't see why we can't use chem weapons on these terrorist scum. THEY HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS!

Now I saw this stated in another thread and this actually got me thinking.
Are human rights applicable to all?

I must say that if they are called 'human' rights then they should be applicable to all 'humans' or not at all. No one ceases to be human except in death; even terrorists are human despite the fact they indulge the darker side of humanity. They are therefore, by my logic, worthy of human rights...

Any thoughts?
Please Discuss....

Freedom to travel is a basic right, but if you are a convicted criminal you forfeit that right. I suppose one could argue that terrorists (proven terrorists) have no rights.

a terrorist is a criminal. in a modern society criminals have rights, the right to have a fair trial for example (*hint*guantanamo*hint*..)

Just for reference...


Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Just a note; this document is the most translated document on the planet in terms of the number of languages...

Are human rights applicable to all?

Applicable to all humans

I think it depends on how "human right" is defined. Some would include everything short of a German automobile in their definition.

My opinion is that people who involve themselves in war should ask for no quarter and grant no quarter. It's not a game with a referee.

Penguins have Human rights too!

Penguins have Human rights too!

c'mon we're having a serious discussion. Go play at one of those creationist threads ;)

Human rights...

If you mean life, liberty, property - as Locke put it - then no, those are not applicable to all. People who commit crimes lose certain rights. Using chemical weapons on terrorists...

No. They can be classified two ways, and I see a very easy distinction. A person who in any way knowingly aids a terrorist action on American land - that includes American embassies, which are on American land, by law - that is a crime, and those people must be prosecuted and given the appropriate punishment - probably death. If not - if it occurs on another nation's soil, then it occured in war, and they should be treated as prisoners of war.

Now I saw this stated in another thread and this actually got me thinking.
Are human rights applicable to all?

I must say that if they are called 'human' rights then they should be applicable to all 'humans' or not at all. No one ceases to be human except in death; even terrorists are human despite the fact they indulge the darker side of humanity. They are therefore, by my logic, worthy of human rights...

Any thoughts?
Please Discuss....
All governments and people everywhere revoke on a daily basis the so called "Human Rights" of others.
Everytime you imprison someone for a "Crime" you revoke what most people consider a basic Human right--Freedom.

You also tell the person that their baisc Human right of "Expression" must be curbed to conform--there by revoking that right.

No government has successfully not infringed on the Basic rights of people to practice religion--no government. The RIght is always infringed in someway.
The only type of government that would not revoke or restrict someones Rights is anarchy.
While I am not an Anarchist, it is the only solution I see f you want basic "Human Rights" for all, carte blanche.

Just for reference...


Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Just a note; this document is the most translated document on the planet in terms of the number of languages...
Who ratified this quaint bit of tripe.
I could pen a Planetary Amendment to the Universal Bill of Human Rights, I imagine both would be equally observed.

Rights must be garanteed to all, because if you open exceptions, even at people that are criminals, then you open the door to one day, decent people have their rights violated too.

Yes, human rights (though that name needs to be changed) apply to all sentient creatures (which, at the moment, only includes humans). However, it is essential that a society be able to revoke certain rights, otherwise there is no method to deter or punish those who would threaten that society. The trick is to find the balance between stability and rights.

Another problem is that while many people love to proclaim their rights, they overlook the basic responsibilities that also belong to every human being.

Rights must be garanteed to all, because if you open exceptions, even at people that are criminals, then you open the door to one day, decent people have their rights violated too.


And you open the door to racism, descrimination on religion, political standing, you name it.
Deciding a particular group of people has no rights is the exact same thing regardless of the criteria for the group.

Also, "Freedom of movement" isn't a right, it's a privlidge. And let's not forget, the Geneva Convention, which bans the use of chemical weapons, is supposedly followed by all UN countries.

Of course if you believe it's legal to use Chemical weapons on terrorists, then what makes it illegal for them to use it on you? Or for me to use them on my neighbor? There are two sides to every idea, you can't just have everything your way.

To all. Punishment for criminals involves limiting some of these rights, however, not before a fair trial, which is also a basic right. Which means that it must be first proven that you committed a crime and then an appropriate punishment must be given.

Do they stop being human? No, they don't. And even criminals can't be punished in an excessive way (i.e. not befitting the crime). They simply have their rights limited, not revoked, as punishment.

The fact that people would go so far as to rate another person as sub-human is disgusting.

In degrading them, you degrade us all. Never let the bar fall.

Freedom to travel is a basic right...freedom to buy a Ferrari Barracuda...

"Originally Posted by Metslandia
I seriously don't see why we can't use chem weapons on these terrorist scum. THEY HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS! "

First of all, I'm amazed this idiot still manages to survive in this world. Hasn't he got hit by a bus yet?

secondly, the US does not have chemical weapons, so therefor using them on "terrorist scum" would be impossible.

thirdly, Chemical weapons are unpredictable and would destroy many innocent people and render lots of land unusable for a long time.

fourth and final: If we used chemical weapons on terrorists or enemies of the state, we would become as bad or worse then the people we meant to kill. We would become the monsters and the terrorists would be proven right that we are the "Great Satan".

As for the point of human rights: Human rights are applicable to all humans, whether or not the US hates them. The reason why they are called Human Rights is because it applies to all goddamn humans! DUH.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Well, not all fetuses have the right to life. That article should be removed.

Are human rights applicable to all?

In an ideal world with ideal governments and ideal citizens, perhaps. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, there are no ideal governments, and citizens ( of whatever country ) engage in acts which place them beyond the pale.

I'd say that if by your actions you forfeit your rights (criminals), then you clearly don't deserve them. The problem with chem-weapons is that they are very indiscriminate. Smart weapons are designed to reduce civilian casualties, and chem-weapons go against that.

Of course if you believe it's legal to use Chemical weapons on terrorists, then what makes it illegal for them to use it on you? Or for me to use them on my neighbor? There are two sides to every idea, you can't just have everything your way.

The real question is:
If terrorists use chemical weapons against us, then why cant we use it against them?


The fact that people would go so far as to rate another person as sub-human is disgusting.

In degrading them, you degrade us all. Never let the bar fall.

They degrade themselves. Whether or not you chose to acknowledge it is up to you.

This is the real world - not some Utopia. Resolutions of the UN serve as a rough guide at best. Protection under them is a priviledge reserved for people and countries who (for the most part) abide by them. Why do you people insist on giving rights to our enemy that they do not give back in return? Is it some moral highground? Does it make you feel good about yourself? Wake up and have some empathy for our troops the innocent people who have lost all because of terrorists. The job is hard enough for these people as it is, they dont need us to undermine them by extending to terrorists the life we take for granted here.

Are human rights applicable to all humans?
YES, period.

The real question is:
If terrorists use chemical weapons against us, then why cant we use it against them?




They degrade themselves. Whether or not you chose to acknowledge it is up to you.

This is the real world - not some Utopia. Resolutions of the UN serve as a rough guide at best. Protection under them is a priviledge reserved for people and countries who (for the most part) abide by them. Why do you people insist on giving rights to our enemy that they do not give back in return? Is it some moral highground? Does it make you feel good about yourself? Wake up and have some empathy for our troops the innocent people who have lost all because of terrorists. The job is hard enough for these people as it is, they dont need us to undermine them by extending to terrorists the life we take for granted here.


First point. I belive that was the point I was trying to make.
Here's an analogy I love so much. Two people get into a fight, say one person starts it, but the other escalates the fight by bringing in a matal bar. The guy with the bar wins, and the guy who started the fight is obviously in the blame, but who do you think will get charged the hardest? The guy with the bar.
There's more to the use of chemical weapons then, in this case, the two parties involved, there's the whole world.
Which brings me to the second point. It's no "moral highground" as you put it, the the US can do whatever it pleases on it's "War on Terrorism", however, if the US does something that offends the international community then what happens? I understand the US Eceonomy is already going down, and I don't think sanctions from the EU and China will help it. Not to mention the Middle Eastern countries that will be mad.

And to those who believe the EU and China, and even Japan now that I think of it, would not be mad. Then I'll remind you that Europe is the site of the largest use of chemical weapons in warfare in history. And Asia is the only country ever to be nuked. North America has not had to deal with such wartime hardships, so we don't seem to understand the implications here.

Rights must be garanteed to all, because if you open exceptions, even at people that are criminals, then you open the door to one day, decent people have their rights violated too.
Where is it that rights are garuanteed to everyone?
I have never heard of such a place.

To all. Punishment for criminals involves limiting some of these rights, however, not before a fair trial, which is also a basic right. Which means that it must be first proven that you committed a crime and then an appropriate punishment must be given.

Do they stop being human? No, they don't. And even criminals can't be punished in an excessive way (i.e. not befitting the crime). They simply have their rights limited, not revoked, as punishment.
If, by your logic Basic Human Rights may be revoked under banner of punishment for anti-conformist behavior.
And the Right to a fair trial is a Basic Human Right, would it not follow that there is a t some point a crime which demands the Basic Human Right to a trial be revoked?

to be honest, I WANT to say that human rights apply to all. But there are some bad bad people in this world, and they have forgone their rights, by causing suffering to others.

I don’t know yet where I stand on human rights being given to the (clinically) mentally deranged :confused:

To accurately assess human rights, you need a better definition of those rights. That list is complete BS. The right to paid vacation? What idiots wrote that crap?

Basic human rights? How about:

the right to live - basically the right to keep on living
the right to liberty - not being imprisoned or enslaved, that's it

That's all that seem to be basic human rights.

To accurately assess human rights, you need a better definition of those rights. That list is complete BS. The right to paid vacation? What idiots wrote that crap?

Basic human rights? How about:

the right to live - basically the right to keep on living
the right to liberty - not being imprisoned or enslaved, that's it

That's all that seem to be basic human rights.
People get imprisoned every day in every nation in the world.
It doesnt sound like it is thought of as basic.

If, by your logic Basic Human Rights may be revoked under banner of punishment for anti-conformist behavior.
And the Right to a fair trial is a Basic Human Right, would it not follow that there is a t some point a crime which demands the Basic Human Right to a trial be revoked?
Didn't you read where I wrote "some rights limited, not revoked,"? Do I have to explain the English language and the structure of a sentence to you?
And since when are crime and anti-conformist behavior one and the same?

Now I saw this stated in another thread and this actually got me thinking.
Are human rights applicable to all?

I must say that if they are called 'human' rights then they should be applicable to all 'humans' or not at all. No one ceases to be human except in death; even terrorists are human despite the fact they indulge the darker side of humanity. They are therefore, by my logic, worthy of human rights...

Any thoughts?
Please Discuss....


The only question I have for the person you quoted is this:

When you are done gassing the muslims, will you put the bodies in mass graves or burn them in ovens?

I'd say that if by your actions you forfeit your rights (criminals), then you clearly don't deserve them. The problem with chem-weapons is that they are very indiscriminate. Smart weapons are designed to reduce civilian casualties, and chem-weapons go against that.
You can't forfeit your rights, because it's the government that grants them, whether you like it or not. The government has the authority to limit some rights as punishment, but can't do so unjustifiedly or without a trial. It also can't use torture or other forms of cruel treatment as punishment. Plus the punishment must be the same for all who commit the same kind of crime.

Really, people, the ignorance around here about what constitutes a right is just astounding. Please, try to at least take a couple of courses in Law school.

Didn't you read where I wrote "some rights limited, not revoked,"? Do I have to explain the English language and the structure of a sentence to you?
And since when are crime and anti-conformist behavior one and the same?
"Some rights Limited" is revoked you dullard, do I have to explain semantics to you? I shouldnt since that is what you are talking about. I am sorry your feeble mind couldnt get the point that if one part of a thing may be ignored it is reasonble to assume the thing as a whole can and will be ignored.

Second, there are parts of the mid east where it is a crime-to shave your beard, is that a crime where you live?
In certain places it is a crime to cheat on your spouse. Is that a crime where you live?
Any act that deviates from the social norm is anti-conformist behavior(idiot)
The fact is that while you use words like "Crime" which offer some moral implication I do not-because my morality may not be yours, and the French Morality may not be the Iranian.
If that is the case then Crime is not a set idea, if Crime is not a set Idea then punishment is not a set idea, if punishment is not set idea then the Rights lost in punishment are not a set Idea.
One thing can not be merely of it self it must effect something else--hello.
But please you educate me. While your diagraming my sentences pick up a copy of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations .
It might do you some good, into understanding CONVERSATION.

The fact that people would go so far as to rate another person as sub-human is disgusting.

In degrading them, you degrade us all. Never let the bar fall.
Agreed and the other day when the so-called "slaughterhouses in Fallujah were found some stuffed shirt in FNC (I think he was ex-military or something) said, and I quote, "This just shows you the kind of sub-human life forms we're dealing with here."
Now, I'm not a fan of terrorists in anyway. But you gotta know that if you put a comment like that out there, you're going to offend a lot of Muslims and Arabs. I couldn't believe my ears when that freak uttered those words. I would be interested to see if Al-Jazeera picked up on it. You just don't say stuff like that.
The real question is:
If terrorists use chemical weapons against us, then why cant we use it against them?
Well the short answer would be that that our President stood before the media and the American people almost two years ago and basically said that Saddam has WMD, Saddam has chemical weapons and will use chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are bad and whoever has them or uses them are bad people. So don't you think it would be a tad hypocritical for the U.S. military to use them?
This is the real world - not some Utopia. Resolutions of the UN serve as a rough guide at best. Protection under them is a priviledge reserved for people and countries who (for the most part) abide by them. Why do you people insist on giving rights to our enemy that they do not give back in return? Is it some moral highground? Does it make you feel good about yourself? Wake up and have some empathy for our troops the innocent people who have lost all because of terrorists. The job is hard enough for these people as it is, they dont need us to undermine them by extending to terrorists the life we take for granted here.
Just because someone believes in basic human rights doesn't mean they want to coddle the terrorists.
Just because someone believes in basic human rights doesn't mean they don't support the troops. Don't you have any empathy for the troops who would have to deploy such chemical weapons, risking their own well-being in the process? And what of the "collateral damage" of civilians?
Honestly, think a little bit.

Who ratified this quaint bit of tripe.
I could pen a Planetary Amendment to the Universal Bill of Human Rights, I imagine both would be equally observed.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly on December 12th 1948. John Peters Humphrey of Canada was its principal drafter.
While it is not a legally binding document, it served as the foundation for the two original legally-binding UN human rights covenents, the International Covenent on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenent on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It continues to be widely cited by academics, advocates and constitutional courts. International Lawyers continue to and often debate which of the provisions represent Customary International Law. Opinions vary widely.

Not all are entitled to rights, as they are unable to excercise them, ie dependants. So, there arises a duty of care not to create conditions, or actually, harm those not capable to adequately care for themselves-children, mentally challenged, etc.

So, lets think a little bit… I’m going to presume that by basic human rights you are referring to the UN’s declaration. The basic UN’s rights are pretty much the core pillar of western democracy – Grant liberty to the extent that your liberty does not inflict on the liberty of others. These articles should be protecting us from terrorists, not aiding them to victory by creating an ethical shell around them.

Elaborating…

From quickly looking through it, militant Islamist terrorists readily breach:

Article 2 – Women are oppressed, people other religions are oppressed, people of national origin are oppressed.
Article 3 – Breached regularly with the DELIBERATE targeting of innocent civilian life
Article 5 – Torture, enough said. Now I know some of you sympathizers will talk about Abu Ghraib, but I’m talking about real torture – limbs and acid and what not, not nudity.
Article 6/7/8/9/10/11 – Well, I guess all can go before the Mufti – but then again many interpretations of Islamic law are designed to oppress – so does this breach this article or satisfy it?
Article 12/13 – Breach
Article 19 – Breach
Article 21 - Breach
Etc etc
Article 24 onwards – these people would laugh at.

And these are serious breaches – not silly little ones that you might find in the western world.

These rights are designed by westerners for the western world. They have evolved after years of growth and prosperity that terrorist nations have not experienced. It is nice to extend them to everyone – but dangerous to extend them to terrorists. Given that militant Islamist terrorists willingly and knowingly breach on a regular basis multiple articles of the UN’s declaration of human rights. And given that these people do not convey this set of rights onto us. Why then, would we grant them protection under this set of rights?

This is a clash of two different worlds. I completely agree the world would be a better place if everyone could live under them. But these rights we take for granted can not be extended to terrorists who so willingly disobey them. Long run, hopefully we can all fly under the same banner – short run, it would be stupid to.

How about this:

Article 31:
Any civilian of any country who willfully and knowingly seriously breaches this declaration and the values on which it is based with a malicious intent will be known as an enemy of the world – a terrorist – and thereby forfeits their rights under this declaration.

Then it should be the UN’s jurisdiction to rid the world of terrorists to protect the fundamental rights of its civilians.

Good points Woonia

What of those terrorists who have been captured?
Do they deserve a fair trial?
Do they have the right to life that the majority of the world enjoy in their legal systems?
Do they deserve HUMANE treatment before trial (where guilt is determined)?
What if we treat them INHUMANLY and they are innocent of their crime?

Do they deserve a fair trial?

Yes

Do they have the right to life that the majority of the world enjoy in their legal systems?

Right to life? That’s a capital punishment debate.

Majority of the world enjoy? That’s a misunderstanding of the true state of the world.

Do they deserve HUMANE treatment before trial (where guilt is determined)?

Humane is subjective – I don’t believe they should be subjected to torture if that’s what you mean. But then again torture is subjective as well.

What if we treat them INHUMANLY and they are innocent of their crime?

Ignoring “inhumanly” for the moment. Imprisoning any innocent person is unfortunate, but it happens – and its one of the sub perfect outcomes in this world that we have to live with to propagate the greater good. I’m sure there could be some compensation scheme worked out.

----------

You raised some fair questions – How about trying to tackle the answers yourself? What do you believe is the solution?

An International Terrorist Court? Could hold, here and try terrorist cases. Utopian – definitely. It is near impossible to get different countries to agree on anything – more to do with unrelated political power plays than anything on topic. Perhaps a division of the ICC – it might even get US ratification (ha) if it neatens itself up to deal with terrorists! Anyway, it’s a nice mid-term goal.

Like Ghandi said when asked what he thought about western civilization,

"I think it would be a good idea"

Probably didn't get that quite right, but you get the gist. Human rights are a good idea, a beautiful concept, but the reality is that the world is a harsh and dangerous place and humans can be harsh and dangerous animals. I would be overjoyed is we could all simply show the most basic civility to eachother and not go out of our way to use and abuse eachother. There are plenty of decent folks in the world, but there's also a lot of intolerance (I refer back to a couple/few of the posts in this very thread). Until we evolve a bit as a species the question of whether we should all be granted basic human rights is moot. The answer is obviously yes, but the human condition precludes everyone from being granted basic human rights. Shoulda/coulda/woulda. :headbang:
Welcome to the real world, people.

Human rights are a good thing sometimes but I feel they are misused a lot these days.

Unless I'm mistaken human rights include the right to life and limb. Which is violated by the death penalty. However: The justification for the death penalty is that a human has abused their rights by extremely violating the rights of someone else. That they have lost their humanity that way.

I don't agree with that sentiment, generally speaking I don't argue about it. I shoot when my sergeant says shoot.

Where is it that rights are garuanteed to everyone?
I have never heard of such a place.

They are not. But they should. Things hit back at you, remember that.

"Some rights Limited" is revoked you dullard, do I have to explain semantics to you? I shouldnt since that is what you are talking about.
Really? So, setting limits equals total suspension. That means that setting a speed limit is the same as banning driving, or that regulating firearms equals total gun prohibition.

I am sorry your feeble mind couldnt get the point that if one part of a thing may be ignored it is reasonble to assume the thing as a whole can and will be ignored.

Oh, dear! If you really believe that... For starters your statement is false. When you apply punishment you are not ignoring the prisoner's right to freedom. You are not throwing it away, you recognize this right, but the government has authority to forcefully limit it for a period of time as punishment. Can you see the difference between this concepts? Limitation vs revokation? Punishment vs Rights violation?

Second, there are parts of the mid east where it is a crime-to shave your beard, is that a crime where you live?
In certain places it is a crime to cheat on your spouse. Is that a crime where you live?
Any act that deviates from the social norm is anti-conformist behavior(idiot)

And not necessarily a crime. In some places it's not acceptable to be naked on the street, but there are no laws against it. And your second example is great, it's against society's norms to cheat on your wife, but it's not a crime. Or is it socially acceptable to be a cheater where you live? Is it punished by law.

So, you may indulge in anti-conformist behavior without breaking a law. And what about stealing, embezzlement and raping? Are these examples of anti-conformist behavior?

The fact is that while you use words like "Crime" which offer some moral implication I do not-because my morality may not be yours, and the French Morality may not be the Iranian.
Crime has no moral implications, crime is simply an action that law qualifies as such. Anti-conformism, on the other hand... conformity to what? Your own society? Other society? An ancient custom?

If that is the case then Crime is not a set idea, if Crime is not a set Idea then punishment is not a set idea, if punishment is not set idea then the Rights lost in punishment are not a set Idea.
Of course they're not set ideas! When have I argued the opposite? Every country has its own ideas of crime and what punishments should be for each one. What the Universal Declaration of Human Rights attempts to do is agree on a base standard to make these ideas less arbitrary, and, hopefully, create a more just world. (Justice not being a set idea either).

One thing can not be merely of it self it must effect something else--hello.
But please you educate me. While your diagraming my sentences pick up a copy of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations .
It might do you some good, into understanding CONVERSATION.
Now you're just ranting.

Semantics, every point you make is pure semantics.
It has to be deliberate.


There are still places where you are killed for adultery.
If you serve in the United States Marine Corps you face up to twenty years in prison for adultery.
DO they do that everywhere?
Wait, do they that do that to every American?
No.
It is a Morallity based Law.
Morality is not constant.
Your arguements are based on the fallacy of constants, and non-causation.
Third if you had the slightest inkling of what you were talking about you would know that Wittgenstein's material on Linguistic Philosophy ensures the logical approach to an arguement such as this.
You cant even get around talking over yourself.
Much less express a genuine idea.
You totally abandon causation, which in real world terms is impossible.
Since you are too simple minded to understand that yes-
If Freedom is a Basic Human Right, there is no logical revocation of that right that can be justified.
Now if freedom were a privilage like your absurd driving example, then your talking about removing privilages.
If you call something a Right then that is what it is, the difference between a privilage and a Right is not semantic-and that happens to be the one thing you ignore.
If something is a Right you are revoking it by infringing on it in anyway for any reason, because by limitation you have CAUSED a change in the fundamental structure of the Right itself.
You have the Right to remain Free, as long we say so.
If a Right is dependent upon approval then it is not truly a right.