Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by Syzygys, Jan 24, 2010.
...nor answering my question. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I did answer it.
You have not thought through a procedure for implementing condition 1.
Necessarily, this requires an arbiter to make sure all the citizens have equal rights regardless of their location. This is not listed in any of your logic.
I see why you do not lose.
You define the rules of winning and losing and it changes as needed.
I don't see a debate happening....
Yes, that is because you have lost.
Do you have something deeper that will not end so quickly?
Just some points to aid in Debate:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was initially concieved to attempt to generate a universally acceptable common set of civil laws that governments would attempt to follow.
Every country doesn't necessarily find itself bound by these rights, in fact there are a number that Human Rights organisations will identify as undermining such rights. The reason for this is ever culture is different and an overall opinion couldn't be enforced upon all countries as that is the route that dictators take. It in fact was just left to be take on it's own merit that everybody and anybody would appreciate fundemental rights to seen as an equal, to not be mistreated or abused and to have the very basic fundementals that are for wellbeing covered. (pursuit of Happiness)
Unfortunately the spirit of the 1948 declaration has since been lost considering then number of many wars and conflicts (not all legitimate). Humans change over time and so should the declarations, but should they be any less stringent?
To be honest I'd suggest that the laws have been lapse and only have they been implimented when Civil Rights are brought up as an issue legally. (If enough people claim abuse and make enough noise, somebody listens and usually these people do this because they see it a way around the system. In fact it actually undermines what it was really declared for and those people are potentially still suffering alone with no clue how to deal with the situation.)
I guess I'm saying it's all very well to debate they are meaningless or suggest they are useless, however if you were tortured 24 hours a day for over ten years, you'd realise just how precious such declarations are if they are acted on sooner rather than later. In fact the perspective of debater can only see such declaration as being useless if they have been mollycuddled due to such laws shielding them from abuse.
If you want to debate it, you'll require understanding what it feels like to be victimised and potentially ignored by civillian law and governments that are suppose to police against abuse.
I pretty much agree with everything except...
But that is the whole point. Who is going to save me? The Declaration itself won't, and who is going to act on it if my country didn't ratify it? Which outside country will step up and enforce the "guidelines", what are basicly unenforcable, because they are not international laws?
Anyhow, I am kind of losing interest, because we pretty much said everything what was there to be said.
Currently it's not the Declaration thats the failure, but the Bureaucracy. Somebody can go un-noticed for being abused because there are so many fakers and attention seekers out there, it's difficult to sift seed from chaff.
By Bureaucracy you mean international law? Well, let's see an example.
Let's assume there is a small poor country without any signifficant natural resources (thus no imperialistic interest) where the ruling party/dictator is engaging in genocide, massacring its own people. Let's call this country Cambodia, just for the sake of the example.
Genocide is bad. I mean real bad. It is even against the Declaration! But who is going to stop the genocide? First, one need some kind of excuse to do so. Cambodia might didn't even sign the Declaration. Then there is the willingness to spend lots of money and possible taking casualties. Now why would any outside force spend money and lose its own citizens just to help to enforce the Declaration? Just so this country could be called the bastion of freedom?
Every rule/law is worths as much as it can be enforced. Unenforcable laws are meaningless...
The point here is that Country X didn't sign a declaration, they weren't apart of a "Pact". The current pact is to defend within the territories to which the Pact extends, a mutual protection treaty if you will. Country X isn't apart of that Pact and therefore it's obviously apprehendsive that it applies.
Of course this causes the problem that what countries are privileged enough to be in the Pact see outside the Pacts country list. In the long run they wouldn't want to see human rights violation and would want to afford whats invested in their pact externally, however this causes problems in some cases.
i.e. A number of African countries where currently no recognised government. If there is no one democratic to deal with the political avenue at that end, then politics stops. Discussion can't be held, overall reasoning can't be made, Anarchy (not Anarchism) is impossible to "work with" and thats pretty much what the U.N. is all about, Working with countries.
The UN could of course attempt to offer aid or help packages, however this can be thrown back in their face especially in regards to Anarchy. (Afterall how would you respond if a group of foreign powers told you "We are going to take over your economy, manage your lands, manage your jobs, schooling and hospitals, but you have to do as we ask". The outcome is you'd prefer to suggest that your land is your own, your people are your own people and your problems should have solutions sort by your own people rather than external bodies. (Xenophobia to an extent.)
Unfortunately prior to Eleanor Roosevelt's Civil Rights activities that aided in the creation of the Declaration of Human Rights, there had been a number of individuals participating in cornering a Free Market with Monopolism. These people were renouned for being involved in Black Monday (1929) that brought about one of the Great Depressions. Human Rights were waived in favour of Despotistic Fat Cats getting filthy rich.
Unfortunately The Free Market and the abuses that can occur through it's exploitation are legendary and they had a foothold prior to the Declaration of Human Rights. It's actually daft in a way though, countries don't necessarily care unless their is money to be made so there is something worthy of protecting, however when you look at this huge universe we exist in, most if not all those planets out there likely do not have life so the most valuable commodity is actually life. It's far more precious than diamonds (which can be replicated to a degree from base materials).
I guess I mention it because although people aren't necessarily worth money if they are poor, they are technically more precious then every coin on the planet combined.
Apathy is what causes the main absence of enforcement, if you ignore and choose to ignore what goes on and do not make a complaint, then nobodies going to do anything. It's really down to all of us to make any difference.
We don't really disagree....
Not really. Some laws are just unenforcable. Let's say the church doesn't like masturbation. Really, how they gonna enforce it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Or the government outlaws picking your nose...Really...
1. The world is a cruel place. If there is a bad thing going on in country X, why my country A should interfere instead of country B or C? If you want to endanger YOUR life and YOUR money to save others, so be it, you are more than welcomed. Oh yes, and the cost issue. Don't use my taxpayer money without my OK to save others.
2. The argument could be made that without wars we are overpopulating like rabbits. The last real big war was 65 years ago and since then we probably quadruplied. Following the Declaration's guides to the letter in the long run could cause more sufferings...
Yeah. This is what I had meant to post. I just got confused about the rules.
Articles 12 and 23 kind of bother me. 12, because it limits the freedom of speech by not allowing attacks against anyone's honor or reputation.
And 23... because who's going to pay for it?
As for the rest, I really don't see any problem. They're kind of like a stated goal, for the conditions we would like everyone on Earth to live under. There are a lot of people living in really bad third world countries who would like to leave and come live in the USA or Canada, or Western Europe. I don't think it's fair that they don't get to have the same rights as I do just because of where they were born, but it at the same time it would be economically unfeasible to just open all of the borders to immigration.
As for legislating it, the UN was originally intended as a World Government. People probably thought it would end up being like a world wide federal/central power, and all the countries would be like states in a larger union. The declaration on Human Rights was passed December 10, 1948, so I'm betting that people still thought it was possible for the UN to actually enforce something like that. It turns out they were wrong, and all the UN ever amounted to was a figure head, but how should they have known that back then? We have the advantage of 62 years worth of cynical reality, to judge them with.
Are you suggesting that we should throw the document out now that it's fantasy/dreamer aspects have become more apparent? It still remains the only enduring example of a time when all the nations of the world ever got together and agreed about anything in this area.
The same is often said about the US Constitution. Its clauses, also, like the Declaration, are not self enforcing. What enforces them is the popular will, which usually comes down like a hammer on any politician who makes the mistake of trying to step over the lines. (But not always. There have been some exceptions, and still are some.)
A lot of other countries have had constitutions that totally failed for this reason, because the people who agreed to them were not sufficiently determined about keeping them in force, or expected them to enforce themselves without help. The USSR is actually a good example of this. It had a great constitution, with lots of rights our own doesn't have, but .... alas.... it was never actually observed.
I'm just saying: having a written list of rights creates a potential that wouldn't otherwise be there, but ..... it's only a potential. I think some potential for good is better than no potential for good.
I don't have a problem with a potential (although again, I am practical), but I do have a problem when people refer to the HR as an objective law. (see the Death penalty debate)
Well, an update/rewrite sure wouldn't hurt. Let's add a shitload of obligations.
Speaking of obligations I think the only one in the document is education, but isn't that against freewill?
It just shouldn't be treated as objective, valid for everyone international law. It is a guideline and nothing more. One can look at the Bible as guideline, but doesn't have to take it literally in every aspect.(and most people don't)
And it shouldn't be forced on souvereign nations.
Oh yes, one more funny thing: What if the violator country is not a small, deffenseless one but a big and strong one? (China HR issues for example) Who is going to stand up against the big guy? Apparently nobody, words don't count...
I don't want to have to deal with the refugees of a nation that violates HR rules continually. It's just too easy for a country to select some ethnic group within its borders and start marginalizing them for the sake of the main group's economic gain. Then those people leave, and start expecting to be admitted into the first world countries (or illegally immigrating). Why should we have to put up with that, rather than do something?
What happens in civil law if the violator is some kind of Mafioso, or well connected? As much as we don't like to admit it, sometimes criminals get away with crime.
This raises an interesting point, though, because all nuclear armed countries are un-invade-able.
I think in particular the problem would be articles 12 (mentioned in my above post) and 16, since they could be interpreted as forbidding the state from interfering in family planning decisions, but it's arguable whether they do or not.
I don't see any reason we should be needing to commit any outright atrocities in order to solve this issue, however. So, the other articles should probably not pose a problem.
Expected... Well I expect lots of things... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We could play the Rolling Stones songs for them: You can't get always what you want, at the border with a nice Keep off! sign, then we don't have to worry about it...(man, I am mean today)
Seriously, if you only help them because they inconvenience you otherwise, that is one loving brother. Anyhow, we are getting away from the topic...
Also, you basicly acknowledge that big guys get away with the HR abuse >> no perfect world >>>> that's what I have been saying...
Or we could help them.
The most efficient way to solve their problem for them is to impose rules that make their government treat them fairly, so they can lead happy lives in their home country.
If immigrating into a better country were allowed, then there would be no democratic force pushing back against bad regimes. Everyone who didn't like what was happening would just leave, and then really awful dictators would have little or no opposition.
It makes it into a self interest argument instead of a do-gooder argument. I find that people generally respond better to that than they do to moral outrage.
Using self interest arguments makes it clear that action will be taken, while at the same time not attempting to pass judgment on anyone else's moral failings. You bypass their ego. Plus, you are making it clear that if they continue this behavior they will be provoking you, which makes them the aggressor if you attack them over it.
So, you'd rather have no justice if you can't have 100% justice?
It makes me imagine a burning building with a lot of people inside, like say 100, and the firefighters show up, and determine that they'll probably only be able to save about 35 of them before the building collapses. So.... rather than "unfairly" save some and not others, ...... they decide the best thing to do is just stand there and watch the building burn.
It appears that people have been trying to debate the issue rather than organising a Formal Debate. Since almost a month has passed since the last post, this proposal is dead.
Separate names with a comma.