Human Rights

David Wulff

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

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.

Zyxil

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

Janine

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

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.

Zyxil

David Wulff wrote: but surely human rights must by its very definition be identical for every human being so says amnesty international[^] but not the Chinese[^], or this man[^] -John

Tomasz Sowinski

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.

realJSOP

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

Lost User

<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.

James Pullicino

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?

James Pullicino

I think that you are mixing up 'human rights' and 'freedom of choice'. Drinking In The Sun Forgot Password?

Brian Azzopardi

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]

Lost User

Brian Azzopardi wrote: What most people consider a human right is nothing of the sort. Yep, this is my point. Using the term "human rights" as an excuse for abhorrent behaviour sucks balls.

Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.

Tim Smith

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

Londo

There are rights, and there are basic human rights. There is the right to drive a car, and there is the right to live a life with dignity. There is the right to own a gun, and the right to reproduce. They are different things. One is a right granted by society, the other is a right granted by merely being alive. It's very much a case of apples and oranges. Basic human rights are sacred for every human being. Many throughout the world are denied them.

David Wulff

Ah, but you didn't answer (b) or (c) did you.

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

I'm not schizophrenic, are we.

Roger Wright

I believe that I have the absolute right to execute anyone who intends me or a loved one harm, and who possesses (or can reasonably be assumed to have) the means to do so. The first use of violence against another human being is always wrong, and it is always correct to repel it with whatever force is necesssary. How much is "necessary" is a moral decision, and cannot be second guessed by any third party not faced with making the life and death decision. Killing in defense of property is a more difficult question, but some rules of thumb are available. Is it likely that the perp will harm someone in the process? Is it likely that a success once will lead to more such trangressions in the future, possibly in more bold style and with greater likelihood for harm to another human being? Again, judgement is called for, and very often deadly force is appropriate. It may even be a duty. In my philosophy, time is my only resource - I was born with a certain unknowable allottment of hours, and nothing I can do will increase that number. Throughout my life I traded some of my time in exchange for skills, and using those skills, I traded even more time earning a wage with which to buy the things I need and want to own. I have, in essence, banked my limited time for future enjoyment, and invested it in the goods I possess. Anyone who steals from me, steals an irreplaceable part of my life, and any person with so little regard for others must be assumed to be equally capable of stealing all of it. That is a capital crime, and extends the meaning of theft to the point that it becomes my right to be the sole judge, jury, and executioner. The flip side of that philosophy, of course, is that it is also my responsibility to make wise judgements - not always a simple matter. In my life I have never attacked another human being - not even a schoolyard fight - as I have always believed that violence is irrational. Beating someone up does nothing to improve my value, and gaining agreement with my ideas by threatening force doesn't make my ideas any more valid. I don't understand the mentality (or lack of any) that holds this viewpoint, though I know many who do. I was raised in a time when it was taken for granted that rights always have responsibilities attached; this seems to have disappeared from our society, and no amount of legislation is going to bring back the sense and order that was lost when it died. Ultimately, the choice of whether to kill or not in case of an attack or breakin is mine, and mine

David Wulff

How? "surely human rights must by its very definition be identical for every human being". :confused:

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

I'm not schizophrenic, are we.

David Wulff

Janetta wrote: took some photographs for proof I bet that's what they all say... :rolleyes:

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

I'm not schizophrenic, are we.

David Wulff

I agree, but how do we make these people (David points in a 359.99 degree circle) understand this?

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

I'm not schizophrenic, are we.