Should Human Rights be a privilege? - General

[QUOTE=Cone;32770065][B][U]WHY[/U][/B][/QUOTE] Because that's what I believe is the very least that is needed for the killer to be sufficiently punished.

[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32770129]Because that's what I believe is the very least that is needed for the killer to be sufficiently punished.[/QUOTE] BUT WHY DO YOU BELIVE THAT It's just going in circles.

In my opinion If you show such disregard for human life, you don't deserve the privilege of Human Rights If anything, you deserve to a painful death.

[QUOTE=Cone;32770189]BUT WHY DO YOU BELIVE THAT It's just going in circles.[/QUOTE] Yeah because there isn't a fucking way to explain it. It's just how I think. I think sick fucks should be held accountable for their actions. OHH BUT WHY? Because in my opinion it's the right thing. OH BUT WHY?? Yeah you can keep fucking asking that all you want but you aren't going to get any sort of answer you're going to agree with. It's like asking the dirt why it's composed of what it's composed of. Like what are you expecting?

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;32770288]the privilege of Human Rights[/QUOTE] Really now

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32770369]Really now[/QUOTE] Oh shit I fucked up again didn't I?

[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32770357]Yeah because there isn't a fucking way to explain it. It's just how I think.[/QUOTE] if you can't properly explain the way you think then that's a pretty good sign that you shouldn't be thinking that way

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;32770379]Oh shit I fucked up again didn't I?[/QUOTE] Yeah, you just barely misspoke so to claw at something to argue about people are going to pick it apart.

[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769544]What makes you so special then? You're a person too, aren't you? So are you saying that you follow whatever bullshit you hear someone spewing just because? [editline]13th October 2011[/editline] Read the fucking thread, you aren't even worth our time. This has been said dozens of times now.[/QUOTE] if im not worth the time why did you take the time to reply?

[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769983]I don't see how you think they deserved their lives, they should have been executed. [/quote] That would have achieved nothing, just another dead body and less opportunity for reconciliation which has been proven to be more effective for everyone in the long run. [QUOTE=Mr. America;32769983]Your source may say 80-99% of people had good experiences and I'm sure they do, but it's not comparing the amount of satisfaction gained through the equal punishment of the perpetrator.[/quote] Do you have any evidence that a system like that is better? Here's some more that supports mine. [quote]Research by Nugent, Umbreit, Winnimaki, and Paddock showed that after one year, 19% of 619 participants in restorative justice reoffended, compared to 28% of 679 participants in non-restorative justice. This difference represents a [b]32% reduction in recidivism[/b]. In another study, Nugent and Paddock also found that reoffenders who participated in restorative justice tended to commit less severe offenses than other offenders. Inasmuch as participation in restorative justice is correlated with reduced recidivism and reduced recidivism, in turn, is correlated with decreased suicide risk, it seems reasonable to believe that [b]participation in restorative justice may reduce suicide risk.[/b] ... Seven studies from around the world, using different methodologies to evaluate different versions of restorative justice programs and compare them with adjudication, found [b]unanimous support for the positive outcomes of restorative justice[/b]. It is possible, as well, that the [b]benefits of restorative justice may even save lives.[/b][/quote] [url=http://privateweb.law.utah.edu/_webfiles/academic/journals/utahlawreview/2003_1/07Poulson.pdf]Source.[/url] [QUOTE=Mr. America;32769983] Of course I have things I've regretted and reconciled with, but I didn't murder people. [/quote] Then how can you possibly claim that all murderers feel irreconcilable guilt? Clearly you've never felt it, and there is plenty of evidence of murderers being able to move on with their lives regardless of what they have done, so it's not based on personal experience or fact, then what is this opinion based on? [quote]The 5 participants (3 surviving family members and 2 offenders) in these ground-breaking death row mediation/dialogue sessions stated that this intervention had a powerful impact on their lives; all had been moved beyond their expectations, all were relieved, all reported significant progress on their healing journeys, and all were grateful for the opportunity.[/quote] [url=http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/4/1/63.short]Source.[/url]

[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32770357]Yeah because there isn't a fucking way to explain it. It's just how I think. I think sick fucks should be held accountable for their actions. OHH BUT WHY? Because in my opinion it's the right thing. OH BUT WHY?? Yeah you can keep fucking asking that all you want but you aren't going to get any sort of answer you're going to agree with. [/QUOTE] Well maybe if you made any fucking sense I wouldn't have ask so much. [editline]14th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32770401]Yeah, you just barely misspoke so to claw at something to argue about people are going to pick it apart.[/QUOTE] If "Hot coldness" counts as barely mispeaking, I think we need to reevaluate some things.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32770393]if you can't properly explain the way you think then that's a pretty good sign that you shouldn't be thinking that way[/QUOTE] My idea of justice is when the wrong doer is significantly punished for their actions. You can endlessly ask someone why they believe something with "WHY?" over and over again in a never ending fucking chain, and frankly it's just annoying. [quote=Dictionary.com]Justice: the administering of deserved punishment or reward.[/quote]

[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32770427]My idea of justice is when the wrong doer is significantly punished for their actions. You can endlessly ask someone why they believe something with "WHY?" over and over again in a never ending fucking chain, and frankly it's just annoying.[/QUOTE] What you propose is retribution. I have said this a million times and I will say it again: [B]retribution /=/ justice.[/B]

[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32770427]My idea of justice is when the wrong doer is significantly punished for their actions.[/QUOTE] justice isn't about punishment (lol at referencing the dictionary), it's about protecting society and about rehabilitation. a justice system based solely around hurting people who have hurt others won't suitably fill the role it has in it's society [QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32770427]You can endlessly ask someone why they believe something with "WHY?" over and over again in a never ending fucking chain, and frankly it's just annoying.[/QUOTE] if you think people debate your ideas is annoying then why did you post this thread

I was born on this earth i have the right.

[QUOTE=Cone;32770445]What you propose is retribution. I have said this a million times and I will say it again: [B]retribution /=/ justice.[/B][/QUOTE] The dictionary definition of Justice is the administering of deserved punishment, and I believe retribution is deserved. This is all relative. I honestly think we're all wasting our time at this point, since we're all trying to argue from completely different positions using completely different definitions of words. It's impossible to accomplish anything when we completely misinterpret what everyone else is trying to say to us.

[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32770489]The dictionary definition of Justice is the administering of deserved punishment, and I believe retribution is deserved. This is all relative. I honestly think we're all wasting our time at this point, since we're all trying to argue from completely different positions using completely different definitions of words. It's impossible to accomplish anything when we completely misinterpret what everyone else is trying to say to us.[/QUOTE] Nah, it's not that I don't understand what you're saying. I do, I'm a natural listener. I've debated these issues with myself for a long time. I just think it's retarded in every meaning of the word. Really.

[QUOTE]Rights can't be taken away, we get it. We're debating if they should be privileges, which CAN be taken away[/QUOTE] so you're basically asking if we should get rid of human rights altogether.

The thought of an eye for an eye style punishment is probably one of the most barbaric things I have ever heard, that is a concept they practiced in the dark ages. Cutting off arms for robbery, removing tongues for spreading lies, and mutilating genitalia for lechery it's sickening. There is no way you could justify just simply killing someone like that, yes they may have killed a person but what if they had no control over their actions? What if they were mentally ill or suffered extreme trauma in their past?

[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32770489]The dictionary definition of Justice is the administering of deserved punishment, and I believe retribution is deserved. This is all relative. I honestly think we're all wasting our time at this point, since we're all trying to argue from completely different positions using completely different definitions of words. It's impossible to accomplish anything when we completely misinterpret what everyone else is trying to say to us.[/QUOTE] or you ignore everyone else's points and continue to basically say the same thing repeatedly

[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769847]Just because life is not a right does not mean you can do whatever you want with it, which is why I advocate the death penalty for people who have grievously mistreated another's life.[/QUOTE] You can't mistreat someone by killing him of life isn't a right. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769847]Just because life is not a right does not mean you can do whatever you want with it, which is why I advocate the death penalty for people who have grievously mistreated another's life.[/QUOTE] So in what counts as 'mistreated another's life'. The daddy that spanked a boy too hard when he was little? The pot dealer that made a number of college students more lazier? Your standards on who deserves to die is frighteningly wide.

Human rights are a privilege. Source: my name.

Anyways, if Human Rights were decided to be privileges then it would just simply be abused [b]shit out of[/b]

I just realized something, Human Rights can by definition not be be privileges: [url]http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/privilege[/url] [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5483751/Photos/2011-10-14_0306.png[/img]

The Lockean argument typical states that rights precedes government. The best way to see this is to study the videos of the discovered isolated tribes that really have no system of government. They have a freedom of speech in that they are all allowed to talk. They live their lives. They own their body and use it. They own property. Individuals trade with each other, and if there are other tribes, they likely trade with them. The list can go on, but you kind of get the picture. The Lockean argument is essentially that government cannot give people what they already have. He also argues that the government cannot take rights from the people as the government has no ownership of the rights. Pretty much everything in the bill of rights are negative rights and examples of what the Lockean position would advocate. Why these can't be taken away is very well justified. Much of the confusion here is that people believe they have a right to healthcare and education. Without discussing the validity of those things, that would be a positive right which is very different than a negative right. Here is a decent description. [quote]Negative rights Put simply a negative right is the right to be left alone. Specifically it is the right to think and act free from the coercive force of others. Free from muggers, fraudsters and restrictive laws and taxes. A negative right is an absolute. You are either free from the above or you are not. even the slightest violation breaks this right. Imagine that a man stops you in the street once a week and forces you to stand still for one minute - hardly a life changing violation - yet your right to be free of the coercion of others is being broken. The degree to which this right is violated changes from place to place but I know of no country where it is not routinely violated by the state. Remember that a person cannot claim this right while violating the same in others. A mugger cannot claim a right to be left alone whilst mugging people. The kind of society where this right is prevalent is a society whose government exists only to protect the individual from the force of others. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights are the closest examples - which, sadly, modern day America is abandoning daily. Positive rights These are rights to something. A right to food, to healthcare, to education - whatever. The reality of a positive right is that whatever the object of the right is (eg healthcare), it needs to be created before the 'right' can be fulfilled. This creates an obligation upon others to create it and it is the basis for slave societies and statist dictatorhips. In the UK positive rights exist and each person who is taxed and restricted via legislation into providing the object of the right is working a proportion of his/her life as a slave. This may seem a bit extreme, but it isnt. Unless you agree entirely with your payment of every tax and everything the government then spends your money on, you are being forced to work for ends you have *not* given your consent to - just like a slave. Slavery was outlawed, but it crept back under the guise of the 'public good'. The reason most people tolerate, or even give apathetic support to it, is because they are not thinking about which principles are being abandoned and which of their own rights they are giving up by doing so. Many people find the costs of obeying restricitive laws and paying 50% in tax irritating but, amazingly, no more than that. "Its not all that bad!" They might say - I would suggest turning back the tide of controls and restrictions now before it is terribly bad - it has happened in other countries, however naively you might imagine "it cant happen here". The answer is to ask, whenever some new scheme is proposed by the government, "at whose expense?" and you will find that the expense is your freedom. [url]http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/rights.htm[/url][/quote] Now with positive rights, they can be taken away because they don't adhere to the Lockean framework at all. Much of the issue is that by nature any positive right conflicts with the preexisting negative rights. If you have a right to food, and I'm a farmer, than I am forced to give you my property which is a violation of my property rights. There are plenty of arguments the notion of positive rights. Really the argument is that positive rights aren't rights. [QUOTE=mobrockers2;32770925]I just realized something, Human Rights can by definition not be be privileges[/QUOTE] The education of education in that picture is quite a bad one though because it would be considered a positive right. There is no right to a service, that is stealing.

It should be a right because some people don't deserve all liberties. i.e. Serial killers.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32770925]I just realized something, Human Rights can by definition not be be privileges: [url]http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/privilege[/url] [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5483751/Photos/2011-10-14_0306.png[/img][/QUOTE] [highlight]THIS IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE THREAD[/highlight] Stop arguing this. The point is, what IF the things we were given in the form of Human Rights were instead given in the form of privileges which we could lose.

[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32771150][highlight]THIS IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE THREAD[/highlight] Stop arguing this. The point is, what IF the things we were given in the form of Human Rights were instead given in the form of privileges which we could lose.[/QUOTE] You can't argue about facts. Fact is that Rights can't be Privileges according to the very definition of privilege. [editline]14th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;32770991]text[/QUOTE] People do have a right for food, healthcare and education. It's in the law, and you can derive rights from laws.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32770732]You can't mistreat someone by killing him of life isn't a right. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.[/QUOTE] You need to read the thread, I said it's not a right.. [editline]13th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;32770819]So in what counts as 'mistreated another's life'. The daddy that spanked a boy too hard when he was little? The pot dealer that made a number of college students more lazier? Your standards on who deserves to die is frighteningly wide.[/QUOTE] Grievously mistreated as in murdered, not those since those aren't the point of the thread if you had read what we've been talking about at all.... [editline]13th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;32770863]Anyways, if Human Rights were decided to be privileges then it would just simply be abused [b]shit out of[/b][/QUOTE] People claim that they are "rights" and they're still abused. Calling them privileges is just being realistic as opposed to idealistic.