8 Years of Bush

[LazyLion]

I never asked anyone to treat their enemies as citizens. I merely asked that basic human rights be observed. It is a reasonable request.

Sure, you can request all you want! I am sure all the countries of the world are gonna "get right on that"!

Irrelevant. People are making concious acts here, and they are bad choices, and I am justified in criticising those choices.

LOL, there you go bleating like a lamb again. Go ahead and criticise. Not going to change a darn thing.

I want nothing of any protection that requires that the state subjugate people. It is a price too high; and in any case, it is possible for a state to protect its citizenry without resorting to inhuman and unjust means to do so.

So I guess then you will be leaving South Africa? Um, which country are you planning on moving to then?

I never defended Hamas' right to kill. No one has a right to kill. My arguments in that thread support only one premise : The fighting will go on until the basic human rights of the Palestinians are recognised and protected. Anything else is an incorrect inference on your part.

Your posts speak for themselves. I needn't bother with any comment here.

What *I* find ironic is that you argue that the state will inevitably abuse people, and that this is "acceptable", yet abuses that you find inconvenient, you will denounce - and if you see anyone whom you think even vaguely may be supporting those abuses, you will insult them verbally.

Where did I say it was "acceptable"? Please show the quote. I might have implied it was inevitable despite people's best efforts, but I never said it was "acceptable". I think countries should abide by the Geneva convention. But I am not so naive as the think that EVERY country or terrorist group in the world is gonna run right out and do that.... as you seem to think.... in your little dream world utopia.

"He swings and.... Oooo, missed." Strike three.
Now you are not only ignoring what I've actually said, you are also replacing it with your own bogus interpretation, taking apart that interpretation, and then resorting to an ad-hominem ontop of a strawman. Major fail.

As I have said, I need not bother replying. Your record stands for itself. People on this board can draw their own conclusions. In every thread you have participated in, you bleat about Human rights and "fairness", yet you have been unwavering in your support for Hamas and in your criticism of the USA and Israel. People can read between the lines.

 

[Xarog]

What is a basic human right? You claim that you and about 10 000 other folk have been working on this for the last 5 000 years.

I can only think of one - Freedom of thought.

Any other concept that is raised always seems to have an impact on someone else, and as soon as that happens there is a disagreement.

Human rights are things which should be respected by other humans. We have the right to life, which means that others should not do anything that would kill us. We have the right to freedom of speech, which means that no one should stop us from saying what we want to say.

Obviously, it gets messy when these rights start to conflict with each other. It is impossible for human beings to not impact on each other, both in positive and negative ways. The golden rule when it comes to concepts such as basic human rights and freedom and justice, is to ensure that whatever solution we choose, it results in as few impediments to those basic human rights as possible. And obviously, the solution must be relative to the problem. It's no good to kill textile makers just because someone finds the colour red offensive (as an over-the-top example).

 

[Xarog]

Sure, you can request all you want! I am sure all the countries of the world are gonna "get right on that"!

You're still trying to argue that how it "is" is how it should be.

LOL, there you go bleating like a lamb again. Go ahead and criticise. Not going to change a darn thing.

Doesn't make it right.

So I guess then you will be leaving South Africa? Um, which country are you planning on moving to then?

No, actually South Africa still has a constitution and the judiciary makes an honest attempt to curtail abuses of power by the state.

Your posts speak for themselves. I needn't bother with any comment here.

Ya, you should save yourself the foot-in-mouth experience.

Where did I say it was "acceptable"? Please show the quote. I might have implied it was inevitable despite people's best efforts, but I never said it was "acceptable".

You tried to claim that it was acceptable when you posited a set of circumstances which makes such behaviour reasonable.

I think countries should abide by the Geneva convention. But I am not so naive as the think that EVERY country or terrorist group in the world is gonna run right out and do that.... as you seem to think.... in your little dream world utopia.

None as blind as those who do not wish to see...

As I have said, I need not bother replying.

You say you don't need to bother replying, and then you reply anyway. Make up your mind, will you?

Your record stands for itself.

True.

People on this board can draw their own conclusions.

So then why do you, in the very next line, try to draw people's conclusions for them?

In every thread you have participated in, you bleat about Human rights and "fairness", yet you have been unwavering in your support for Hamas and in your criticism of the USA and Israel.

Wrong. I have pointed out how injust action against the palestinians creates symptoms such as Hamas.

People can read between the lines.

Well, at least they can read. It looks to me like you're having a bit of difficulty in that respect, going by the bilge you're posting.

 

[Albereth]

Human rights are things which should be respected by other humans. We have the right to life, which means that others should not do anything that would kill us. We have the right to freedom of speech, which means that no one should stop us from saying what we want to say.

Obviously, it gets messy when these rights start to conflict with each other. It is impossible for human beings to not impact on each other, both in positive and negative ways. The golden rule when it comes to concepts such as basic human rights and freedom and justice, is to ensure that whatever solution we choose, it results in as few impediments to those basic human rights as possible.

So who upholds these rights?

In order for them to be basic there cannot be any 'oh but if that happens then we do this' nonsense about them. I'll stand by my assertion that the only basic human right is the right to freedom of thought.

Any other claim to a statement on human rights is bleating by people with too much time on their hands. We've had laws providing guidelines on dealing with the 'right to life', and then, usually, too late for the poor murdered sod, for many, many years.

And the freedom of speech mob really try to use that as an excuse for some idiot who would have been better off just shutting his big trap. You want to advocate overthrowing a government, do so and take your lumps. Don't try and claim that you are free to say what you like as the reason why you shouldn't be prosecuted.

It might be a noble ideal but it most certainly isn't universal. And if it isn't universal it can hardly be claimed to be a basic human right.

 

[Albereth]

You're still trying to argue that how it "is" is how it should be.

And you are trying to argue that how it should be, should be how it is.

 

[Xarog]

So who upholds these rights?

That is usually the duty of the state.

In order for them to be basic there cannot be any 'oh but if that happens then we do this' nonsense about them.

Wrong. A basic human right is simply a right accorded to all human beings by virtue of them being human. In other words, no other conditions need to be met in order for the right to take effect.

If you and I sign a contract where you will fix my car, and I will pay you R1 000, then we both inheret a legal right from each other. I have a right to your time/effort, and you have a right to my money. It is a right, but not a basic human one, understand?

I'll stand by my assertion that the only basic human right is the right to freedom of thought.

That is a ridiculous standard. And by that standard, thought will not be free for much longer, as scientists have already been able to read people's minds in a rudimentary fashion.

Any other claim to a statement on human rights is bleating by people with too much time on their hands. We've had laws providing guidelines on dealing with the 'right to life', and then, usually, too late for the poor murdered sod, for many, many years.

You argue that how it "is" is how it should be. By this standard, you have absolutely no basis to complain about crime.

And the freedom of speech mob really try to use that as an excuse for some idiot who would have been better off just shutting his big trap. You want to advocate overthrowing a government, do so and take your lumps. Don't try and claim that you are free to say what you like as the reason why you shouldn't be prosecuted.

No right is unlimited. If you slander someone with your words, then they are entitled to seek satisfaction for the damage to their reputation.

It might be a noble ideal but it most certainly isn't universal. And if it isn't universal it can hardly be claimed to be a basic human right.

Again, misinterpreting the meaning of the word "basic".

 

[Albereth]

Again, misinterpreting the meaning of the word "basic".

Sorry - didn't bother responding to the rest of your stuff. Maybe the state as upholding the rights is worth another look but..

I don't believe that I have misinterpreted the meaning of basic. It has to be the lowest possible common denominator. Something so fundamental that it has to apply to each and every one of us. In that sense it is universal.

But perhaps you'd like to tell me what basic means?

 

[Xarog]

Sorry - didn't bother responding to the rest of your stuff. Maybe the state as upholding the rights is worth another look but..

I don't believe that I have misinterpreted the meaning of basic. It has to be the lowest possible common denominator. Something so fundamental that it has to apply to each and every one of us. In that sense it is universal.

Ok, this is pretty much the proper definition.

However, that does not mean that everyone can instantly agree on what basic is. But this does not invalidate the concept.

Mostly humans argue over what humans are. To some we are spiritual beings with a soul which carries on living even after we die. To others, we're merely sacks of flesh and all that matters is to prevent suffering. Then there are some that claim that nothing at all matters, and they justify their opinions by pointing at the mutability of perception.

But ultimately, human freedom can be summed up thus : All humans have the right to live with as little interference on each other as possible.

And the attempt is justified, even if people sometimes disagree. Usually we can more or less distinguish what is "fair" and what is not. It's better than not giving a damn about fairness at all. Empathy is a sense... we should use it to its full potential.

 

[Albereth]

But ultimately, human freedom can be summed up thus : All humans have the right to live with as little interference on each other as possible.

I'd go with that.

Pretty much suggests that we should be libertarians.

 

[Xarog]

I'd go with that.

Pretty much suggests that we should be libertarians.

In a perfect world, yes. But sadly, humans interfering with each other is unavoidable. You can't even go to the local shop without being stuck in traffic and having to deal with other human beings also using the roads. (Ok, this ignores the fact that humans built the roads, but that's a needless complication here).

The point is that the purpose of road rules is to ensure that everyone drives in a manner which, if the rules are followed consistently, will minimise the danger to the people using the roads, while also trying to ensure that everyone can get from A to B with as little fuss as possible.

If everyone decided to follow their own rules while driving on the roads (which would be the libertarian approach), roads would be far more dangerous than they are now. This is why humans try to design systems of interaction (i.e. laws), which is usually designed to promote libertarian ideals in a system where human conflict is unavoidable.

And on a tangent :
You claimed that humans have the freedom of thought... it follows then that humans must have the freedom to choose what is important to them. It is excercising of this freedom which leads to differences over what constitutes a "right"; different people value different things.

 

[Albereth]

And on a tangent :
You claimed that humans have the freedom of thought... it follows then that humans must have the freedom to choose what is important to them. It is excercising of this freedom which leads to differences over what constitutes a "right"; different people value different things.

Yep - trouble with thoughts is that they need to remain inside your own head. While they are there they cause little damage. When they become words or actions we are in trouble.

 

[Xarog]

Yep - trouble with thoughts is that they need to remain inside your own head. While they are there they cause little damage. When they become words or actions we are in trouble.

But the same can be said for any action which impinges on another human being. There's a vast difference between being alone on an island and shaving your head, and shaving your head in a busy pub so that pieces of hair lands in someone else's drinks.

In a modern nation, humans have to interact with each other. The only laws which can claim the mantle of being 'just' are those which honestly try to keep as many people as free as possible, without the group railroading the interests of the individual.

It's very very difficult to say with any certainty when a balance has been reached; however it is quite easily to tell when something is grotesquely imbalanced.

 

[Albereth]

It's very very difficult to say with any certainty when a balance has been reached; however it is quite easily to tell when something is grotesquely imbalanced.

You are right. But really laws are there to guide the interaction that people have. They ought not to be claimed to exist to drive basic human rights. The justness of the law is determined by whether people think it is so.

Let's just be a little silly about the 'right to life'. People are going to die anyway, and hopefully of old age. But let's just say someone isn't too keen to go - how is that right ever going to be upheld? Perhaps we'd just be better off about talking about basic human expectations.