• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Do you like this? Should all countries follow every article of this?

  • Total voters
    33
Vader said:
Like it or hate it ... it's great for people in countries like Iran. Iran's government is a bunch of insane, islam-o-nazi savages who need death.
Click to expand...

Religion is just the same as political beliefs.
While the two may be different in ideas and practice, they both force people to adhere to a specific set of beliefs.

This document does that(if it were law), forces people to adhere to a specific set of political beliefs, even though it says you're free not to.
 
Vader said:
Countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia deserve no sovereignty. Their government officals need to be burried in the sand and stoned to death.
Click to expand...

State sovereignty is antithetical to individual sovereignty as well. Individual sovereignty = the right to self ownership.
 
Mell said:
''I dislike their aim.''

Why would anybody dislike aiming to have a certain standard of human rights protection, all over the world...
Click to expand...

I dislike the fact they think they have the authority to decide what rights people worldwide, without their consent, must be declared to have. What a grandiose view of themselves the UN must have!
 
Vader said:
Like it or hate it ... it's great for people in countries like Iran. Iran's government is a bunch of insane, islam-o-nazi savages who need death.
Click to expand...

None of whom are going to pay any damn attention to the list to begin with, so what's the point?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Not true, actually. Though these right may not be binding like the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are, but they still have "legal authority" in the sense that this declaration will contribution to international peremptory norms as to what makes up human rights, and thus what makes up a human rights violation. That is particularly important because human rights offenders are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning they can be arrested and tried in any court even if there would otherwise be no jurisdictional ties to that country (for example, Pinochet was tried in Spain for human rights crimes he, an Argentinian, committed in Argentina against Argentinians, with no ties to Spanish jurisdiction at all, apart from the universal cognizability of his crimes). Thus, this declaration could theoretically see similar human rights crimes arising out of workers refusing to give their employees vacation time, and things like that.
Click to expand...

Pinochet was indicted by a Spanish judge, but was never tried for what you claim he was. He was released by Britain and sent home, where he was then charged with domestic crimes, like kipnapping etc...

Additionally, unless those "rights" are codified elsewhere, what the DOHR has to say on the matter is meaningless.

I don't see that there was ever any real case to try him under some "universal jurisdiction."
 
Cephus said:
None of whom are going to pay any damn attention to the list to begin with, so what's the point?
Click to expand...

A good point. We would end up having to put a foot in their terroist asses.
 
Mell said:
Why would anybody dislike aiming to have a certain standard of human rights protection, all over the world...
Click to expand...
Firstly, because the rights they are aiming for are too overreaching and complicated, they should stick to fewer and more basic ones at the moment, as even those are not yet accomplished in some areas.

Secondly, because I disagree with several of the so-called "rights" listed.

Lastly, because I disagree with the whole overall tone of the document - To me, it gives an impression of intended goal that disagrees with my preferred aim.

Basically, I disagree with the whole thing. Not with the "rights" listed although some of them I do disagree with, but with the tone they are listed in.
 
.

The OP sounds spiffy. Kumbaya....


.
 
''Basically, I disagree with the whole thing. Not with the "rights" listed although some of them I do disagree with, but with the tone they are listed in. ''

Maybe if you lived in a country where your own human rights were being abused on a regular basis, you would not place such importance on things like the tone the rights you should have are being declared in.

I cant imagine those who are hanging from the ceiling and having their genitals elecocuted in a prison in Iran being concerned about the tone of the doccument. Nor is the women who is being brutally raped and mutilated in DRC. Or what about the mother who has no food to put in her childrens mouths in Zimbawe. Or those who are being worked to death(literally) in Burma because if they refuse their wife and daughters will be raped by those who are supposed to be protecting society. Their only hope is that there are millions of people out there patiently negotiating with the disgusting governments of the world to start applying the code of human right to their citizens lives.
 
Mell said:
''Basically, I disagree with the whole thing. Not with the "rights" listed although some of them I do disagree with, but with the tone they are listed in. ''

Maybe if you lived in a country where your own human rights were being abused on a regular basis, you would not place such importance on things like the tone the rights you should have are being declared in.
Click to expand...

And you think this UN pile of hot air is going to do anything at all to do this or make it happen? :lol:

Mell said:
I cant imagine those who are hanging from the ceiling and having their genitals elecocuted in a prison in Iran being concerned about the tone of the doccument. Nor is the women who is being brutally raped and mutilated in DRC. Or what about the mother who has no food to put in her childrens mouths in Zimbawe. Or those who are being worked to death(literally) in Burma because if they refuse their wife and daughters will be raped by those who are supposed to be protecting society. Their only hope is that there are millions of people out there patiently negotiating with the disgusting governments of the world to start applying the code of human right to their citizens lives.
Click to expand...

Mel, the reality of the situation is a bitch. The fact is the country's that are doing such things are not going to change because of embargo or political threat. We have seen this so many times before you figure people would learn. They don't learn and make the same mistakes over and over again.

After awhile someone with vision my come along and have the clout or balls to do something about it. That something is not talk or make threats. The only thing that these despots understand is violence, but we are so weak in the stomach about war now days, no one will do it.

When brave men sit by and are willing to sit on their asses and do nothing about the evil they see happening, it will continue. No amount of talking or embargo will change this.

Reality is a bitch.
 
Mell said:
Their only hope is that there are millions of people out there patiently negotiating with the disgusting governments of the world to start applying the code of human right to their citizens lives.
Click to expand...

Their only hope is that those governments are overthrown-- whether they do it themselves in revolution or are conquered by more enlightened regimes. If their only hope was relying on the United Nations and it's half-hearted and ineffective resolutions, they would be better off committing suicide.
 
Mell said:
Maybe if you lived in a country where your own human rights were being abused on a regular basis, you would not place such importance on things like the tone the rights you should have are being declared in.

I cant imagine those who are hanging from the ceiling and having their genitals elecocuted in a prison in Iran being concerned about the tone of the doccument. Nor is the women who is being brutally raped and mutilated in DRC. Or what about the mother who has no food to put in her childrens mouths in Zimbawe. Or those who are being worked to death(literally) in Burma because if they refuse their wife and daughters will be raped by those who are supposed to be protecting society. Their only hope is that there are millions of people out there patiently negotiating with the disgusting governments of the world to start applying the code of human right to their citizens lives.
Click to expand...
Your examples have no bearing on my point.

This is supposedly a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".

As such, for me to agree to it, it must fit my definition of what they should be very closely.

The message I receive from reading that document is not one that I want defining human rights in UN negotiations, or any other.

In short, that definition of “universal human rights” is not one that I agree with.

So, I disagree.

And, like I said previously, to add all the stuff in the later articles when even the first few articles are not recognized in some areas, seems absurd to me.

In some areas, not even the primary rights of “life, liberty, and (insert something you agree with here) are available.

Focus on those first, for ****s sake.
 
Vader said:
A good point. We would end up having to put a foot in their terroist asses.
Click to expand...

Because, you know, might always makes right? :roll:
 
Cephus said:
Because, you know, might always makes right? :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, it does, because the winners write the history books. Conquered peoples are forced to adopt the moral attitudes of their conquerors in order to survive, and thus are the victorious retroactively justified.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Yes, it does, because the winners write the history books. Conquered peoples are forced to adopt the moral attitudes of their conquerors in order to survive, and thus are the victorious retroactively justified.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with it on moral grounds, but damn that sounds good. :thumbs:
 
Blackdog said:
I don't agree with it on moral grounds, but damn that sounds good. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

No, but you agree with yourself on moral grounds. That's all the justification needed to conquer those who oppose your moral beliefs and force them into compliance with them. The only thing that matters is that you win. Continuing to uphold your stated moral values in the process is a nice bonus, but I think history has shown us time and time again that it's not necessary.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea what it basically says is that "you're free, as long as it conforms to our definition of free."
Click to expand...

How would you be free without conforming to a definition of freedom?

This definition of freedom is one that resonates with a huge amount of the people of the world. They ,now that state oppression is not the only threat to their freedom, economic suppression through poverty is also a very real thing in their lives.

The libertarian definition of freedom, which you think should be rammed down the throat of everyone, is nothing but the freedom to exploit and the freedom to starve. I think most people would like to do without those "freedoms".

I can't believe you lumped libertarianism with fascism and state communism. :doh
Click to expand...

I did. They are all totalitarian ideologies that leads to suffering and injustice. Thus human rights exists to protect us from them.
 
''And you think this UN pile of hot air is going to do anything at all to do this or make it happen?''



It is already happening, in many countries. Most western countries uphold most of the human rights standards most of the time.



But, I dont understand why your are laughing. What kind of person laughs at human rights issues. There really is something sick about that attitude.



''We have seen this so many times before you figure people would learn.''

Compare human rights standards in the European Union of today, with the standards that were in this area 200 years ago. Surely, you can see that people have learned.



''When brave men sit by and are willing to sit on their asses and do nothing about the evil they see happening, it will continue.''

They are. What do you think the UN, NGOs, lawyers without fontiers... are doing with their time.



The only people who can in some way reasonably argue against human rights standards, are the ones who are in some way benefiting from the lack of human rights standards in certain coutries. ie. Human rights are at odds with their personal and/or financial interests. Oil industries, gems traders, weapons manufacturers... Dirty dealers!
 
''...they would be better off committing suicide.''

Lucky for us, that our ancesters who did not experience the rights and freedoms we have today did not use this 'solution'.

But, it is a ridiculous thing to say anyway. Many even in the worst circumstances feel there a reason to live. Suicide does not seem to have such a cut an dried connection with bad circumstances.
 
I disagree with this declaration. It seems almost like socialism in disguise. Plus people don't have the rights to certain privileges that were listed there. I think the fundamental right is that people be allowed to keep their hard earned wealth (money, property, etc) and not have the government tax much of it in order to pay for another persons "rights."
 
Mell said:
It is already happening, in many countries. Most western countries uphold most of the human rights standards most of the time.
Click to expand...

Western civilization does not need this pile of UN crap as they already set the standards.

Of course your reply to my statement has nothing at all to do with your initial statement...

Maybe if you lived in a country where your own human rights were being abused on a regular basis, you would not place such importance on things like the tone the rights you should have are being declared in. - Mel

Funny how you jump from down trodden third world countries to the western world. :lol:

Mell said:
But, I dont understand why your are laughing. What kind of person laughs at human rights issues. There really is something sick about that attitude.
Click to expand...

Most of those so called "human rights" are nothing more than stealing from those who have to give to those who have not. This is not a right, this would be theft.

As far as me laughing, your premise is flawed. I am not laughing at human rights issues, I am laughing at your ridicules argument.

Mell said:
Compare human rights standards in the European Union of today, with the standards that were in this area 200 years ago. Surely, you can see that people have learned.
Click to expand...

Please explain how that is even remotely connected to my reply to your statement....

I cant imagine those who are hanging from the ceiling and having their genitals elecocuted in a prison in Iran being concerned about the tone of the doccument. Nor is the women who is being brutally raped and mutilated in DRC. Or what about the mother who has no food to put in her childrens mouths in Zimbawe. Or those who are being worked to death(literally) in Burma because if they refuse their wife and daughters will be raped by those who are supposed to be protecting society. Their only hope is that there are millions of people out there patiently negotiating with the disgusting governments of the world to start applying the code of human right to their citizens lives. - Mel

Mell said:
They are. What do you think the UN, NGOs, lawyers without fontiers... are doing with their time.
Click to expand...

Nothing useful.

But I have already covered this and you chose not to see it...

Mel, the reality of the situation is a bitch. The fact is the country's that are doing such things are not going to change because of embargo or political threat. We have seen this so many times before you figure people would learn. They don't learn and make the same mistakes over and over again. - Blackdog

Mell said:
The only people who can in some way reasonably argue against human rights standards, are the ones who are in some way benefiting from the lack of human rights standards in certain coutries. ie. Human rights are at odds with their personal and/or financial interests. Oil industries, gems traders, weapons manufacturers... Dirty dealers!
Click to expand...

This my dear Mel, this is nothing more than an irrelevant rant, or a veiled insult at best.

Nothing left to say here if you are not even going to respond to what was actually said. If you just want to rant, you can go find someone else.

You have yourself a good day.
 
Last edited:
No, I don't agree with all of it.

In some cases the protections are too weak and in others they are too strong.
 
Regicollis said:
How would you be free without conforming to a definition of freedom?
Click to expand...

Almost every time you eliminate choice, you're not proposing freedom.
This decree eliminates many choices.

Regicollis said:
This definition of freedom is one that resonates with a huge amount of the people of the world. They ,now that state oppression is not the only threat to their freedom, economic suppression through poverty is also a very real thing in their lives.

The libertarian definition of freedom, which you think should be rammed down the throat of everyone, is nothing but the freedom to exploit and the freedom to starve. I think most people would like to do without those "freedoms".
Click to expand...

Not at all, my definition of freedom is to live with what you feel makes you free.
It doesn't need to be legislated and you can form your own collectives designed to your particular wants for freedom.

Want to build a socialist commune where the means of production are owned by the community.
Go for it, just don't make people be apart of it if they don't want to.

My believe system gives every one a choice on how they want to live.
Your system removes that choice.


Regicollis said:
I did. They are all totalitarian ideologies that leads to suffering and injustice. Thus human rights exists to protect us from them.
Click to expand...

No they aren't.

Libertarianism calls for a reduced state while this nonsense calls for an increased state.
Not to mention all the similarities between an authoritarian government (that you support) and fascism/state communism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom