Universal Declaration of Human Rights (moral, choice, worship, marriage)

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Ardent Listener

All fine and dandy, but let's not start cutting down trees so we can produce paper to print it on. It's really not worthy of re-cycled paper either.

Could you enunciate the worthlessness?

[evearael]

How many countries in the UN can you name that actually follows this declaration in its entirety?

[Ardent Listener]

Originally Posted by Pah

Could you enunciate the worthlessness?

It's not internationally enforceable. If a country want to participate in it's ideals or something similar, they can unalaterally do so without it. To me, it's just the U.N. acting like it's a world goverment again.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by evearael

How many countries in the UN can you name that actually follows this declaration in its entirety?

Likely it is zero for an entire incorporation into national law.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Ardent Listener

It's not internationally enforceable. If a country want to participate in it's ideals or something simular, they can unalaterally do so without it. To me, it's just the U.N. acting like it's a world goverment again.

The UN itself acts on some of those principles and sometimes with armed force, sometimes with sanctions, sometimes at the diplomacy level.

It IS a world government.

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by Pah

Now you seem to confuse rights, freedoms, liberties and anarchy.

I had possession of rights the very moment I was born. Sorry you missed out on that for yourself.

I think that is naive. I don't think you are born with any rights. You are born with freedom. The moment you are handed to your parents, your freedom disappears. You are born into a society of laws, rights, and liberties. You can pretend that you are born with rights (not already provided to you by a government, or some other force), but you certainly have no evidence to support your claim.

Originally Posted by Pah

The UN doesn't earn or possess human rights. "The UN has done nothing to earn universal rights" makes no sense. The UN's rights and obligations are those granted by the member states.

There is a police power within the UN and that has been exercised, at times, against egregious violations of rights

The UN has done some police activity here and there, raping women here and there... protecting rights and such. lol sure. But rights are earned and protected by law and by force. That is the only way to have them.

If someone throws you in jail and throws away the key, you can sit there and scream, "I HAVE RIGHTS!!!" and no one will hear you and no one will care. You are just fooling yourself at that point. The universe doesn't owe you more than what you earn, or what others earn on your behalf. That's just the way of things. Some people don't like reality for that very reason.

So they say that rights are given to us by God and sit around and hope that God actually lets them have rights. After a while, people get up and fight for their rights when they realize God ain't gonna help.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

I think that is naive. I don't think you are born with any rights. You are born with freedom. The moment you are handed to your parents, your freedom disappears. You are born into a society of laws, rights, and liberties. You can pretend that you are born with rights (not already provided to you by a government, or some other force), but you certainly have no evidence to support your claim.....

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Geez, you're ceretainly in the minority - a very small minority, in my mind.

How many signatories are on the document? How many governments world-wide directed that it be signed? It must be a lonely position to say they are wrong.

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by Pah

Geez, you're ceretainly in the minority - a very small minority, in my mind.

How many signatories are on the document? How many governments world-wide directed that it be signed? It must be a lonely position to say they are wrong.

So being in the minority makes someone wrong? I guess homosexuals and pagans should be laughed at too huh?

I think most people are naive when it comes to "rights" and freedom. They begin with what they wish was true and work backwards, instead of looking at what actually is and going from there.

For example, can you give me a single empirical argument for the existence of these so-called rights, a priori? It isn't possible. It's just wishful thinking. Don't worry, you understand as well as I do what it takes to secure rights. So whether or not you have faith that they existed before you secured them is irrelevant to me. We both know that rights must be earned and protected and fought for; and both of us want pretty much the same kinds of rights (with a few differences). It's a stupid declaration... but it also doesn't really matter does it? It's just a bunch of words. If you can’t enforce those words, then who cares? We can call them rights…liberties…poofpuffs… whatever. You either have them or you don’t. You are free, or not.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

So being in the minority makes someone wrong? I guess homosexuals and pagans should be laughed at too huh?

Oh no! I said it was lonely. Point of fact, you are wrong for definitional reasons.

right - an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature; "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people"- Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"

human rights, universal rights held to belong to individuals by virtue of their being human

However, freedoms are granted and withdrawn by governments.

I think most people are naive when it comes to "rights" and freedom. They begin with what they wish was true and work backwards, instead of looking at what actually is and going from there.

"Speak for yourself, John", as was said by a charming Plymouth ancestor. But please, no more double-speak.

For example, can you give me a single empirical argument for the existence of these so-called rights, a priori? It isn't possible. It's just wishful thinking. Don't worry, you understand as well as I do what it takes to secure rights.

Of course I have an empirical argument. But then that would not be an a priori argument. So, tell me which would you like?

I think it a foolish idea that it is not a right until it is secured, which is the implication I read.

So whether or not you have faith that they existed before you secured them is irrelevant to me. We both know that rights must be earned and protected and fought for; and both of us want pretty much the same kinds of rights (with a few differences).

Rights are possessed at birth and that, my friend, my dear friend, is apparent from the the definitions above. I would prefer to say you are confused regarding the difference between rights and freedoms rather than obstinate in error. Prost! Here's to clearing the fog.

It's a stupid declaration...

Okay, I may be able to accept that but not as a generalization. Specifics please.

but it also doesn't really matter does it? It's just a bunch of words. If you can’t enforce those words, then who cares? We can call them rights…liberties…poofpuffs… whatever. You either have them or you don’t. You are free, or not.

Ah but those, although not all, are enforced and enforced by the UN. Sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and even armed might.

There hasn't been much strength in your points - it's kind like the ummph when punched in the stomach.

[evearael]

Sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and even armed might.

How long did the UN sit by with the situations in Sudan, Bosnia, Ruwanda, etcetera ad nauseum...?

It is doubtful they would have the military, economic and political clout to actually enforce the declaration, as that clout comes directly from those who don't follow it! Sure, every country may pay it lipservice, but only in as far as it enforces it in any other country but their own.