With an acception of Spirit of 22, I'm taking a guess and saying that most of you here consider human rights fundemental and neccesary in a state.

What exactly do you conservatives consider human rights? Liberals too - and everyone in the middle. Your own words, please.

hmm sic you actually post seriously here?

umm human rights? ok its late and this isnt going to be well thought through but something like

personal freedom. ultimate personal freedom. you dont fuck with me i dont fuck with you. this is where all other rights stem from.

If I can violate every "right" you hold dear rather simply, than its a privilege granted to you by all those who could strip you of it but wont. Civilization has always been built on privileges awarded for contributions. People who contribute less always seem to have less "rights" dont they? We've had this discussion before and it went nowhere. There is no such thing as a human right. Youre confusing it for privileges some people might demand for themselves and others.

Jacross's definition fits the western, capitalist modern. It's a definition of human rights which has caused the majority of human suffering since the beginning of civilization.

The Socialist definition of human rights is the right to food, shelter, and education, and a job. These rights aren't fundemental in western society, and that's why so much suffering goes on because of western society.

Spirit, why isn't their such thing as human rights? You don't believe their are some basic priveleges everyone is entitled to by virtue of being human?

you just answered your own question. They are privileges. Most people should have food and a job (not for their own benefit though), but universal education degrades its quality. No one is entitled to anything by virtue of being human.

I disagree. Society is comprised of human's, so the State owe's certain basic benefits to the people that make it up.

Life, liberty, and property, all protected by the right of self defense.

'Human rights' is a compromise between a Government and it's subjects as to how the people shall be treated.

It consists of allowing the people to live in whichever way they want to live as long as they don't threaten the State's existance or don't commit any 'immoral' acts, as defined by the powerful majority.

Alan, how come you don't include food and clothing? Also, if property is a right, how come homeless people aren't entitled to it? Don't say they can have it if they want, cause that's bullshit. How come everyone doesn't have the opportunity or ability to buy property?

Also, if life is a right, how come you actively support capital punishment?

>>>Alan, how come you don't include food and clothing?<<<<

Because feeding yourself isnt other peoples responsibility... It isnt hard to eat.

>>>Also, if property is a right, how come homeless people aren't entitled to it?<<<

They are entitled to it. They just dont have it. They are entitled to protection from theft of it.



>>>>How come everyone doesn't have the opportunity or ability to buy property?<<<<

because it isnt a right.

>>>Also, if life is a right, how come you actively support capital punishment?<<<

Because people who concsiously destroy life forfeit the machines of state that protect their rights (Something to that effect in Alans mind Id wager)

More along the lines that there mental condition lacks the moral restraints of ego and super ego thus their consciousness is not in the fullest sence human.

The Bill of Rights, and just about every other doctrine of rights in any legitimate state with an acception of fundementalist theocracies since the beginning of civilization defined "human" as homosapien, not someone with a certain type of conscience.

If you believe that a human is someone that doesn't kill people, you should join the religious right. They believe that murderers, lepers, mutants, and Native Americans aren't human.

Btw, read more Freud. The ego and superego don't contain moral restrains. They should, and ideally do in most people - but some humans have stronger superegos, which causes insanity. Some simply have egos that function different then others, but the ego and the superego never imply moral restraint.

The enlightenment, which is the basis of our constitution, justifies itself with reason. Theocratic states justify themselves with the existence of a God, which is the route to determining humans based on morality. If one consideres humanr ights using reason, then the death penalty is impossable. That's why we're the only western country that still uses it, our European neighbords base themselves strongly on enlightenment values.

>>>The Bill of Rights, and just about every other doctrine of rights in any legitimate state with an acception of fundementalist theocracies since the beginning of civilization defined "human" as homosapien, not someone with a certain type of conscience.<<<

Actually, the idea that certain types of foreigners are indeed people is a pretty new one.

Uncle without human conscious name one thing important about humans that gives reason not to kill them like anyother animal.

Oh and I also favor the right to liberty of which imprisonment is and infringement.

the human genome, which isn't directly related to conscience. It creates genetic traits of personality abscent in animals.

Also, profound desires and interests.

Reletively speaking, the conscience doesn't exist. It's a religious myth. Human egos are diverse, and some people have less morals then others. Some are insane, and their heads work completely differently. That doesn't mean they're not human, it simply means they're insane. They still contain opposable thumbs and the rest of the human bone structure, the ability to process thought even to a minor degree, and a working cortex, medula omblengata, all that shit. They're human. What you think of their morals has nothing to do with that.

Should retarded people be executed? According to your logic, they're not human.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
the human genome, which isn't directly related to conscience. It creates genetic traits of personality abscent in animals.

Also, profound desires and interests.

Reletively speaking, the conscience doesn't exist. It's a religious myth. Human egos are diverse, and some people have less morals then others. Some are insane, and their heads work completely differently. That doesn't mean they're not human, it simply means they're insane. They still contain opposable thumbs and the rest of the human bone structure, the ability to process thought even to a minor degree, and a working cortex, medula omblengata, all that shit. They're human. What you think of their morals has nothing to do with that.

Should retarded people be executed? According to your logic, they're not human.

---

Nasty,

I agree with your stance on the death penalty, not because it's a human right violation but because it is NOT a proven deterrant. However, your logic is flawed, mainly because certain primates share 98% of DNA, Courts consider that a close enough match in murder cases. But does it mean those primates are human?

Those primates don't have homosapien bone structures, and their genome is different. It's similar, but it doesn't comprise of the exact same cells. Their minds are shaped differently then human minds. Their cortex is wide and has no length. They're a different species.

Rapists and child molesters are capable of conscience processing. They don't have morals, but again, that's not what defines humans. Autistic people don't neccesarily have morals, are they not human? According to Alan's logic, people with autism, severe cases of down syndrom, old people in the most degenerative stages of Alztheimers (sp?), people in comas, and people experiencing ego death on acid or shrooms are NOT HUMAN.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Those primates don't have homosapien bone structures, and their genome is different. It's similar, but it doesn't comprise of the exact same cells. Their minds are shaped differently then human minds. Their cortex is wide and has no length. They're a different species.

Rapists and child molesters are capable of conscience processing. They don't have morals, but again, that's not what defines humans. Autistic people don't neccesarily have morals, are they not human? According to Alan's logic, people with autism, severe cases of down syndrom, old people in the most degenerative stages of Alztheimers (sp?), people in comas, and people experiencing ego death on acid or shrooms are NOT HUMAN.

---

He probably means special circumstances. As for me, If i ever had a retarded kid, I'm taking him on a fishing trip and he is never coming back. Your also forgetting that people in comas, Alzheimers, and severe down syndrome are either kept in homes, are in a state called "vegetazation" or are in nursing homes and most are simply to old and crippled to even wipe their own ass or walk to the can to tinkle, let alone be a danger to society.

Uncle, I don't belive in executing them for no reason what soever, but I don't belive in recognizing them as possesing the full rights of man. I belive they should be bestowed with something more along the lines of the protections that one would grant to any of the great apes.

without intelligence sentience and restraint there is no difference between man and the animals. Fuck the genomes, fuck the thumbs, bonobos possess 98.7 percent of the former and all of the latter.

[This message has been edited by Alan Smithee (edited 08-16-2002).]

more to the point unc what is so sacrosanct about thymine, guanine, cytozine, adenine isomeres, all animals have them, the importance lies in the phenome, not the genome.

Yes, retarded people are kept in homes, but they're not executed.

As I've said, the only thing that justifies infringing people's human rights is to protect the rights of others. Keeping people in homes, institutions, or prisons is neccesary to preserve the rights of their would be victims. Executing them does not.

But as Ive said before, I don't consider them, heinous criminals, people and therefore I don't belive they have rights.

And as I've said before, science does consider them people, and so does the Constitution, so I think they do have rights.

Do I need to mention that your ideal Orwellian society violates several of the amendments? Think before you go around calling the Constitution "liberal hippy bullshit," or something along those lines.

[This message has been edited by UnclNastyFingerz (edited 08-17-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
And as I've said before, science does consider them people, and so does the Constitution, so I think they do have rights.

Do I need to mention that your ideal Orwellian society violates several of the amendments? Think before you go around calling the Constitution "liberal hippy bullshit," or something along those lines.

[This message has been edited by UnclNastyFingerz (edited 08-17-2002).]

---

When did he call the constitution liberal hippy bullshit?

He didn't, but I know phrazes like that are used on this board by conservatives to dismiss arguments.

Im not conservative, Im reactionary.Nothing besides restraint, intelligence, and scentience seperates man from the animals. If we are to consider human rights inviolate we must veiw these attributes as that which bestows the afore mentioned rights. Those that do not posses these attributes may be homo sapien sapien but as they lack the qualities which make mans freedoms inviolate they cannot be considered more than an animal.

hu�man (hymn)
n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

What a load of archaic moralist bullshit. You justify unconstitutional, cruel and inhumane behavior by claiming people you don't like "aren't human." Is that how you justify the cold war? By saying the Soviets weren't human?

According to your logic, people with down syndrom aren't human. Get a life.

By the way, if you're really reactionary - live up to the title. Rant about raving a culture war on people that are anti-American and anti-family.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
hu�man (hymn)
n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

What a load of archaic moralist bullshit. You justify unconstitutional, cruel and inhumane behavior by claiming people you don't like "aren't human." Is that how you justify the cold war? By saying the Soviets weren't human?

According to your logic, people with down syndrom aren't human. Get a life.

By the way, if you're really reactionary - live up to the title. Rant about raving a culture war on people that are anti-American and anti-family.

---

According to your drivel, you would give up lands to native americans willingly. No one is stopping you, so do it.

You justify unconsitutional, cruel, and inhumane behavior because, according to you, someone's personality is "cool" and is in response to counter the U.S.

According to you, Someone can intervene in another country's affairs in the form of a "humanitarian" mission, only if he is your hero.

Is it also okay for farmers who have farmed and settled land for years to be evicted just because of their race?

No I do not belive a person with down syndrome has the same rights as a human being in the fullest sence. Besides by your arguement they arent either since their genes are different in structure to those of a human being.

unc, noah webster isn't my personal philosopher, just because the definition of existance is in a dictionary doesn't mean that the meaning of it is contained by its pages. Dictionaries are made by men they are not some tome handed down by god. Unless you can actually give some logical proof admit defeat.

i think in a way uncle answered his own question.

you spoke of homeless not living in homes and deprived of their right and also spoke of mentally or physically handicapped being taken care of and of having homes.

having the right to something, does not entitle you to it, or in other words to take it from others.

mentally and physically handicapped are provided this because in most cases they can't do it for themselves, whereas homeless people are capable of it.

they are not being denied the ability to live in homes, they themselves just lack the ability, when i see a 40 year old on the street wearing his only clothes, i can't help but think in all the years you've lived, you couldn't find one person who could give you a hand when the bottom fell out.

when i see a guy with a sign that says will work for food, i say go to a gas station wash your face and look for a job to work for a wage.

people are homeless because they choose to be.

i'll start feeling sorry for those who can work but don't when the help wanted pages of the newspaper are empty.

notice i said pages.

i don't believe sheer existance entitles anybody to anything.

i follow jacross's thinking, the only right you have is not be fucked with, provided you live up to your responsibility of not fucking with others.

What responsibility does a pirate crew have, when a woman voluntarily choses to live on their ship?

*Taps the official answer, in a sealed envelope, against his turbin*

Noah Webster isn't some sort of deity, but his opinion is taken seriously by scholors around the world as what is the English language. I take dictionary definitions more seriously then moralist bullshit I here from backward reactionaries with no sence of reason.

You could say the word "fish" is used to define a cup of coffee. I don't care. When debatin, people tend to use the official english language definitions of words. If you want to debate the definition of human in a mystical theocratic cult meeting, go for it - but when debating serious issues, use the real definitions of the words.

I understand that you don't consider certain people human. Shamefully, they're officially recognized by the state and the constitution as human, so you can move to Afganistan if you want a culture that bases humanity on morals. They don't consider infidels human.

Some people are not human beings? That is probably the most ridiculous statement I have heard in years. What gives you the right to decide who is or is not human?

Jefferson wrote in the Declaration that we are all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are all intelligent people here (most of us). Yet, is it possible Jefferson may have put a little more thought and energy into the matter?

By virtue of being alive you should be given certain rights. Those rights include mainly survival. Where else in the universe is there life? Granted most likely somewhere, but as far as we know we are the only living beings in the entire cosmos. I think that is extraordinary. And yet, we torture each other, throw metal and chemicals at each other during something called "war".

The reason the Indians (Arawaks, as they called themselves) gave us land so freely is because ownership of land was a completely foriegn idea. They believed, rightly, that we belonged to the earth. Think about it, this land and world has been around for four billion years (six thousand if you are a monotheist). This land will be around long after we are all dead. So doesn't it make sense that we belong to the land?

If human rights apply to some but not all, then you are an elitist. Most people here dislike elitists, with the exception of spirit of 22/defiant exile. To even think that a person with cerebal palsy, autism, ADD, etc., is not fully human is not being fully aware of what life means.

I have more faith in the intelligence of the average parents then I do of the average teacher.

Plus, learning from someone you know well and are close to, and recieving individual attention and help I would think puts you on a higher level then learning from someone who's first name you might not know, and recieving a lecture with no individual adjustment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:


Jefferson wrote in the Declaration that we are all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are all intelligent people here (most of us). Yet, is it possible Jefferson may have put a little more thought and energy into the matter?

.

---

Didn't Jefferson also own slaves?

Patrick Henry said, Give me liberty, or give me death, while his mentally ill wife was locked in his attic, on his orders.

If you say webster is taken seriously only because of his prowess as a philosopher then I can debate the appropriateness of his definition to a situation. moreover you still have only used diatribe and invective, you havent answered the question, a typical act for you. that question is what seperated mankind from other animals. For it is those qualities that for the sake of law endow men with rights. Once again I say the qualities are intelligence scentience and restraint, If you care to stick with your prior arguement of homosapien genetic material than shall we declare the rat which had genetic alterations to grow a human ear to be protected by the laws of man?

Webster's definition separates man from animals. The physical and mental qualities are contained in that definition.

The conscience is one of those qualities. All humans have consciences, some consciences are just different then others. According to all scientific definitions, rapists are human. They contain virtually all aspects of humanity. Being moral isn't neccesarily an espect of humanity. It separates us from animals, but so does having an opposable thumb. Some humans are born deformed without an opposable thumb. Does that make them not human?

What about someone with four fingers? Maybe a sixth finger. Some humans are different then others, but regardless - they're human.

damn i really wish i hadnt forgotten about this, it would have been a cool debate to have been a part of.

oh one thing that just gave me the shits, whoever said it, just because i believe in god doesnt mean i believe the world has only been around for 6000years. we arent all tv evangelists you know.

and guys you are debating about the definition of a human, and moreover you are debating over whether you CAN debate the definition of a human. there was a great point to this topic, and what constitutes a human was not it.

Of course no physical definition negates my veiw of humanity, how does not having a thumb negate scentience intelligence and restraint? are you dense or something? I mean Ive told you that umteen times. BTW, you still havent answered the question, what in your opinion seperates man from the animals.

Without sentience intelligence and restraint I do not veiw a creature as deserving of rights, call them Human if you want to but I do not deign to apply the term to them. So by your definition of Humanity I do not belive in universal human rights, mearly of the rights of those deserving of rights by the virtue of possesing the qualities that seperate human beings and put them above animals.

I just told you what separates humans from animals. A detailed conscience, the ability to process complex thoughts, an opposable thumb, the ability to walk on two legs, and some other oddball traits.

I'm sorry to say the US constitution doesn't base itself on some moralist reactionary's definition of human. It's based on reason, so your cruel and unusual punishment will never be instated.

First, I should not have said that monotheists believe that the earth is 6000 years old, I was trying to illustrate a point.

Even if some of us are intelligent, conscious, and show restraint, does that mean we have the right to deny other beings life? By what right are we able to justify killing monkeys, rats, and the poor in third world countries? The one basic right every human has is a right to life.

Hitler and the Nazis did not see Jews as "human beings". Was he right? You are using completely arbitrary definitions of what a human being is. Many of the most creative, integral people to ever lived may not have lived up to your elitist standard for being defined as humans.

Just because someone is not as intelligent as you or does not share the same morals, certainly does not mean they are not human. Look at it this way, there will always be someone out there that is smarter, richer, and an all around better person than you. Would you like them to say that you are not fully human?

My final question would be is it acceptable to torture, rape, maim, and slaughter the weak?

The US constitutions view is always aplicable to the philosophy of the day. You can tell because slavery was quite legal for many years. I disagree with slavery based on race, But the precedant is set, the human Being for constitutional porpouses is not the homo sapien.

syndicalist, My definition of restraint is not some kind of moralist code, rather the restraint against impuning the rights of another. I don't care how creative and intelligent and "integral" a person is If they can not abide this than they are scum and deserve nothing, save for those that stealfor there crimes are reimbursable and minor.

All right, maybe I misunderstood your original arguement. Yet, you say two opposing ideas in consecutive sentences. The first you explain that restraint means not to impede the rights of others. The very next sentence you say that people who do impede your rights are scum and do not deserve any rights. So how do you justify that it is ok for you to impede someone's rights without yourself being "scum that deserves no rights". Keep in mind I am not in the least suggesting you are scum.

My problem is that how can people be punished for their culture or their upbringing? Some people do not have the same respect for life that you do. Yet, some have more. That is all part of the grand nature of living organisms, the variation. I do agree that those who take your rights away should not be respected. If that is the case, then the IRS and the government, military, police, and justice system are all to blame. They take your rights away daily.

Unless you accept that those who impune the rights of others are unworthy to posses rights then even imprisonment for the protection of others is immoral as it violates the rights of the individual. By accepting that rights are only possesed by those that posses those characteristics that set man apart from other animals one can accept the imprisonment of the violent and the execution of the heinous.

To accept imprisonment for the protection of society at large one places the state over the individual. It is an Idea which lends itself to abuse every bit as much as those Ive stated as my own.

I am not saying that imprisonment is antithetical to human rights. Even is prison a man or woman is guaranteed food and shelter. Those were the things that I said every human is entitled to based on birth. If some people are not entitled to food and shelter than we live in a caste society worse than that of India in the 19th century.

Execution of the heinous is a vague idea. They are finding now with DNA evidence that a lot of people on death row are innocent. Plus, what is more of a punishment life in prison or death? I personally think that life in prison is more of a punishment. When you die the pain and suffering is over.