Should Human Rights be a privilege? - General

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775592]And since when did I specify what the responsibilities were? Disabled people can fulfil their responsibility to abide by our laws, can't they? [editline]14th October 2011[/editline] You should really think about what you're saying it before you say it.[/QUOTE] Then define what you mean. But so what? You didn't reply to the first and important part of the post, and instead thought a glib remark would be more effective as an arguing tool you should really think about what you say before you say it. Also, the "responsibilities" of not breaking the laws actually is a little more complex than you think. Killing someone isn't the only thing you can do to break the law, so what takes away your rights? Smoking weed or doing drugs? Aggravated assault? Aggravated defense? Aggravated murder? What about consensual but statutory rape? It's going to be arbitrary is the point, and you're going to say that peoples legal protection from unlawful retribution should just be revoked arbitrarily? fuck off.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32775619]Then define what you mean. But so what? You didn't reply to the first and important part of the post, and instead thought a glib remark would be more effective as an arguing tool you should really think about what you say before you say it.[/QUOTE] I did. The responsibilities are primarily to abide by our laws. If they can't do that, then I personally think they shouldn't be welcome in said country and not protected by human rights in that country (Obviously dependant on the severity of the crime) You didn't reply to any point in my post so I don't see why you're even in the discussion.

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775592]And since when did I specify what the responsibilities were? Disabled people can fulfil their responsibility to abide by our laws, can't they? [/QUOTE] Not all of them can, no.

[QUOTE=devotchkade;32775628]Not all of them can, no.[/QUOTE] Proof of that statement?

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775634]Proof of that statement?[/QUOTE] Some disabled people drive cars when they shouldn't and thus break a law. Possibly even kill someone. Really?

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775634]Proof of that statement?[/QUOTE] Plenty of mentally ill people are arrested for 'disturbing the peace', for example.

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775625]I did. The responsibilities are primarily to abide by our laws. If they can't do that, then I personally think they shouldn't be welcome in said country and not protected by human rights in that country (Obviously dependant on the severity of the crime) You didn't reply to any point in my post so I don't see why you're even in the discussion.[/QUOTE] Uh, yes I did. You implied that everyone had signed off for "responsibilities" in your post. I countered that. Do you not read or some shit? read my edited post.

Obviously when I mean it's not their fault, because they're mentally ill. [editline]14th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775625] You didn't reply to any point in my post so I don't see why you're even in the discussion.[/QUOTE] How about you not dictate who gets to discuss this.

[QUOTE=devotchkade;32775652]Obviously when I mean it's not their fault, because they're mentally ill. [editline]14th October 2011[/editline] How about you not dictate who gets to discuss this.[/QUOTE] He wants to control who lives and dies, you think for a second he'd care that he's trying to shut someone out of a conversation?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32775666]He wants to control who lives and dies, you think for a second he'd care that he's trying to shut someone out of a conversation?[/QUOTE] Silly me.

Hey look a fallacy with some ad hominem thrown in. [QUOTE=devotchkade;32775649]Plenty of mentally ill people are arrested for 'disturbing the peace', for example.[/QUOTE] I won't say that's their fault - so obviously they would keep their rights in that case. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32775650]Uh, yes I did. You implied that everyone had signed off for "responsibilities" in your post. I countered that. Do you not read or some shit? read my edited post.[/QUOTE] I replied before you edited it. You hadn't made any reasonable points at that time.

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775678]Hey look a fallacy with some ad hominem thrown in. I won't say that's their fault - so obviously they would keep their rights in that case. I replied before you edited it. You hadn't made any reasonable points at that time.[/QUOTE] well you seem to throw it around easily enough, but i know it's okay when you do it. Then re-read it and reply to the edited part, which is what I was stressing with that post.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32775703]well you seem to throw it around easily enough, but i know it's okay when you do it. Then re-read it and reply to the edited part, which is what I was stressing with that post.[/QUOTE] I'm already on page 8. If you wanted a response you should have posted it in your original post. You wouldn't just go "Wait wait, let's go back to the start of the debate so as I can make another point" in an actual debate.

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775678]Hey look a fallacy with some ad hominem thrown in.[/quote] You're not one to talk about ad hominem attacks. [QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775678]I won't say that's their fault - so obviously they would keep their rights in that case.[/quote] No, it isn't obvious. Where do you draw the line? Some people murder because they're clinically insane, but the insanity defence is often seen as a way for people to escape consequences. When people are determining who is guilty and who is innocent, shit goes wrong, because we're biased and we can't always (or even often) know the truth.

[QUOTE=devotchkade;32775715]You're not one to talk about ad hominem attacks. [/quote] Touché [quote]No, it isn't obvious. Where do you draw the line? Some people murder because they're clinically insane, but the insanity defence is often seen as a way for people to escape consequences. When people are determining who is guilty and who is innocent, shit goes wrong, because we're biased and we can't always (or even often) know the truth.[/QUOTE] Simple. If someone is proved guilty of murder, and they claim insanity, put them in a mental hospital. If they don't, restrict their rights and imprison them.

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775726]Touché Simple. If someone is proved guilty of murder, and they claim insanity, put them in a mental hospital. If they don't, restrict their rights and imprison them.[/QUOTE] Some would argue that putting them in a mental hospital is restricting their rights (I'm with you, though). What about people who can only afford a court-appointed lawyer and are pressured into pleading guilty when they were, say, mentally ill at the time? Or what about all the other scenarios I gave on the other page: [QUOTE=devotchkade;32775615] What about a domestic abuse victim who has been beaten for several years, and finally snaps? What about a juvenile who kills a parent who has been abusing the other parent? What about someone who kills their rapist? What about a person who helps their grandparent commit suicide, because euthanasia is not legal? What about a medical practitioner who actively withholds treatment for someone with a terminal illness with their consent? What about a sleep-deprived parent who leaves their baby in the back seat of their car on a hot day, and forgets? What about a juvenile who deals illegal drugs as a source of income for their family giving someone a dodgy pill that kills them? What about a person who accidentally kills someone, perhaps out of negligence, but is not guilty of pre-meditated murder? What about someone who plans the murder of a murderer who, for some reason, has not been convicted by the courts? What about a soldier? [/QUOTE]

Whether or not you think murderers are subhuman and undeserving of basic human rights, how can you justify letting governments and other political authorities decide who is treated as a human and who isn't? It shouldn't be hard to see the corruption you're opening the door to here.

[QUOTE=devotchkade;32775755]Some would argue that putting them in a mental hospital is restricting their rights (I'm with you, though). What about people who can only afford a court-appointed lawyer and are pressured into pleading guilty when they were, say, mentally ill at the time? Or what about all the other scenarios I gave on the other page:[/QUOTE] Maybe if there's suspicion of insanity/mental causes, a full mental examination should be performed? [quote]What about a domestic abuse victim who has been beaten for several years, and finally snaps? [/quote] I think in that case, imprisonment would be enough rights taken away. Plus of course, counselling for the abuse. [quote]What about a juvenile who kills a parent who has been abusing the other parent? [/quote] Again, time in juvie and counselling. [quote]What about someone who kills their rapist? [/quote] Same situation. [quote]What about a person who helps their grandparent commit suicide, because euthanasia is not legal? [/quote] I'd support no punishment because I think Euthanasia should be legal. [quote]What about a medical practitioner who actively withholds treatment for someone with a terminal illness with their consent?[/quote] If you mean not treating someone who wants to be treated - that is against their hippocratic oath and so their license to practise should be removed. If you mean they request not to be treated, then it's their choice. They have the right to make that choice. [quote]What about a sleep-deprived parent who leaves their baby in the back seat of their car on a hot day, and forgets? [/quote] I'd say that's an accident, not a severe crime. Charged with manslaughter, imprisoned and counselled. [quote]What about a juvenile who deals illegal drugs as a source of income for their family giving someone a dodgy pill that kills them? [/quote] Dealing's still illegal regardless of the reasons for doing it. Time in prison, some rights temporarily removed. (Still keep the right to life, etc etc) [quote]What about a person who accidentally kills someone, perhaps out of negligence, but is not guilty of pre-meditated murder?[/quote] If they show remorse, a small jail time and counselling. If they do not, long jail time and temporary removal of some non-basic rights. [quote]What about someone who plans the murder of a murderer who, for some reason, has not been convicted by the courts? [/quote] Vigilante justice is illegal. If the murderer was not convicted then there isn't enough evidence to tie them to the crime. Planning a murder (I believe) is treated as attempted murder - whether or not you go through with parts of the plans. Jail time, temporary removal of most non-basic rights. Keep the right to life, and a few others. [quote]What about a soldier?[/quote] If the person they killed was killed lawfully, then obviously there's nothing wrong with it. If they accidentally shoot a child or something, they should be retrained and given counselling. If they deliberately shoot a child then they should have most non-basic rights temporarily removed, and punished to the full extent of the law.

[quote]If the person they killed was killed lawfully, then obviously there's nothing wrong with it.[/quote] I couldn't help but giggle that you think murderer's are undeserving of basic human rights, [i]unless the government says it's ok[/i]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;32775818]I couldn't help but giggle that you think murderer's are undeserving of basic human rights, [i]unless the government says it's ok[/i][/QUOTE] Shooting a guy who's about to shoot/blow up your entire squad. Still murder right?

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775811]words[/QUOTE] Aha, thanks for the breakdown (seriously). Still, my point was the murder - like all crime - is a grey area, not black-and-white. It isn't as simple as someone murders = needs to be killed. You're far more liberal than the OP, and Mr. America, judging from your answers.

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775828]Shooting a guy who's about to shoot/blow up your entire squad. Still murder right?[/QUOTE] Technically not murder but still taking the life of another human being, which you seem to object to Though using the military is a weak defense considering what a horribly unjust cause they're fighting for in the first place

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775828]Shooting a guy who's about to shoot/blow up your entire squad. Still murder right?[/QUOTE] What about George W. Bush's administration, who have caused the murder of thousands of lives, arguably for little reason? We haven't implemented a democracy, we didn't get justice for 9/11, and we never found weapons of mass destruction. He likely violated international law whilst invading Iraq, too.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;32775850]Technically not murder but still taking the life of another human being, which you seem to object to Though using the military is a weak defense considering what a horribly unjust cause they're fighting for in the first place[/QUOTE] I personally think accidental killing in self defence shouldn't be treated as a severe crime. I'm not against taking human lives altogether. [QUOTE=devotchkade;32775852]What about George W. Bush's administration, who have caused the murder of thousands of lives, arguably for little reason? We haven't implemented a democracy, we didn't get justice for 9/11, and we never found weapons of mass destruction. He likely violated international law whilst invading Iraq, too.[/QUOTE] I think everyone knows the real reason for Iraq was oil. I'm not sure if a single person is responsible for the whole issue, which makes it a really, really grey area. I think he owes a formal apology to the families of all those affected though, at the very least.

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775859]I personally think accidental killing in self defence shouldn't be treated as a severe crime. I'm not against taking human lives altogether. I think everyone knows the real reason for Iraq was oil. I'm not sure if a single person is responsible for the whole issue, which makes it a really, really grey area. I think he owes a formal apology to the families of all those affected though, at the very least.[/QUOTE] Could you reply to my initial post? I'm curious to hear your side of the story: [QUOTE=Kopimi;32775775]Whether or not you think murderers are subhuman and undeserving of basic human rights, how can you justify letting governments and other political authorities decide who is treated as a human and who isn't? It shouldn't be hard to see the corruption you're opening the door to here.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775859] I think everyone knows the real reason for Iraq was oil. I'm not sure if a single person is responsible for the whole issue, which makes it a really, really grey area. I think he owes a formal apology to the families of all those affected though, at the very least.[/QUOTE] Really? A formal apology for the killing of so many people? That's at all adequate? Murder on a state level is pretty tricky, particularly because the people in charge aren't the ones committing the murder. Instead, they're getting the poor to do it, usually.

As I said, I find accidental killing in self defence as not being a severe crime, especially in a war situation. Having our rights doesn't change whether we are humans or not. I find that the idea of what we are being defined by something defined by governments is a bit silly. [QUOTE=devotchkade;32775875]Really? A formal apology for the killing of so many people? That's at all adequate? Murder on a state level is pretty tricky, particularly because the people in charge aren't the ones committing the murder. Instead, they're getting the poor to do it, usually.[/QUOTE] The thing is that it will have been a group of people in the government deciding to go into Iraq. When they made the decision, they may or may not have known that it wouldn't be a success. I'm pretty sure they didn't aim for the people who died to die - which makes it a very tricky thing to punish. I don't support the "Sue-sue-sue" culture, which is why I didn't suggest compensation.

[quote]I think everyone knows the real reason for Iraq was oil. I'm not sure if a single person is responsible for the whole issue, which makes it a really, really grey area. I think he owes a formal apology to the families of all those affected though, at the very least.[/quote] I was thinking tar and feathers but I suppose a formal apology should be ample retribution for the destruction of an entire region of the Earth as well as abusing a national tragedy to strip rights away from the American people. [QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775881]As I said, I find accidental killing in self defence as not being a severe crime, especially in a war situation. Having our rights doesn't change whether we are humans or not. I find that the idea of what we are being defined by something defined by governments is a bit silly.[/QUOTE] I'd still like to hear what you think about the idea of giving governments the power to choose who is deserving of basic human rights and who isn't.

I just said it. [QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775881]As I said, I find accidental killing in self defence as not being a severe crime, especially in a war situation. Having our rights doesn't change whether we are humans or not. I find that the idea of what we are being defined by something defined by governments is a bit silly.[/QUOTE] You've changed your wording now. The entire definition of rights are based on our government, or collective groups of government. No matter what way you look at it the idea of "rights" in its entirety is open to corruption.

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775891]I just said it. You've changed your wording now. The entire definition of rights are based on our government, or collective groups of government. No matter what way you look at it the idea of "rights" in its entirety is open to corruption.[/QUOTE] That's a pretty general and unrevealing response You think it's silly, but you still support the idea of human rights being human privileged that can be stripped away for arbitrary reasons?