Proposal: The Declaration of Universal Human Rights is BS

[Syzygys]

I wish to debate anyone who likes to lose (and not on my Ignore list) on the topic of Human Rights. In my opinion it is nothing but a feel good PR document what was accepted by most countries leaders for political reasons, not necesserily because the document actually makes sense.

In the debate I will argue that the document is self-contradictory, illogical, too general, it has no jurisdiction over the "universe" and it is more like a guideline than an international law. It also gives lots of so called innate rights to every individuals, when there is no such a thing in real life. It doesn't address penalties for not following the "rights", and it doesn't deal with responsibilities/obligations of the individual.(as any real lawbook actually would do)

I will also criticize the fact that more powerful countries use this document to blackmail smaller ones when entering treaties or organizations, although it can be pointed out that pretty much NONE of the countries follow it to the letter, and I can find examples for most countries breaking at least one of the Rights.

In short, it is bullcrap that was written after the WW2 so humankind would feel a little better about itself for the horrors what they did. So if anybody wants to learn history and logic, let's get it on and start the whipping....

Conditions: You must be able to construct a logical argument and when beaten, able to acknowledge when your opponent has a good point.

 

[Norsefire]

I'm willing to take you up on the offer - and I agree that the DoHR is bullshit. But, it'd be a good opportunity for me to argue the other side. Don't worry, I won't be like James; I'll actually bother arguing my point instead of holding my nose high and assuming I'm better.

 

[Baron Max]

Oh, Wow! Hey, if you guys really do this, it might actually be the first "real" debate that we've had here. I would encourage you both to make a great, concise effort and to be as clear as possible.

If you guys do this, I wish you both the best of luck in the debate .....even though I also thing the DoHR is bullshit.

Baron Max

 

[Thoreau]

I wish to debate anyone who likes to lose (and not on my Ignore list) on the topic of Human Rights. In my opinion it is nothing but a feel good PR document what was accepted by most countries leaders for political reasons, not necesserily because the document actually makes sense.

In the debate I will argue that the document is self-contradictory, illogical, too general, it has no jurisdiction over the "universe" and it is more like a guideline than an international law. It also gives lots of so called innate rights to every individuals, when there is no such a thing in real life. It doesn't address penalties for not following the "rights", and it doesn't deal with responsibilities/obligations of the individual.(as any real lawbook actually would do)

I will also criticize the fact that more powerful countries use this document to blackmail smaller ones when entering treaties or organizations, although it can be pointed out that pretty much NONE of the countries follow it to the letter, and I can find examples for most countries breaking at least one of the Rights.

In short, it is bullcrap that was written after the WW2 so humankind would feel a little better about itself for the horrors what they did. So if anybody wants to learn history and logic, let's get it on and start the whipping....

Conditions: You must be able to construct a logical argument and when beaten, able to acknowledge when your opponent has a good point.

Well, I'm not here to debate, but rather just share my opinion real quick. As far as it being BS... Yes and no. Yes because it is not enforced nor does it apply to todays world. HOWEVER, like many other documents, it does send a positive message that we all could strive to achieve. In fact, I chose to have the 1st Amendment of this document tattoo'd on my right forearm (more specifically because it relates to an event I experienced in Iraq).

 

[Syzygys]

Well, lots of agreements don't make a debate.

Let's wait a few days if there is somebody who actually believes in it (any anti-DP could be a good candidate) and if not we can just do an educative debate.

 

[pjdude1219]

I wish to debate anyone who likes to lose (and not on my Ignore list) on the topic of Human Rights. In my opinion it is nothing but a feel good PR document what was accepted by most countries leaders for political reasons, not necesserily because the document actually makes sense.

In the debate I will argue that the document is self-contradictory, illogical, too general, it has no jurisdiction over the "universe" and it is more like a guideline than an international law. It also gives lots of so called innate rights to every individuals, when there is no such a thing in real life. It doesn't address penalties for not following the "rights", and it doesn't deal with responsibilities/obligations of the individual.(as any real lawbook actually would do)

I will also criticize the fact that more powerful countries use this document to blackmail smaller ones when entering treaties or organizations, although it can be pointed out that pretty much NONE of the countries follow it to the letter, and I can find examples for most countries breaking at least one of the Rights.

In short, it is bullcrap that was written after the WW2 so humankind would feel a little better about itself for the horrors what they did. So if anybody wants to learn history and logic, let's get it on and start the whipping....

Conditions: You must be able to construct a logical argument and when beaten, able to acknowledge when your opponent has a good point.

is it the idea that a universal standard you don't like or that the current declaration doesn't ensure that your problem?

 

[Syzygys]

I like it or not, there is no universal moral standards. I don't understand the 2nd part of your question.
If you are interested in the debate, say so....

 

[Ophiolite]

I haven't read it, but feel reasonably comfortable that I would be in favour of its spirit, given that you are opposed to it. Decide whether you prefer to debate me, Norsefire, or someone else who comes along.

As to your conditions, I note you say: "when beaten, able to acknowledge when your opponent has a good point."
I have no experience in this area - being beaten - but I am sure I could wing it adequately.

 

[Syzygys]

Oh, I am also in favour of its spirit, but I also live in reality and if one is trying to write a lawbook for all humankind, better put some amandments and exceptions into it not to mention responsibilities...

Well, if you are game I can start with an opening post with criticism and such and we go from there...

 

[pjdude1219]

I like it or not, there is no universal moral standards. I don't understand the 2nd part of your question.
If you are interested in the debate, say so....

I don't know if I am because I don't understand your position. Is it that a universal declerration of human rights is bs or is it bs because it cannot be enforced?

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh, I am also in favour of its spirit, but I also live in reality and if one is trying to write a lawbook for all humankind, better put some amandments and exceptions into it not to mention responsibilities...

Well, if you are game I can start with an opening post with criticism and such and we go from there...

Then it might not work. My take would be to argue that it is the spirit with which the document is written that is the key thing rather than the details. I believe you wish to argue the usefulness of the specifics.
Comments?

 

[Syzygys]

Is it that a universal declerration of human rights is bs or is it bs because it cannot be enforced?

OK, maybe I should clarify so kind of both. I will summarize my main problems with it:

1. In principle: Nobody should write laws for everyone. Souvereign entities such as countries, states, counties and local authorities should write their own laws for themselves and not for others thousand miles away.
So I reject the basic approach and intend of the writers.

2. Intention: It is a feel good PR GUIDELINE for humankind and NOT a lawbook. Basicly a "legal" Christmas wishlist. But most people treat it or refer to it as it is an objective moral law.

3. Enforcement: Every law worths as much as it can be enforced. The DoHR can not be enforced, thus it is worthless in this regard.

4. Hipocrisy : Literally no country follows it to the letter nevertheless they use it as a moral standard against less powerful countries to blackmail them.

5. Logic: The declaration has self-contradictory elements, which is illogical.

6. Completeness: It is very much incomplete because it only gives rights but doesn't request responsibilities and doesn't mention punishment either, again, this is not a lawbook but it likes to play as such.

 

[Jack_]

I wish to debate anyone who likes to lose (and not on my Ignore list) on the topic of Human Rights. In my opinion it is nothing but a feel good PR document what was accepted by most countries leaders for political reasons, not necesserily because the document actually makes sense.

In the debate I will argue that the document is self-contradictory, illogical, too general, it has no jurisdiction over the "universe" and it is more like a guideline than an international law. It also gives lots of so called innate rights to every individuals, when there is no such a thing in real life. It doesn't address penalties for not following the "rights", and it doesn't deal with responsibilities/obligations of the individual.(as any real lawbook actually would do)

I will also criticize the fact that more powerful countries use this document to blackmail smaller ones when entering treaties or organizations, although it can be pointed out that pretty much NONE of the countries follow it to the letter, and I can find examples for most countries breaking at least one of the Rights.

In short, it is bullcrap that was written after the WW2 so humankind would feel a little better about itself for the horrors what they did. So if anybody wants to learn history and logic, let's get it on and start the whipping....

Conditions: You must be able to construct a logical argument and when beaten, able to acknowledge when your opponent has a good point.

I will debate you.

Except you are going to lose.

 

[Jack_]

OK, maybe I should clarify so kind of both. I will summarize my main problems with it:

1. In principle: Nobody should write laws for everyone. Souvereign entities such as countries, states, counties and local authorities should write their own laws for themselves and not for others thousand miles away.
So I reject the basic approach and intend of the writers.

2. Intention: It is a feel good PR GUIDELINE for humankind and NOT a lawbook. Basicly a "legal" Christmas wishlist. But most people treat it or refer to it as it is an objective moral law.

3. Enforcement: Every law worths as much as it can be enforced. The DoHR can not be enforced, thus it is worthless in this regard.

4. Hipocrisy : Literally no country follows it to the letter nevertheless they use it as a moral standard against less powerful countries to blackmail them.

5. Logic: The declaration has self-contradictory elements, which is illogical.

6. Completeness: It is very much incomplete because it only gives rights but doesn't request responsibilities and doesn't mention punishment either, again, this is not a lawbook but it likes to play as such.

1. In principle: Nobody should write laws for everyone. Souvereign entities such as countries, states, counties and local authorities should write their own laws for themselves and not for others thousand miles away.

Let's start here.

At the local level, there can be dictators.

Who will provide equal treatment amongst the citizens when some are oppressed?

 

[Syzygys]

1. This isn't the debate thread, just the set up for the debate.

2. Who says that everyone is entitled to equality? Oh yes, the Declaration of Human rights! <<<<<< you are justifying X by using X <<<< big logical fallacy

3. I never lose...

 

[kororoti]

Um, sure I'll debate that. I like the declaration, except for articles 12 and 23. I think guidelines are useful things and stuff.

 

[Jack_]

1. This isn't the debate thread, just the set up for the debate.

2. Who says that everyone is entitled to equality? Oh yes, the Declaration of Human rights! <<<<<< you are justifying X by using X <<<< big logical fallacy

3. I never lose...

Well, come to either of these places and receive training. Or you can receive it here.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=99581&page=12
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2483659#post2483659

I had forgotten about this thread and it is last on my list.

 

[Syzygys]

Um, sure I'll debate that. I like the declaration, except for articles 12 and 23. I think guidelines are useful things and stuff.

Useful? Yes. A universal law? Hell, no.

I got curious and looked up the ones you don't like.

"Everyone has the right to work..." <<< except illegal aliens

 

[Syzygys]

Jack, which one of the first 4 sentences do you disagree with in my very first post? Just to know what we are debating about...

Who will provide equal treatment amongst the citizens when some are oppressed?

You are making my point. Who will do this or that once the HR are violated??? Exactly...

 

[Jack_]

Jack, which one of the first 4 sentences do you disagree with in my very first post? Just to know what we are debating about...

“ Originally Posted by Jack_
Who will provide equal treatment amongst the citizens when some are oppressed?

You are making my point. Who will do this or that once the HR are violated??? Exactly...

I am not making your point. The below is the context.

1. In principle: Nobody should write laws for everyone. Souvereign entities such as countries, states, counties and local authorities should write their own laws for themselves and not for others thousand miles away.

Let's start here.

At the local level, there can be dictators.

Who will provide equal treatment amongst the citizens when some are oppressed?

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.