Jump to content
Aveyond Studios Community
Sign in to follow this  
Stardale

~Debate Topic on Human Rights and HR Violations~

Recommended Posts

Yes I know :D

 

 

 

The meaning with human rights is build on what we think is right, and those standards the United Nations have agreed about, what you have to think is this, do I think its right that people (Or me self) get beaten and tortured for something I don’t have done just to get a confession that looks good in the reports to the anchorites? Do I think that it is right that women (or me self) get raped and true in prison because they don’t have the right clods? Do I think its right that children (or my own, or me) have to work like slaves in factory’s for 16-18 hours a day with out any changes to play or ever see the light (and also die before they get adults and can have a life)? Do I think its right that women holds (or me) like slave prostitute and are forced to have sex with strangers because they father and mother have guilt’s and need to pay that of with giving their daughter to a brothel? Do I think its right that I cant speak out from my heart what I believe is right with out someone kicks my door in, under the night and put a bag over my head and then I disappear and never be found again? Well and much more… This human rights are build on: what people think is right, but of coarse all people don’t live in country’s that think that are a right way to look at things, and say we have the right to treat people like we want because we rules… and they are our slaves, or it stands in the book (of love) that woman shall be treated that way, or thief’s shall have the hand cut of and so on… but that is values that we also had in my country for 2000 years ago, the Vikings had slaves, and they tort they could do what ever they wanted with them, but we changed under the years…

 

 

Quote Heimdall: KTC, It doesnt involve gay marriage you made me laugh rolling on the floor! It must be the husband-wife relationship. End quote

Just because it is not accepted in all countries, doesn’t mean it is not a human right to be married even if you are a gay :)

 

 

Pan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Countries have different histories and traditions. Human rights are supported for a variety of reasons - cultural, religious, humanistic, philosophic, etc. The point of Universal declarations being translated through the local culture is that we are not seeking to impose a "western" or outside view of things, but build up rights within the context of the way a particular people value each other. We all "fight" (to use KTC's word) to expand those rights around the world because even though I might be lucky enough to have been born in a particular country which gives me particular rights, not everyone does and even my own rights might have been inadequate if I had been born a different sort of person even within this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if ones lives in a country that call other countries citizen’s bandits and say that their government should be removed or executed, and their people ”corrected” then I might say it is a big change that that government don’t follows the human rights, then if the government in that country says this is the right way to treat people because they are bandits or because this is our traditions, don’t means that it is right, and if people live in fear in that country the government don’t follows human rights.

 

A popular thing they also might say is that we are right because that country was ours before, and now they and the people living there is traitors and they don’t want to do what we tell them to do… leaders in that country that talk about peace and understanding against their follow man are mark from the government alls bandits leader and froes…

 

The meaning about the human rights is that all people on earth shall have a good life, and in peace understanding and in knowledge can raise their children, a gun against the head don’t make that a lie…

 

This will be my last post in this topic, because I don’t want to hurt someone feeling, but just look inside the answers lays in your heart...

 

Pan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

This will be my last post in this topic, because I don’t want to hurt someone feeling, but just look inside the answers lays in your heart..."

 

^ aww, stay. I doubt you'll hurt anyone since you're merely expressing your opinion in a polite manner. The last part I have to respond:

 

Never argue someone should look inside their heart because that's so subjective and not the same as everyone else. It's a poor argument since there are no answers in that organ.

 

@ljspence: if you're declaring that one should have human rights and actively try to change another country, you are imposing a western ideal onto a culture. An outsider campaigning "fix" another area means you're imposing your beliefs on that area.

 

Saying you're fighting for human rights is merely a nice way to describe the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see how this is a "western" idea. Many people, many countries for many reasons value human rights. Problems exist in many countries (including western ones) and need to be corrected. I would love to see many things in my own country changed just as much I as would like to see changes in other places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I know I promised but I have to, KTC what I mean with look inside your heart is look inside you self, how do you want to be treated, if ones think is human rights too get your door in kick in the night and your family and your self dragged away to be torture and questioned, and think that is how it should be, (then ones got a serious problem :lol: ) , even in such dictators states on earth in pass time or now, there is a struggle by the people to have freedom, to have education and peace, that’s why such nations usually fall apart (even if it takes a while sometimes) and after that other values are growing in those countries… and ones can keep a human prisoner (or a whole nation) but that don’t means she will not try to escape… so I f we look inside (not in the heart but inside our selves) we know how we want to be treated, well you are right about all people on earth aren’t right in the head :D but the most of us just want to have a good life, that’s why we try to do our best…

 

And thanks for the: “aww stay” :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pan: there's a huge flaw with that argument: How someone else wants to be treated doesn't mean it is right. For example, some people honestly like pain. Does that mean everyone likes pain? no.

 

Or some people honestly believe that _____ is superior then them so _____ is allowed to treat them as _____ wish however. Does that mean it applies to everyone? Again, no.

 

That is the flaw with your argument in that 'being treated' is highly subjective to the individual.

 

@ljspence: It is western in it's origin and the europeans at one time controlled most of the world. As such, their ideals (human rights) have also transfered to the conquered. And many activists in the past only developed such human rights ideas when they went to western countries or went to a 'western' school than went back to their home country and tried to apply them with mixed results. Of course, from there it just spread.

 

Hence why now we apparently have this mistaken connotation that human rights have been around forever. It hasn't. It's a recent development, much like how 'marriage for love' is a recent development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KTC: I stand corrected, all people are not like the mass...

 

 

Well you are part right about the way the tort of humanity has spread, many great men (or women) from Asia have study in Europe and learned our ways, like Ghandi (but he also believed in human rights from the beginning, also when he saw how his fellow man was treated from the westerns he decided to be what he was (I guess he saw inside him self) , a great thinker and a great humanist, and hey he concurred the British Imperium just with friendly words) and others, and I guess the concurred (don’t if that’s the right word “Those that occupied their land”) left some thing behind, even if they treated the people bad and superiors many time, they was not like that all of them, but Asians have also torts of human rights in the way of Buddha (well it’s a religion but Buddha self said he was not a god, he just found out a good way to live and how to be to your fellow man) and Confucius the Dali lama and such, so a lot of human rights also comes from the east, or torts about it :)

 

And also the flower power period in the western countries all was build on the Asian way to see things, well they also smoked a lot strange "levy substance" :) but they also make a big change in their way to be to authorities, and I guess that started or influenced the youth revolutions in the 60 and 70 ties (well they and “Malcolm” :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confucius was not for human rights. He was a chinese philosopher who gave advice how society and family should act honorably. Buddha was not a human rights person. He wanted to end the endless cycle of reincarnation so a soul can finally become one with the supreme being. A dali lama is a spiritual leader. Doesn't mean the leader himself would be a human rights person.

 

You're confusing ancient philosophers with modern human rights activists.

 

Human rights as we know now it is a western idea first started by John Locke. It doesn't come from the east. The east adopted this western idea because it sounds appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they were that but you can also look in their philosophy se the way to be to others, that’s a lot of humanity in what they said... Yes I know the Dali lama is a religious elder over a religion that learns out a humanity way to be to others :) and yes John Locke had those torts too but KTC nothing is new under the sun :)

 

Pan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pan: I'm talking about modern human rights. Confucius and Buddha were not even aware of what we would consider modern human rights. To claim they were human rights people is erroneous because you're putting a modern spin on their teachings and taking it out of context.

 

as for saying that 'nothing is new under the sun': you're point?

 

Locke is still considered the first component to express contemporary human rights. After him, people took his ideas and shaped it how they see fit or built other ideas off them.

 

Therefore, it is mainly a western concept still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point my girl is that people have fight for and talked about human rights sense the dawn of time, every were people have been treated bad and felt bad about that they have talked about how to make things better and how it should be… Vice men and woman have written bocks about how bad (some) people have it and they also probably have told those stories by the fires… and people in all times have try to help they that are wounded or hungry (sorry I cant speak or writhe English so good to use the right words) but I mean that people from all over the world have felt bad for others and tried to do things better in all times… so I guess humanity and torts on human rights have always existed, not by all but there have been people on earth that have tort on was what right and was what wrong before John Locke, even if he is the “Modern” human rights fader…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women really didn't have rights though. If anyone wanted to fight for 'human rights' back then it would have been males. And it would have something for them. KTC is right Confucius did not fight for rights, he just said this is what a family is and how they should act. I'm pretty sure the practice of foot binding was still going on when he was around. Buddhist didn't fight for rights either. No one really actively fought for 'human rights' in the sense we know it as until John Locke and modern times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone wanted to fight for 'human rights' back then it would have been males. And it would have something for them.

 

Lots of men have worked for women's rights. Many Caucasians have worked for minority rights. Plenty of free people have worked to end slavery, etc. You don't have to be in a particular oppressed group to work for those rights and you don't always work to gain rights just for yourself.

 

Confucius did not fight for rights, he just said this is what a family is and how they should act. I'm pretty sure the practice of foot binding was still going on when he was around.

 

Confucius would not have used the term "human rights", but that does not mean that the modern human rights fight is incompatable with the ideas of Confucius or other philosophers, thinkers and persons. Just because there were injustices going on in Confucius' time, doesn't mean that his ideas are somehow apart from the idea of valuing the life of others. We still have many injustices today, but that does not mean that this invalidates the idea of human rights, it mearly means that we have failed to fully embrace those ideas and so we must continue to "fight" to make changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but back in the times of Buddhist and Confucius, women didn't have rights and many didn't fight for their rights. And people didn't call for an end for slavery until the 1800s.

 

Confucius never advocated anything close to human rights. He advocated government morality and correctness of social relationship. He didn't care if some people who were oppressed got any rights. What he cared about was people acting to what was socially correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Confucius did not fight for human rights, he learned out a way to be to others, No Buddhism don’t fight for human rights that’s the way of Buddha a man that learned out a way to be to others, no Dali Lama does not fight for human rights he is the leader for a religion that learn out a way to be to others, like the most religions learns out a way to be to others…

 

 

QUOTE Wikipedia: John Locke (29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704) was an English philosopher. Locke is considered the first of the British Empiricists, but is equally important to social contract theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers, classical republicans, and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence. End Quote.

 

He did not fight for human rights he learned out a way to be to others…

 

Pan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No John Locke didn't fight for human rights. But his ideas are what encouraged the modern idea of human rights to occur. It was him influencing so many people that started modern human rights. He didn't actively fight for human rights, but his ideas lead to the rise of human rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even what John Locke said was a reflection of thousands of years of previous attempts at defining the rights of others. This is a process which has developed over thousands of years. The current ideas in the Universal Declaration takes inspiration from Ancient Hindu law (Manu Smriti), Confucianism, the Qu'ran and the Ten Commandments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s my point my girl... he learned out a way to be to others, and people red what he had written and tort this is good and a tort was borne :)

 

but also people that have reed things other thinkers have written had a impact on how they acted, and many changes in different countries... also we in Sweden reed Locke and his followers, but that was not all that had to be done, people actually have been fighting for this rights, because they that earns money on not having this ideas, they did not hand them over with out a fight :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He may have gotten ideas from some people, but human rights did not start until him. Until him, there wasn't advocates for human rights like we know now. Rights in the past and the present are different things. And Locke was the guy who started the present rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they did, and like Mopiece says there was no advocates in that time and people had to fight for their rights by weapon, that’s why the American fight the English and true them out from America, and later they fight them self’s in a terrible war against north and south! That was the ground for United States but also a fight for human rights, justice and freedom, ( maybe not all will agree but Abe Lincoln had some very good ideas about human rights and to stop the slavery!) that’s was what the French revolution was about, and many other revolutions in the world have been about, fights for human rights and freedom, people in slavery rice’s against thus that keep them prisoners. But others has written how it should be in theories, and theories starts movements, and after that changes, maybe not all the wanted but some to the better, maybe it's is better to go to an advocate and let him fight for human rights, instead of start a revolution :) I don’t know :)

 

And this I write with a big changes to be the laugh of the month

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pan:

 

Abe lincoln wasn't for ending slavery. You're getting a brushed up version of American history. He frankly didn't care if the south allowed slaves or not. What he cared was the union of the states. If you noticed in the emancipation proclamation, he said slaves in the south are to be set free. He said nothing about the slaves in the north side. I repeat, he didn't care about slavery. The union was his primary concern.

 

The french revolution was people finally getting pissed off enough to throw off their government. They weren't necessarily for human rights: they were just pissed off. If you noticed, they had a hundred day massacre AND got an emperor back right after.

 

American revolution for human rights? That's a joke. American revolution was about colonies not wanting to pay taxes without representation. If they really were for human rights, they would have set free their slaves, gave women rights, treated the native americans nicely.

 

Also, I'm arguing that locke was the main component of modern human rights concept.

 

I already said many times over that if you want rights, you have to fight for them. No rights are guaranteed, inherent or fundamental. All are permissions we aim to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is whether or not the government, society, etc. can be justified in withholding those things from you. We fight for our rights when we have oppressive systems and governments, but that simply means that these systems are broken, not that they are correct. The point of human rights is to protect people from severe political, legal and social abuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any government, society, etc can justify withholding rights from a certain group. I mean the US justified slavery by saying African Americans were inferior to Whites. Then when the African Americans were set free, they were treated as second class citizens because again they were said to be inferior. It's just does the justification have any backing to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×