[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775881]
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 wasn't suggesting compensation. I think the best solution would be for him to be tried as a war criminal, honestly, but the fact is that he was utterly incompetent and unable to do his job as the President from the get-go.
There's no way those wars could have been waged with no body count, and they all knew that, so I don't know that it matters that he didn't specifically 'aim for the people who died to die'. They did what they did for purely selfish reasons, but because he was President of the most powerful state in the world, he'll never come to justice.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32775909]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?[/QUOTE]
I said it's silly that you defined being a human on our rights. Think outside the box a little - normally rights have responsibilities attached. I feel it would be reasonable to attach the responsibility of being a law abiding citizen to our human rights.
Of course, the rights you can lose should be restricted (Don't allow the loss of the right to life, etc) and the types of rights you do lose will be based on the crime you commited. The length you lose your rights should also be based on the crime you committed.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32775922]I wasn't suggesting compensation. I think the best solution would be for him to be tried as a war criminal, honestly, but the fact is that he was utterly incompetent and unable to do his job as the President from the get-go.
There's no way those wars could have been waged with no body count, and they all knew that, so I don't know that it matters that he didn't specifically 'aim for the people who died to die'. They did what they did for purely selfish reasons, but because he was President of the most powerful state in the world, he'll never come to justice.[/QUOTE]
In order for him to be found guilty for anything, it would need to be proven that he went into the war for the wrong reasons, or commanded illegal methods of obtaining information or cooperation from the citizens of Iraq. Because of all that, it'd cost a huge load of money (Which I might add, America doesn't have) and wouldn't get any results anyway.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775926]I said it's silly that you defined being a human on our rights. Think outside the box a little - [b]normally rights have responsibilities attached.[/b] I feel it would be reasonable to attach the responsibility of being a law abiding citizen to our human rights.
Of course, the rights you can lose should be restricted (Don't allow the loss of the right to life, etc) and the types of rights you do lose will be based on the crime you commited. The length you lose your rights should also be based on the crime you committed.
In order for him to be found guilty for anything, it would need to be proven that he went into the war for the wrong reasons, or commanded illegal methods of obtaining information or cooperation from the citizens of Iraq. Because of all that, it'd cost a huge load of money (Which I might add, America doesn't have) and wouldn't get any results anyway.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you know what rights are
So rather than just continuing to address certain parts of my post and ignore others:
Do you think the government should decide who is given the privileges we now call "human rights"
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775926]
In order for him to be found guilty for anything, it would need to be proven that he went into the war for the wrong reasons, or commanded illegal methods of obtaining information or cooperation from the citizens of Iraq. Because of all that, it'd cost a huge load of money (Which I might add, America doesn't have) and wouldn't get any results anyway.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say it was realistic. In fact, I pointed out that it wasn't.
I should also say I'm using him as a figurehead for basically the entire administration; god knows he wasn't the only guilty one.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32775941]I don't think you know what rights are
So then rather than just continuing to address certain parts of my post and ignore others:
Do you think the government should decide who is given the privileges we now call "human rights"[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/index.htm[/url]
As defined by the UK government, I quote
[quote]Your rights [b]and responsibilities[/b][/quote]
So yes. Some rights - non basic ones - should be able to be restricted by governments.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775961]So yes. Some rights - non basic ones - should be able to be restricted by governments.[/QUOTE]
do you believe the government should have the authority to take away any of these rights (thus repealing the human rights act of 1998)
[quote]the right to life
freedom from torture and degrading treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry and to start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
the right not to be subjected to the death penalty[/quote]
if so, why do you trust the government to take away something so fundamental?
I don't see why a murderer needs "the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property". Especially if they're in jail.
I don't see why they need to vote either.
Or why they need the right to protest.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
Everything else should be protected though.
you didn't answer the question(s)
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775961][url]http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/index.htm[/url]
As defined by the UK government, I quote
So yes. Some rights - non basic ones - should be able to be restricted by governments.[/QUOTE]
I can't even begin to comprehend how you actually read a category that included both rights and responsibilities and drew from it that rights are actually just privileges and you're only allowed to have your rights if you meet certain criteria
If it can be withdrawn by a government, it isn't a right, it's a privilege
And who is to define what "basic ones" are?
Do you think a government should decide who gets to live or die?
Should a government decide whether or not someone is allowed to be enslaved?
Should a government decide what religion people practice?
Should a government decide whether or not people are allowed to express themselves and their thoughts?
Where do you draw the line and decide what humanity as a whole is no longer entitled to, and at what point?
And do you really trust governments with that power to decide who gets basic human rights?
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32775998]you didn't answer the question[/QUOTE]
Why do you trust your government with your personal information?
[editline].[/editline]
If we can't trust the government, then it's time to replace it with one we can.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776001]I can't even begin to comprehend how you actually read a category that included both rights and responsibilities and drew from it that rights are actually just privileges and you're only allowed to have your rights if you meet certain criteria
If it can be withdrawn by a government, it isn't a right, it's a privilege
And who is to define what "basic ones" are?
Do you think a government should decide who gets to live or die?
Should a government decide whether or not someone is allowed to be enslaved?
Should a government decide what religion people practice?
Should a government decide whether or not people are allowed to express themselves and their thoughts?
Where do you draw the line and decide what humanity as a whole is no longer entitled to, and at what point?
And do you really trust governments with that power to decide who gets basic human rights?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775991]I don't see why a murderer needs "the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property". Especially if they're in jail.
I don't see why they need to vote either.
Or why they need the right to protest.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
Everything else should be protected though.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32775991]Everything else should be protected though.[/QUOTE]
See, this is the issue with your way of thinking.
You aren't.
You read the question and think "HMM, AM I OK WITH THIS??" and post what you personally think is right or wrong, and what makes sense to you, with no regard to the entire SPECIES that you are dictating the rights of. Not only that, but you have absolutely no foresight for the abuse of this arbitrary line in the sand that you're drawing, by governments and other forces.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776006]Why do you trust your government with your personal information?
[editline].[/editline]
[b]If we can't trust the government, then it's time to replace it with one we can.[/b][/QUOTE]
[i]Oh god[/i]
Honestly? You think there'll ever be a world in which everyone can be trusted, ESPECIALLY the government?
You honestly think there will ever come a time where it's safe to give total control and trust to governments?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776010]See, this is the issue with your way of thinking.
You aren't.
You read the question and think "HMM, AM I OK WITH THIS??" and post what you personally think is right or wrong, and what makes sense to you, with no regard to the entire SPECIES that you are dictating the rights of. Not only that, but you have absolutely no foresight for the abuse of this arbitrary line in the sand that you're drawing, by governments and other forces.[/QUOTE]
How exactly is temporarily losing the right to protest for murdering someone going to be abused by a government or any other body?
A better example would be losing the right to protest for being found guilty of participating in or initiating riots.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776010][i]Oh god[/i]
Honestly? You think there'll ever be a world in which everyone can be trusted, ESPECIALLY the government?
You honestly think there will ever come a time where it's safe to give total control and trust to governments?[/QUOTE]
No. What I'm saying is if our government were to become too corrupt, we would replace it with one that isn't, whether by election or by force.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776006]Why do you trust your government with your personal information?
[editline].[/editline]
If we can't trust the government, then it's time to replace it with one we can.[/QUOTE]
you still haven't answered the question(s)
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776016]How exactly is temporarily losing the right to protest for murdering someone going to be abused by a government or any other body?
A better example would be losing the right to protest for being found guilty of participating in or initiating riots.[/QUOTE]
1. Oh god we don't want these people protesting
2. Let's frame them for murder so they can't protest
And like Kalibos said, YOU STILL HAVENT ANSWERED THE QUESTION
I'm really surprised you're trying to engage in an argument based on the premise that taking away people's humans right's can't be abused
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32776022]you still haven't answered the question(s)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32775982]
if so, why do you trust the government to take away something so fundamental?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776016]No. What I'm saying is if our government were to become too corrupt, we would replace it with one that isn't, whether by election or by force.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776023]1. Oh god we don't want these people protesting
2. Let's frame them for murder so they can't protest
And like Kalibos said, YOU STILL HAVENT ANSWERED THE QUESTION
I'm really surprised you're trying to engage in an argument based on the premise that taking away people's humans right's can't be abused[/QUOTE]
As if you could frame someone for murder and expect everyone to blindly believe it.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776034]i live in an imaginary world[/QUOTE]
ughhh
Your answer to my question is so moronic I can't even describe
I asked if you think there will ever come a time where we will be free of corrupt governments
Your response was "IF THERE IS CORRUPTION WE WILL REPLACE THEM"
And what happens when the replacement is corrupt?
you still haven't answered the question(s)
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776042]And what happens when the replacement is corrupt?[/QUOTE]
Then you're screwed. But seriously, they wouldn't become the replacement. If you look at for example, the Libya uprisings, their new government isn't corrupt because in order to become the leading body, they needed to be less corrupt than the previous government.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32776043]you still haven't answered the question(s)[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure I have. So instead of spamming "You haven't answered it" restate it so as I know what I haven't answered.
do you believe the government should have the authority to take away any of these rights (thus repealing the human rights act of 1998)
[quote]the right to life
freedom from torture and degrading treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry and to start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
the right not to be subjected to the death penalty[/quote]
if so, why do you trust the government to take away something so fundamental?
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776052][b]Then you're screwed.[/b] But seriously, they wouldn't become the replacement. If you look at for example, the Libya uprisings, their new government isn't corrupt because in order to become the leading body, they needed to be less corrupt than the previous government.[/QUOTE]
You may as well have just said "i give up and have no argument"
You clearly live in some sort of fantasy world where you think it's actually possible to root out corruption entirely
And no, trust me, the Libyan government will be corruption free for a while, but it will inevitably become corrupt in the future
I hope you don't seriously think that 100 years or even 50 years from now, Libya will be a shining pillar of honesty and transparency
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32776062]do you believe the government should have the authority to take away any of these rights (thus repealing the human rights act of 1998)
if so, why do you trust the government to take away something so fundamental?[/QUOTE]
Some of the rights (E.G. the freedom of assembly and association) could be taken away in a preventative measure. For example, if someone was found guilty of inciting riots, then taking away their right to the freedom of assembly and association temporarily would mean they could be arrested for protesting. This means they wouldn't be able to incite another riot.
As of yet, I don't have a reason to distrust the government with that. If you can present a case where the UK government isn't worthy of trusting with such a right, I'll redact my point.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776066]You may as well have just said "i give up and have no argument"
You clearly live in some sort of fantasy world where you think it's actually possible to root out corruption entirely
And no, trust me, the Libyan government will be corruption free for a while, but it will inevitably become corrupt in the future
I hope you don't seriously think that 100 years or even 50 years from now, Libya will be a shining pillar of honesty and transparency[/QUOTE]
When it gets too bad history will repeat itself. These riots are basically a repeat of what happened the last time in Libya.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776072]Some of the rights (E.G. the freedom of assembly and association) could be taken away in a preventative measure. For example, if someone was found guilty of inciting riots, then taking away their right to the freedom of assembly and association temporarily would mean they could be arrested for protesting. This means they wouldn't be able to incite another riot.
As of yet, I don't have a reason to distrust the government with that. If you can present a case where the UK government isn't worthy of trusting with such a right, I'll redact my point.
When it gets too bad history will repeat itself. These riots are basically a repeat of what happened the last time in Libya.[/QUOTE]
Ah I gotcha, so there'll still be widespread corruption and violation of human rights based on utter lies by governments to serve their purposes, but at least they'll EVENTUALLY be overthrown.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776088]Ah I gotcha, so there'll still be widespread corruption and violation of human rights based on utter lies by governments to serve their purposes, but at least they'll EVENTUALLY be overthrown.[/QUOTE]
You accuse me of living in a fairytale world, but there you are, thinking having a right makes any real difference to whether or not a corrupt government can fuck you over. At least I've presented points whereby removing some rights could partially prevent further crimes and damage.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776095]You accuse me of living in a fairytale world, but there you are, thinking having a right makes any real difference to whether or not a corrupt government can fuck you over.[/QUOTE]
Oh the government will certainly violate your rights, the difference between you and me is that in my world they'll actually be punished because what they're doing is against international law
You on the other hand are giving them even more opportunity to abuse you
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776106]"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."[/QUOTE]
I know this is just a quote from some ex-president, but does that not jurys/judges who imprison people deserve neither liberty or security?
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
And by extension, every country in the world?
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776112]I know this is just a quote from some ex-president, [b]but does that not jurys/judges who imprison people deserve neither liberty or security?[/b]
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
And by extension, every country in the world?[/QUOTE]
Form a sentence and try again
If you meant to use "mean" instead of "not", then you are drastically misinterpreting the quote and it's meaning
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776072]Some of the rights (E.G. the freedom of assembly and association) could be taken away in a preventative measure. For example, if someone was found guilty of inciting riots, then taking away their right to the freedom of assembly and association temporarily would mean they could be arrested for protesting. This means they wouldn't be able to incite another riot.[/QUOTE]
so the government will repeal fundamental human rights that they themselves ensure every citizen is entitled to basically whenever the rights conflict with the government's best interest? why bother ensuring any rights at all then if they can be repealed so arbitrarily
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776072]As of yet, I don't have a reason to distrust the government with that. If you can present a case where the UK government isn't worthy of trusting with such a right, I'll redact my point.[/QUOTE]
blind faith?
Read the sentence and try again.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32776122]so the government will repeal fundamental human rights that they themselves ensure every citizen is entitled to basically whenever the rights conflict with the government's best interest? why bother ensuring any rights at all then if they can be repealed so arbitrarily[/quote]
It's also in the best interest of the majority of citizens. The benefit to the many outweighs the benefit of the few, or the one.
[quote]blind faith?[/QUOTE]
Religion is blind faith, millions of people seem to believe in it.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776123]Read the sentence and try again.[/QUOTE]
but does that not jurys/judges who imprison people deserve neither liberty or security?
"does that not jurys/judges" doesn't make sense
Don't act indignant and smug when I'm unable to understand your mangled lack of sentence composure
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776123]Read the sentence and try again.
It's also in the best interest of the majority of citizens. [b]The benefit to the many outweighs the benefit of the few, or the one. [/b]
Religion is blind faith, millions of people seem to believe in it.[/QUOTE]
Man you are seriously so bad at understanding meaningful quotes
Chuck in "mean". I got woken up at 6AM this morning by a fire alarm - so I'm a little tired.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776134]Man you are seriously so bad at understanding meaningful quotes[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's a great idea to let one guy incite riots just because it's his right to protest - rather than protecting the people's property and lives!!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
