Human Rights
-
Everyone I have spoken too believes that everything they choose to do is thier human right, and they will fight vigerously to defend them. If they want to drink, it is their right. If they want to have sex, it is their right. If they want to own guns, it is their right. If they want to run around naked, it is their right... Is this a common way of thinking? :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Everyone I have spoken too believes that everything they choose to do is thier human right, and they will fight vigerously to defend them. If they want to drink, it is their right. If they want to have sex, it is their right. If they want to own guns, it is their right. If they want to run around naked, it is their right... Is this a common way of thinking? :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
You should have the right to do what you like as long as exercising your rights doesn't intefer with the rights of others. Michael :-) Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
-
You should have the right to do what you like as long as exercising your rights doesn't intefer with the rights of others. Michael :-) Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
Michael P Butler wrote: You should have the right to do what you like as long as exercising your rights doesn't intefer with the rights of others. I agree. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. THe problem is that the boudnaries aren't quite that concrete in most other situations. For instance, you can say that a programmer has the right to use Visual Basic. But what if his/her use of Visual Basic makes me physically ill and decreases my quality of life? :-D There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
-
You should have the right to do what you like as long as exercising your rights doesn't intefer with the rights of others. Michael :-) Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
The problem with that is that someone will look at you and say "well if he can do that so can I". That may be fine for things like free speech, but very dangerous for things that can affect others, such as gun ownership, which can be treated differently by different people but is still a "right". I am curious, what is your (the readers) view on being able to attack - or kill - someone who is trespassing on your property? What gives you the right to (a) do it, (b) the property, and (c) to judge?
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
The problem with that is that someone will look at you and say "well if he can do that so can I". That may be fine for things like free speech, but very dangerous for things that can affect others, such as gun ownership, which can be treated differently by different people but is still a "right". I am curious, what is your (the readers) view on being able to attack - or kill - someone who is trespassing on your property? What gives you the right to (a) do it, (b) the property, and (c) to judge?
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: What gives you the right to (a) do it, (b) the property, and (c) to judge? I think it should be OK in the case of self-defense. Like, if somebody trespasses on your property and tries to break into your house, then I say you have all right to defend yourself. If somebody merely cuts across your yard to get to the next house, then shooting them would be extreme. There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
-
Everyone I have spoken too believes that everything they choose to do is thier human right, and they will fight vigerously to defend them. If they want to drink, it is their right. If they want to have sex, it is their right. If they want to own guns, it is their right. If they want to run around naked, it is their right... Is this a common way of thinking? :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
common, yes but, like any commonly held belief, it is a bit simplistic it would be fun to own a working howitzer or piece of anti-aircraft artillery, but i don't think that i am free to own one generally, here in the US, for actions that are not life threatening, the acid test for a "right" is community standards, ie. would a general member of a community feel infringed upon if you were to exercise your "right",, running around naked is fine in some places, not in others when in rome... -John
-
David Wulff wrote: What gives you the right to (a) do it, (b) the property, and (c) to judge? I think it should be OK in the case of self-defense. Like, if somebody trespasses on your property and tries to break into your house, then I say you have all right to defend yourself. If somebody merely cuts across your yard to get to the next house, then shooting them would be extreme. There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
Navin wrote: I think it should be OK in the case of self-defense In that case you are adding a "but" clause to the generally accepted definition in the so called free-world, which Michael summed up nicely: You should have the right to do what you like as long as exercising your rights doesn't intefere with the rights of others. When you have a get-out clause like that you can claim anything is your right.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
common, yes but, like any commonly held belief, it is a bit simplistic it would be fun to own a working howitzer or piece of anti-aircraft artillery, but i don't think that i am free to own one generally, here in the US, for actions that are not life threatening, the acid test for a "right" is community standards, ie. would a general member of a community feel infringed upon if you were to exercise your "right",, running around naked is fine in some places, not in others when in rome... -John
John Morales wrote: for actions that are not life threatening, the acid test for a "right" is community standards That seems logical as you will be living daily with each other, but surely human rights must by its very definition be identical for every human being, regardless of the community they live in? John Morales wrote: when in rome... ...don't dress up as the pope with a turban...
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
David Wulff wrote: What gives you the right to (a) do it, (b) the property, and (c) to judge? I think it should be OK in the case of self-defense. Like, if somebody trespasses on your property and tries to break into your house, then I say you have all right to defend yourself. If somebody merely cuts across your yard to get to the next house, then shooting them would be extreme. There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
Navin wrote: if somebody trespasses on your property and tries to break into your house, then I say you have all right to defend yourself here in Florida, you cannot kill somebody unless they are inside your house... the cops joke that if you shoot someone and they fall outside the front door, you should drag them back inside now, in texas, you can shoot someone who is messing with your truck (i was searching for the story, but i can't find it,, maybe john simmons will come to our rescue) -John
-
You should have the right to do what you like as long as exercising your rights doesn't intefer with the rights of others. Michael :-) Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
Michael P Butler wrote: You should have the right to do what you like as long as exercising your rights doesn't intefer with the rights of others. I agree to some point. However there are exceptions. This summer one teacher didn't like his/hers (don't remember which one) neighbours sun bathing topless in their own yard. The teacher took some photographs for proof but got sued him-/herself for interfering the neighbours domestic peace. -Janetta
-
Navin wrote: I think it should be OK in the case of self-defense In that case you are adding a "but" clause to the generally accepted definition in the so called free-world, which Michael summed up nicely: You should have the right to do what you like as long as exercising your rights doesn't intefere with the rights of others. When you have a get-out clause like that you can claim anything is your right.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: When you have a get-out clause like that you can claim anything is your right. But that's my point - if somebody's trespassing on my property interferes with my right to live, then it certainly is not his right to tresspass. There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
-
John Morales wrote: for actions that are not life threatening, the acid test for a "right" is community standards That seems logical as you will be living daily with each other, but surely human rights must by its very definition be identical for every human being, regardless of the community they live in? John Morales wrote: when in rome... ...don't dress up as the pope with a turban...
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
common, yes but, like any commonly held belief, it is a bit simplistic it would be fun to own a working howitzer or piece of anti-aircraft artillery, but i don't think that i am free to own one generally, here in the US, for actions that are not life threatening, the acid test for a "right" is community standards, ie. would a general member of a community feel infringed upon if you were to exercise your "right",, running around naked is fine in some places, not in others when in rome... -John
John Morales wrote: it would be fun to own a working howitzer or piece of anti-aircraft artillery I like the idea. Having ICBM would be even better :) Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
-
Navin wrote: if somebody trespasses on your property and tries to break into your house, then I say you have all right to defend yourself here in Florida, you cannot kill somebody unless they are inside your house... the cops joke that if you shoot someone and they fall outside the front door, you should drag them back inside now, in texas, you can shoot someone who is messing with your truck (i was searching for the story, but i can't find it,, maybe john simmons will come to our rescue) -John
In Texas, you can shoot someone that's merely on your property. If you shoot them dead, and you say they were there to rob you, how is the dead guy gonna refute that? The only thing you have to do is if someone breaks into your home, if you shoot them, make sure they're dead because if they live, they might sue you. It would also help to be a member of the NRA because they could help you find a lawyer in your area that have experience defending gun owners who kill intruders only to be sued by the intruder's relatives for "wrongful death". What a crock of shit that would turn out to be. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
-
Everyone I have spoken too believes that everything they choose to do is thier human right, and they will fight vigerously to defend them. If they want to drink, it is their right. If they want to have sex, it is their right. If they want to own guns, it is their right. If they want to run around naked, it is their right... Is this a common way of thinking? :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
<rant>Yes, it is a common way of thinking, howvewr, some people have a funny idea of what is a "human right". For example, I absolutely abhor fox-hunting - in fact, I think killing any animal in the name of "sport" or "pleasure" is wrong. In the UK, the "Countryside Alliance" considers it a human right for their members to go out and kill foxes for the hell of it. This is NOT a human right and it really f***ing annoys me when people try to justify their practises by making us think it is some God given birthright. There are some basic human rights that everyone should have but the freedom to kill animals "because it's traditional" isn't one of them. The same can be said for many things - gun ownership included (no flames please!) - the freedom to own weapons is not a human right. Gun ownership may be a constitutional right in the USA, but that doesn't make it a human right, etc.</rant>
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Everyone I have spoken too believes that everything they choose to do is thier human right, and they will fight vigerously to defend them. If they want to drink, it is their right. If they want to have sex, it is their right. If they want to own guns, it is their right. If they want to run around naked, it is their right... Is this a common way of thinking? :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
This is my view: Everyone has the right to do what they want to do as long as it is legally permitted. However one should also consider these factors: - Is what I am doing socially accepted? - Is what I am doing hurting others? - Is what I am doing hurting the feelings of those whom I care about? - Is what I am doing harmful to myself in any way? If what you beleive is right goes against the above guidelines it might still be possible to exercise your rights by moving to a different country/society, or by doing something which will compensate the damage of your actions. For example, a person who thinks that it is a basic right to parade naked might decide to join a nudist club. A person who is hurting his/her parter by sleeping with others can break the relationship. It is always important to stick to the law and consider other people in your actions - even if you beleive that it is your right. James Drinking In The Sun Forgot Password?
-
John Morales wrote: for actions that are not life threatening, the acid test for a "right" is community standards That seems logical as you will be living daily with each other, but surely human rights must by its very definition be identical for every human being, regardless of the community they live in? John Morales wrote: when in rome... ...don't dress up as the pope with a turban...
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
I think that you are mixing up 'human rights' and 'freedom of choice'. Drinking In The Sun Forgot Password?
-
<rant>Yes, it is a common way of thinking, howvewr, some people have a funny idea of what is a "human right". For example, I absolutely abhor fox-hunting - in fact, I think killing any animal in the name of "sport" or "pleasure" is wrong. In the UK, the "Countryside Alliance" considers it a human right for their members to go out and kill foxes for the hell of it. This is NOT a human right and it really f***ing annoys me when people try to justify their practises by making us think it is some God given birthright. There are some basic human rights that everyone should have but the freedom to kill animals "because it's traditional" isn't one of them. The same can be said for many things - gun ownership included (no flames please!) - the freedom to own weapons is not a human right. Gun ownership may be a constitutional right in the USA, but that doesn't make it a human right, etc.</rant>
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I absolutely abhor fox-hunting Tell them dude!!! Er... oopz :-O I'm actually not against fox-hunting. BUT I do agree with the rest. What most people consider a human right is nothing of the sort. Being the controversial person that I am, I would argue that human rights is a recent(ish) invention arising out of the Enlightenement values of universality, i.e. people are all the same everywhere and at all times or to put it another way: there is absolutely no difference between me and a chinese living during the Ming dynasty a few centuries ago. What's more lawyers (Cherie Blair for one) is using these Rights as a cover to introduce international law which override's a nation's sovereignty. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I absolutely abhor fox-hunting Tell them dude!!! Er... oopz :-O I'm actually not against fox-hunting. BUT I do agree with the rest. What most people consider a human right is nothing of the sort. Being the controversial person that I am, I would argue that human rights is a recent(ish) invention arising out of the Enlightenement values of universality, i.e. people are all the same everywhere and at all times or to put it another way: there is absolutely no difference between me and a chinese living during the Ming dynasty a few centuries ago. What's more lawyers (Cherie Blair for one) is using these Rights as a cover to introduce international law which override's a nation's sovereignty. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Everyone I have spoken too believes that everything they choose to do is thier human right, and they will fight vigerously to defend them. If they want to drink, it is their right. If they want to have sex, it is their right. If they want to own guns, it is their right. If they want to run around naked, it is their right... Is this a common way of thinking? :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
Way too common. We still can't get people to even understand our (USA) first amendment right to free speech. Too many morons think they have the right to say anything, everywhere. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
