Are human rights the responsibility of all.
Posted: 21 October 2013 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  76
Joined  2013-09-18

I’ve always felt that the rights of human beings are essential to everyone involved, not just those who are effected by this situation or that. I’ve heard people talk about this groups rights or that groups rights. I’ve seen every form of division known to man, separating the afflicted from the rest of society and I was wondering why those not effected by the intentional withholding rights of others don’t defend these people as they would themselves.

It seems to me that it would be in everyone’s interest to have a society of equals, that work together for the common good of all. Are we so self important that we can’t see the wrongness that begins with the systematic disfranchisement of those who live in our communities and under the same sky?

Rights should not be designated by race, religion or affection and those who stand for the elimination of certain human beings should be confronted be the whole of that society, so that injustice can be reduced, if not eliminated.

The one solitary question remains is when should society revoke or restrict these rights and what would be the basis for doing so. (age, maturity, criminal behavior)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 05:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2210
Joined  2007-04-26

Wu the simple answer is that most human beings only care about things that affect themselves. We care much more about our own starving children than we do about starving children in a far away country.

Luckily humanity is not entirely selfish. Most of us do contribute to charities that help people we have never even met and many of us do stand up for the rights of people who we have very little in common with. Lots of heterosexual people have stood with gay and lesbians to fight for equal rights and there were lots of white men and women who marched for civil rights in the 60’s. Unfortunately most people don;t fight for the rights of others with the same energy that they would fight for their own rights. If they did many of these battles would have been won long ago.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 09:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Great response Mac.
Wu I believe that Human Rights should be one of the prime directives of government.
Government is the only way to guarantee human rights.  The only way.
Also, me personally, my definition of human rights would be a very broad spectrum of rights.

Government is the extension of humans collectively.(one form)
As we can see various governments do better jobs than others.

As MacGeyver said, if many of these topics were followed through earlier they wouldn’t be an issue today.
There was a large and vibrant Anti-Nuke movement in the late 1950s.  Where did that go?
Friggin’ nowhere!
You know why?  Fear Mongerers and Red Baiters.
That’s one of your main reasons right there for lot’s of Human Rights Deficiencies!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

What we have to work for is enough food for everyone, and we’ve done a lousy job at even that most basic human right. Then there’s basic shelter, clothing,  healthcare, education, safety. All human rights but we don’t often think of as rights.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2013 10:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

The prior three posters gave their usual excellent statements so I have little to add except for the final question.

Quoting WuCares:

The one solitary question remains is when should society revoke or restrict these rights and what would be the basis for doing so. (age, maturity, criminal behavior)

  Each member is expected to contribute value to the society at his or her level of capabilities and to recieve needed benefits.  The disabled may not contribute much or anything, but it’s at their level so they should get the benefits; children for their potential contribution; the elderly for the value they contributed earlier.  Dependent on the level of humaneness of the society, predators and parasites should a) given rehabilitating training b) be incarcerated and given only the minimum level of benefits to maintain existence; c) be shipped to an uninhabited island where they will have to figure out how to generate enough value by themselves to survive; d) be executed to get rid of negative influences.  snake LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2013 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  786
Joined  2012-04-25
Lois - 21 October 2013 10:03 PM

What we have to work for is enough food for everyone, and we’ve done a lousy job at even that most basic human right. Then there’s basic shelter, clothing,  healthcare, education, safety. All human rights but we don’t often think of as rights.

Lois

You’re thinking is way too advanced. There are still educated people around the world who wouldn’t even agree with you on your list of rights. Worse yet, many of those are right here in the supposedly most advanced country in history.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2013 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
CuthbertJ - 22 October 2013 10:35 AM
Lois - 21 October 2013 10:03 PM

What we have to work for is enough food for everyone, and we’ve done a lousy job at even that most basic human right. Then there’s basic shelter, clothing,  healthcare, education, safety. All human rights but we don’t often think of as rights.

Lois

You’re thinking is way too advanced. There are still educated people around the world who wouldn’t even agree with you on your list of rights. Worse yet, many of those are right here in the supposedly most advanced country in history.


Agreed! One of the reasons in this country is that there are too many people who can’t enjoy a good meal unless they know someone is starving. The same could be said about the other necessities.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2013 11:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2698
Joined  2011-04-24
WuCares - 21 October 2013 05:13 PM

I’ve always felt that the rights of human beings are essential to everyone involved, not just those who are effected by this situation or that. I’ve heard people talk about this groups rights or that groups rights. I’ve seen every form of division known to man, separating the afflicted from the rest of society and I was wondering why those not effected by the intentional withholding rights of others don’t defend these people as they would themselves.

It seems to me that it would be in everyone’s interest to have a society of equals, that work together for the common good of all. Are we so self important that we can’t see the wrongness that begins with the systematic disfranchisement of those who live in our communities and under the same sky?

Rights should not be designated by race, religion or affection and those who stand for the elimination of certain human beings should be confronted be the whole of that society, so that injustice can be reduced, if not eliminated.

Rights only exist in a legal sense, and in this society we have the ability to have rights legislated through democratic processes - at least we think we do.

However, we all don’t agree on which rights are worth having, and we can’t make anyone vote a certain way, so we’re a little bit f****d in this regard.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2013 10:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
mid atlantic - 22 October 2013 11:00 PM
WuCares - 21 October 2013 05:13 PM

I’ve always felt that the rights of human beings are essential to everyone involved, not just those who are effected by this situation or that. I’ve heard people talk about this groups rights or that groups rights. I’ve seen every form of division known to man, separating the afflicted from the rest of society and I was wondering why those not effected by the intentional withholding rights of others don’t defend these people as they would themselves.

It seems to me that it would be in everyone’s interest to have a society of equals, that work together for the common good of all. Are we so self important that we can’t see the wrongness that begins with the systematic disfranchisement of those who live in our communities and under the same sky?

Rights should not be designated by race, religion or affection and those who stand for the elimination of certain human beings should be confronted be the whole of that society, so that injustice can be reduced, if not eliminated.

Rights only exist in a legal sense, and in this society we have the ability to have rights legislated through democratic processes - at least we think we do.

However, we all don’t agree on which rights are worth having, and we can’t make anyone vote a certain way, so we’re a little bit f****d in this regard.


Which rights do you think are not worth having?

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2013 01:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2698
Joined  2011-04-24
Lois - 23 October 2013 10:59 AM
mid atlantic - 22 October 2013 11:00 PM
WuCares - 21 October 2013 05:13 PM

I’ve always felt that the rights of human beings are essential to everyone involved, not just those who are effected by this situation or that. I’ve heard people talk about this groups rights or that groups rights. I’ve seen every form of division known to man, separating the afflicted from the rest of society and I was wondering why those not effected by the intentional withholding rights of others don’t defend these people as they would themselves.

It seems to me that it would be in everyone’s interest to have a society of equals, that work together for the common good of all. Are we so self important that we can’t see the wrongness that begins with the systematic disfranchisement of those who live in our communities and under the same sky?

Rights should not be designated by race, religion or affection and those who stand for the elimination of certain human beings should be confronted be the whole of that society, so that injustice can be reduced, if not eliminated.

Rights only exist in a legal sense, and in this society we have the ability to have rights legislated through democratic processes - at least we think we do.

However, we all don’t agree on which rights are worth having, and we can’t make anyone vote a certain way, so we’re a little bit f****d in this regard.


Which rights do you think are not worth having?

Lois

I like all of the rights we have at the moment.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile