StoicGoat
@StoicGoat
13 Years1,000+ Posts
Comments: 0 · Posts: 3217 · Topics: 32
Survivor 2 Finale
You are on page out of 3 | Reverse Order
Posted by feby16aqua
I love this topic :-) such aqua territory
That a male a female water bearer are squaring off against one another was not lost on me 🙂
Leave it to two aquas to outwit!!! Hats off to ya!
Well thank ya TrueCap
Posted by xdimplez
soooo....
I'm thinking... I just got home from work.
HOLD your hourses and give me a few minutes to think about it 🙂
So exciting 🙂
Posted by xdimplez
Nacho
My horses are pissed from being held too long
Hahahaha I don't blame them horses "I did only say a few minutes didn't I"!
No Idea why I quoted you.... your right above .....stupid dxp habit
I think I'm hung up on what the constraint for being taken away is... because I could view something as not being taken away while he or someone else could.
LOL @ dimpz 😄
A game of clue could be fun for the mystery buffs...
NYAA, if you get reported to PETA over this you're gonna have some esplainin' to do!
A game of clue could be fun for the mystery buffs...
NYAA, if you get reported to PETA over this you're gonna have some esplainin' to do!
lol dimplez haha... I pretty much feel the same except sometimes I misinterpret what Stoic means by some of his declarations since they usually left open to some extant as to what they mean if that makes any sense w/e anyways.... here comes a little bit okie 😄
Leaving you leeway with the interpretation is part of the fun! Someone could have argued for alcohol as a condiment on the grounds that it "enhances the taste or enjoyment of food".
First I would like to define the term 'inalienable' as it is used in the definition of human rights and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was created and now upheld by UNFPA(United Nations Population Fund {formerly United Nations Fund for Population Activities}).
Inalienable - Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
I think this is significant as the definition implies that inalienable means you have always had this and it can never be given to you. I point this out because despite the fact this is the definition... the government feels the need to write out documents to insure to you this... almost like as if they are empowering you somehow to have these so called 'alienable rights'.
Inalienable - Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
I think this is significant as the definition implies that inalienable means you have always had this and it can never be given to you. I point this out because despite the fact this is the definition... the government feels the need to write out documents to insure to you this... almost like as if they are empowering you somehow to have these so called 'alienable rights'.
Now I would like just to point out the long winded definition of Human Rights as the UNFPA has defined it
Human Rights
-------------------
"Rights that belong to an individual as a consequence of being human. The term came into wide use after World War II, replacing the earlier phrase —natural rights,?? which had been associated with the Greco-Roman concept of natural law since the end of the Middle Ages. As understood today, human rights refer to a wide variety of values and capabilities reflecting the diversity of human circumstances and history. They are conceived of as universal, applying to all human beings everywhere, and as fundamental, referring to essential or basic human needs. Human rights have been classified historically in terms of the notion of three —generations?? of human rights. The first generation of civil and political rights, associated with the Enlightenment and the English, American, and French revolutions, includes the rights to life and liberty and the rights to freedom of speech and worship. The second generation of economic, social, and cultural rights, associated with revolts against the predations of unregulated capitalism from the mid-19th century, includes the right to work and the right to an education. Finally, the third generation of solidarity rights, associated with the political and economic aspirations of developing and newly decolonized countries after World War II, includes the collective rights to political self-determination and economic development. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, many treaties and agreements for the protection of human rights have been concluded through the auspices of the United Nations, and several regional systems of human rights law have been established. In the late 20th century ad hoc international criminal tribunals were convened to prosecute serious human rights violations and other crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The International Criminal Court, which came into existence in 2002, is empowered to prosecute crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, and war crimes."
http://www.unfpa.org/rights/principles.htm
Human Rights
-------------------
"Rights that belong to an individual as a consequence of being human. The term came into wide use after World War II, replacing the earlier phrase —natural rights,?? which had been associated with the Greco-Roman concept of natural law since the end of the Middle Ages. As understood today, human rights refer to a wide variety of values and capabilities reflecting the diversity of human circumstances and history. They are conceived of as universal, applying to all human beings everywhere, and as fundamental, referring to essential or basic human needs. Human rights have been classified historically in terms of the notion of three —generations?? of human rights. The first generation of civil and political rights, associated with the Enlightenment and the English, American, and French revolutions, includes the rights to life and liberty and the rights to freedom of speech and worship. The second generation of economic, social, and cultural rights, associated with revolts against the predations of unregulated capitalism from the mid-19th century, includes the right to work and the right to an education. Finally, the third generation of solidarity rights, associated with the political and economic aspirations of developing and newly decolonized countries after World War II, includes the collective rights to political self-determination and economic development. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, many treaties and agreements for the protection of human rights have been concluded through the auspices of the United Nations, and several regional systems of human rights law have been established. In the late 20th century ad hoc international criminal tribunals were convened to prosecute serious human rights violations and other crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The International Criminal Court, which came into existence in 2002, is empowered to prosecute crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, and war crimes."
http://www.unfpa.org/rights/principles.htm
So with that stated.... going back to the opening statement:
I honestly do not think there is a thing anyone can truly do to take away your free will, your ability to independently think outside the bounds of what others tell you, without you willing submitting. No one has power without it being given to them by others. Just because a governing body has influence over a group or sect of people has no bearing on what they can make you do. No one can make you do anything... They can try to confine you or incarcerate you, they can try to break your body, or they can just simply kill you, BUT were they ever able to 'control' you? Was your mind ever compromised?
A human being is not something that comes with a remote controller. Unless a governing body can figure out how to insert electronics to control your brain.... no governing body will ever have absolute control of anyone. period. You think you don't have the right to get up right now and kill as many people as you want until the government finds out who you are and puts you in jail? Why do people think they are powerless.... I really think it has to do with becoming complacent in this quote on quote more civilized world we are all living in. When your government decides to think it can control you... that's when you will find out just how much power you really have.
Posted by StoicGoat
Many nations guarantee the right of every person to hold any opinion and to practise any religion an individual might desire. However, this is not true in all nations and in some these civil rights are entirely absent. Given the disparity with which the governments of the world view their citizens' civil rights, are there any human rights that transcend regulation?
I honestly do not think there is a thing anyone can truly do to take away your free will, your ability to independently think outside the bounds of what others tell you, without you willing submitting. No one has power without it being given to them by others. Just because a governing body has influence over a group or sect of people has no bearing on what they can make you do. No one can make you do anything... They can try to confine you or incarcerate you, they can try to break your body, or they can just simply kill you, BUT were they ever able to 'control' you? Was your mind ever compromised?
A human being is not something that comes with a remote controller. Unless a governing body can figure out how to insert electronics to control your brain.... no governing body will ever have absolute control of anyone. period. You think you don't have the right to get up right now and kill as many people as you want until the government finds out who you are and puts you in jail? Why do people think they are powerless.... I really think it has to do with becoming complacent in this quote on quote more civilized world we are all living in. When your government decides to think it can control you... that's when you will find out just how much power you really have.
Do we really think this nation was created by a bunch of people who had no 'control', no free will, no inherent inalienable rights that no one can give you.... you just have no matter what the constitution or the UN defines them as? England's government went too far and you know what happened? People just said FUCK YOU I DON'T HAVE TO DO A DAMN THING YOU SAY. Even if England had won the Revolutionary War.... if England truly had control why would the people have subordinated? It's because you will always have the right to choose to follow and submit or to fight back. You only feel powerless because you fear death and persecution... and WHY do you fear this I ask? Because you don't have control over the actions of others just like they don't have control over the actions, thoughts, and free will of your own.
A topic already covered in this contest. The one concerned with guns and if they should or should not bey banned. I found an interesting article written by someone who while feeling he has his power given to him by the constitution rather than his own mind... still had a couple of interesting paragraphs I'd like to share.
"A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.
Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns......
It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.
If they come for our guns............. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson??s quote. He talks about a —last resort.?? I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights......... Only you can choose to give up your rights."
Funny how he knows this despite thinking he is given these rights rather than inherently the owner of them.
"A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.
Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns......
It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.
If they come for our guns............. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson??s quote. He talks about a —last resort.?? I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights......... Only you can choose to give up your rights."
Funny how he knows this despite thinking he is given these rights rather than inherently the owner of them.
It does seem the guy in my previous post might have been confusing a 'civil right' with a 'human right' which is not the same thing.
1. Human rights are those rights that an individual enjoys because of being human. Civil rights are rights that an individual enjoys by virtue of citizenship.
2. No government body, group or person can deprive human rights to an individual.
3. Civil rights protect the individual from discrimination and unjustifiable action by others, government or any organization.
4. Civil rights is related to the constitution of each country, whereas human rights are considered a universal right.
5. While human rights do not change from one country to another, civil rights differ from one nation to another.
6. Human rights are universally accepted rights regardless of nationality, religion and ethnicity. On the other hand, civil rights fall within the limits of a country??s law, and pertain to the social, cultural, religious and traditional standards, and other aspects.
And in a way makes the debate moot in that the very definition of any human right is that it is inalienable and universal
1. Human rights are those rights that an individual enjoys because of being human. Civil rights are rights that an individual enjoys by virtue of citizenship.
2. No government body, group or person can deprive human rights to an individual.
3. Civil rights protect the individual from discrimination and unjustifiable action by others, government or any organization.
4. Civil rights is related to the constitution of each country, whereas human rights are considered a universal right.
5. While human rights do not change from one country to another, civil rights differ from one nation to another.
6. Human rights are universally accepted rights regardless of nationality, religion and ethnicity. On the other hand, civil rights fall within the limits of a country??s law, and pertain to the social, cultural, religious and traditional standards, and other aspects.
And in a way makes the debate moot in that the very definition of any human right is that it is inalienable and universal
Come on Feby get your ASS UP^
LOL don't wait to respond after I'm in school inducing this big ass gap between when you post to me haha. I don't care if you have the same opinion my VERSION BETTER 😛
PROVE ME WRONG!
BRING THAT AIR GIRL!
LOL don't wait to respond after I'm in school inducing this big ass gap between when you post to me haha. I don't care if you have the same opinion my VERSION BETTER 😛
PROVE ME WRONG!
BRING THAT AIR GIRL!
LOL I was just kidding Feb..🙂
Alright I'll just add some more before class but I guess there will after all be the humungo gap between me and your responses all good.
Alright I'll just add some more before class but I guess there will after all be the humungo gap between me and your responses all good.
On the United Nations website they have a page dedicated specifically to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and before it makes it's defenitive 'declaration' there is a breif preamble about why they have come to the conclusion that "allowing human rights to be violeted has proven over time to only outrage the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."
ONLY THING IS NOT ALL THE RIGHTS THEY DEFINE AS HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NECESSARY TO BE PROTECTED BY LAW BECAUSE NO ONE CAN TAKE THEM AWAY OR GRANT THEM TO ANYONE ELSE....THEY JUST ARE PERIOD.
Then the actual declaration
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/<BR>
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."
ONLY THING IS NOT ALL THE RIGHTS THEY DEFINE AS HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NECESSARY TO BE PROTECTED BY LAW BECAUSE NO ONE CAN TAKE THEM AWAY OR GRANT THEM TO ANYONE ELSE....THEY JUST ARE PERIOD.
Then the actual declaration
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/<BR>
After the declaration there is a list of articles 1-30 listing a right in each one that the UN and or UNFPA grant....
I've listed the ones that I think they either have no power to grant absolutely or at least in part have no power to grant and that these human rights are true human rights that fundamentally no one can ever truly take from you.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Dear United Nations,
Does the human race come across to as so stupid that they cannot realize what they have at birth and what they don't have. I mean just a stupid statement really... fuck you for insulting the world's intelligence.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
The only type of slavery you can be subjecte to is confinement period. No one can make you do anything with out you consenting and submitting to their will... no one can force your servitude. And your mind can never be a slave to anyone without you allowing it to be but even then who allowed to be... you or them?
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Actions cannot be controlled until incarcaration is applied and even then unless you have every appendage restrained there are still actions that are yours to do while confined within a cell
% % Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
I don't know why but this just seems stupid to me... like you can actually tell me where I did and did not come from as if it never happened or something.
I've listed the ones that I think they either have no power to grant absolutely or at least in part have no power to grant and that these human rights are true human rights that fundamentally no one can ever truly take from you.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Dear United Nations,
Does the human race come across to as so stupid that they cannot realize what they have at birth and what they don't have. I mean just a stupid statement really... fuck you for insulting the world's intelligence.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
The only type of slavery you can be subjecte to is confinement period. No one can make you do anything with out you consenting and submitting to their will... no one can force your servitude. And your mind can never be a slave to anyone without you allowing it to be but even then who allowed to be... you or them?
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Actions cannot be controlled until incarcaration is applied and even then unless you have every appendage restrained there are still actions that are yours to do while confined within a cell
% % Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
I don't know why but this just seems stupid to me... like you can actually tell me where I did and did not come from as if it never happened or something.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
I suppose this one is iffy.... but I mean at the same rate these are all actions still and are not controlled until incacaration is applied..until then anyone can act however they please and do whatever they please, until they are subdued.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Obviously (2) does not apply but (1).... c'mon you can't tell me what I own and don't own ^.^ I'll take what I want and wait for you to tell me when I can't alright.... considering you ever figure that much out
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Thanks United Nations I had no Idea I could keep my thoughts from you and everyone else in this world. -_-
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
I suppose this one is iffy.... but I mean at the same rate these are all actions still and are not controlled until incacaration is applied..until then anyone can act however they please and do whatever they please, until they are subdued.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Obviously (2) does not apply but (1).... c'mon you can't tell me what I own and don't own ^.^ I'll take what I want and wait for you to tell me when I can't alright.... considering you ever figure that much out
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Thanks United Nations I had no Idea I could keep my thoughts from you and everyone else in this world. -_-
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The idea that a government could opress you with laws and regulations about what you can and cannot have opinions about is ludicrious. Even if you hypothetically followed there laws as in.... you never at least expressed your opinion, there is no way for them to rob you of that opinion. That opinion is and will always exist and it will always be yours till the day you die. Your opinion is created by your brain that no one but you have control over. Logically speaking, it is your right as a human to have the control of your own brain till you are killed or seriosuly subjected to trauma of the skull that rendors you a vegetable.... but are you even a human anymore at that point? In a vegetable state does anyone actually have intelligent thoughts? I mean technically speaking almost all MD's consider that to be brain dead which is as good as dead. If you have to kill something to have control of it how can you say you ever had control of it? Furthermore any government thinking they can control society to not express their opinions is just retarded.....expressing an opinion is an action that cannot be controlled without incarcarating the entire population which inturn trumps that governments power because, all of their so called 'power' is incarcarated. LOL think about it jeez
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Implies an action which is a human right. How can a government stop every person on the planet from assemblying anyway? That's totally ludricous. No one has that kind of omnipresence
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment
Okay technically I suppose regulation could try to hinder you from entering certain jobs if you belonged to a certain race, beleif, sex, income tax bracket, etc... this could in theory be applied to some degree at least to the 'free choice of employment' portion of that article declaration. However, replace employment with work and what I argue then applies -- No one can stop you from working generally speaking... I suppose this is abstract though. The reason I state this
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The idea that a government could opress you with laws and regulations about what you can and cannot have opinions about is ludicrious. Even if you hypothetically followed there laws as in.... you never at least expressed your opinion, there is no way for them to rob you of that opinion. That opinion is and will always exist and it will always be yours till the day you die. Your opinion is created by your brain that no one but you have control over. Logically speaking, it is your right as a human to have the control of your own brain till you are killed or seriosuly subjected to trauma of the skull that rendors you a vegetable.... but are you even a human anymore at that point? In a vegetable state does anyone actually have intelligent thoughts? I mean technically speaking almost all MD's consider that to be brain dead which is as good as dead. If you have to kill something to have control of it how can you say you ever had control of it? Furthermore any government thinking they can control society to not express their opinions is just retarded.....expressing an opinion is an action that cannot be controlled without incarcarating the entire population which inturn trumps that governments power because, all of their so called 'power' is incarcarated. LOL think about it jeez
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Implies an action which is a human right. How can a government stop every person on the planet from assemblying anyway? That's totally ludricous. No one has that kind of omnipresence
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment
Okay technically I suppose regulation could try to hinder you from entering certain jobs if you belonged to a certain race, beleif, sex, income tax bracket, etc... this could in theory be applied to some degree at least to the 'free choice of employment' portion of that article declaration. However, replace employment with work and what I argue then applies -- No one can stop you from working generally speaking... I suppose this is abstract though. The reason I state this
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
LOL I don't think I need to explain this one if you care to disgree let me know feby
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
I only bold the part of (1) which does 'absolutely' apply to truly being inalienable. I don't mention section (2) becuase it falls under the area of regulations but I mention (3) becuase you can ultimately be teaching your kids w/e you want at home... no government is going to be able to stop you from doing that unless they take you and put you in jail or take your kids away from you. And what they don't know can't and won't hurt them... (well could maybe hurt them depending on what your teaching I suppose).
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
I don't mention section (2). Obviously (1) is stupid ... I don't need you to tell me that man. I will do it... period? It's an action chosen by me that you cannot control unless you successfully detain me and incarcerate me. Outside of that I will interact with the cultural life of my community all I want... and as much as I want thank you very much United Nations.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
LOL I don't think I need to explain this one if you care to disgree let me know feby
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
I only bold the part of (1) which does 'absolutely' apply to truly being inalienable. I don't mention section (2) becuase it falls under the area of regulations but I mention (3) becuase you can ultimately be teaching your kids w/e you want at home... no government is going to be able to stop you from doing that unless they take you and put you in jail or take your kids away from you. And what they don't know can't and won't hurt them... (well could maybe hurt them depending on what your teaching I suppose).
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
I don't mention section (2). Obviously (1) is stupid ... I don't need you to tell me that man. I will do it... period? It's an action chosen by me that you cannot control unless you successfully detain me and incarcerate me. Outside of that I will interact with the cultural life of my community all I want... and as much as I want thank you very much United Nations.
K well feby if you disagree I await your rebuttal I'm off to class pce.
Oh definitely be cutting bitches up to get to my sweeet sweeet brown gold!.. uh coffee
*peeps out* HEY FEBBY!
Does it really exist or is it just another form of control? How do we place what is a human right and would this topic have different results if we were all currently residing in North Korea? Or is it just matters of perception and human rights is basically a form a abuse by those in power and fundamentally dictating how a society should be.
Freedom? Good idea but with freedom comes chaos then comes the shackles of what you can't and can't do which are your rights.
Freedom? Good idea but with freedom comes chaos then comes the shackles of what you can't and can't do which are your rights.
now where's that coffee
Well I guess it's how you define freedom? I consider freedom to mean I can do whatever I want but that in itself can create problems. Is it really freedom when money is an obvious driving force, is it really freedom when we ALL work for someone or work for someTHING?
And totally this is going way off the topic 😄
And totally this is going way off the topic 😄
Well I'll just put it out there if human rights was universal and did exist then we'd all be hippies with nothing to argue about. Which is why it's a matter of perception on what are human rights which is why I'm leaning towards no it doesn't exist. It only exists on the basis on how we has humans ourselves define it.
And what kind of house plants? 😛
And what kind of house plants? 😛
haha I'll borrow some of your plant loving ways 😛 Mine tends to end up looking like this:
Posted by feby16aquaPosted by aquasnoz
Well I'll just put it out there if human rights was universal and did exist then we'd all be hippies with nothing to argue about. Which is why it's a matter of perception on what are human rights which is why I'm leaning towards no it doesn't exist. It only exists on the basis on how we has humans ourselves define it.
And what kind of house plants? 😛
no but stoic saaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiid that lol it was rights that cannot be governed like by a government. That is the distinguishing criteria here. So there is a guideline definition.click to expand
And that's my answer 😉 NO human rights it's all make belief! LIKE MAGIC! except it'll be hard to argue something that doesn't exist much like trying to say unicorns exist you just can't see it!
Posted by feby16aqua
We have the right to our 5 senses: to see, to feel, to hear, to taste and to touch. Some even believe in a 6th sense and even more than just 6 to be exact, proprioception is one of them.
Most of us attain and acquire knowledge due to our 5 senses. It is our way to collect data about our surroundings in order to process it and make decisions. With just any one of them missing we struggle, any loss is a handicap.
Technically if they couldn't be taken away I'd agree but definitely three of them can most certainly be ruined on purpose by tyrant government if they were to detain and choose to do so. The three main ones I'm thinking of that could easily be eviscerated from your body would be:
Sight - All one would have to do is simple gouge them at and presto no sight that you supposedly have an inalienable right to.
taste - Another easy one to get rid of just cut out someone ones tongue not only ripping from their body the source by which the taste but you also take away their ability to speak!
Hearing - This I'm guessing would be a little harder but I'm sure if playing really loud sound at high intensities did not do the job on your eardrum... they could always poke your ear with a nice point object till the dead was done.
Scent - is possibly not easy to get rid of I'm not entirely sure if you care to argue that it never can be.... I'll be glad to look up away that it could ^.^
Honestly, the only sense I think you could honestly say everyone has an inalienable right to would be the sense of touch BUT even then if you wanna get extreme, an oppressive government that likes to torture individuals could intentionally break your neck without killing you so that you essentially loss all feeling below the neck...I would presume that feeling is still present above the neck if you are still alive lol.... SOOOOOO the sense of feeling above the neck I suppose you could get away with being inalienable until death true..THAT BEING THE ONLY ONE THOUGH and only being contingent because if it were taken you would be dead.
Man.... fuck you IPhone... do I really have to re-anlyze ever post before hand DIE APPLE!!
Posted by feby16aqua
Most would say the right to control our own destiny. There is a school of thought that believes this is all preordained and we have no control over our destiny...it's been designed for us already. But by who? For what purpose?
This ties into our right to make choices. Do you go down path A or path B. You choose to participate in this debate, or was it already decided for me??
I'm not sure what your getting at with this...and a few other posts but I'd like to say this. God aside... your destiny in a way is to some degree dependent on your circumstances that you start with. But even that can be trumped and many people have been pillars of success coming from seeminly hopeless situations in life.
I think the best way to say it is... everyone starts of differently BUT after you start everything that happens then after is all on you. Your choices in life are really what determine how far you get ... how much you achieve... how much joy you will gather from being alive in this world. So to a great degree yes your destiny is your choice.
I know a lot of people would like to say other wise but if you look at all the people who have actually been successful in life in some way or another tend to have a strong inner locus of control and believe all their 'achievements they earned' as well as any failures they suffer are for the most part their fault. The reason is because they believe they can effect their outcomes with hard work and determination. Those with a strong outer locus of control tend to think that what happens to them is a 'result of good or bad luck', and are hence less likely to work hard to achieve anything because they feel it could be taken in a heartbeat or that everything in the world could dropped in the lap at the drop of a dime one day. That essentially everything is out of their control or chaotic OR I suppose everything is predetermined and it is their FATE.
Posted by feby16aqua
But there is a problem. As I previously alluded to, our human rights, those that just are, have they been taken away from us completely in one swoop?
If we are specifically referring to human rights that transcend regulation, then what are we without our right to live?
Hmmm NO
Posted by feby16aqua
So what I am getting at is the proclamation that:
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (UN Dec of HR)
and
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
(US Declaration of Independence)
and
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"
(Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
and
The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany holds the principle of human dignity paramount, even above the right to life. (wiki)
and
The Catholic Church has issued a Charter of the Rights of the Family[1] in which it states that the right to life is directly implied by human dignity. (wiki)
They all give us the right to life, to live. If we are not living, we are dead. What exactly are they referring to when they say life? That is questioned. Again without life, we are not living. If A = B, you know how that goes.click to expand
Hey Feb how is the 'right to life' an inalienable right?
Posted by feby16aqua
I stated that these rights exist. And then I named them and their importance.
Yes but your 5 senses are not inalienable Feb.
Also, just like with your senses your life can be easily taken as well. And therefore, certainly seems like something that could be taken away from you because anyone could take it away from you whenever they so choose.... wouldn't even need to be a oppressive government for that one just your run of the mill psychopath.
😉
An inalienable right would be one that can not be taken...
😉
An inalienable right would be one that can not be taken...
I'll refer to my first actual topic related post to this debate
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
First I would like to define the term 'inalienable' as it is used in the definition of human rights and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was created and now upheld by UNFPA(United Nations Population Fund {formerly United Nations Fund for Population Activities}).
Inalienable - (Unable to be taken away) from or given away by the possessor.
I think this is significant as the definition implies that inalienable means you have always had this and it can never be given to you. I point this out because despite the fact this is the definition... the government feels the need to write out documents to insure to you this... almost like as if they are empowering you somehow to have these so called 'alienable rights'.
Posted by feby16aqua
You can only use a document like the UN Declaration of Human Rights to show the rights that ARE and ARE NOT regulated. All of the rights on any government document, you can not accurately term them as human rights if they are already governed.
Let's just get it straight because you are misstating what I have said in my previous posts.
I first and foremost do not consider any written document grants me any of my 'inalienable' rights. I think I took great pains to point that out?
the initial Claim:
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
So with that stated.... going back to the opening statement:
Posted by StoicGoat
Many nations guarantee the right of every person to hold any opinion and to practise any religion an individual might desire. However, this is not true in all nations and in some these civil rights are entirely absent. Given the disparity with which the governments of the world view their citizens' civil rights, are there any human rights that transcend regulation?
I honestly do not think there is a thing anyone can truly do to take away your free will, your ability to independently think outside the bounds of what others tell you, without you willing submitting. No one has power without it being given to them by others. Just because a governing body has influence over a group or sect of people has no bearing on what they can make you do. No one can make you do anything... They can try to confine you or incarcerate you, they can try to break your body, or they can just simply kill you, BUT were they ever able to 'control' you? Was your mind ever compromised?
A human being is not something that comes with a remote controller. Unless a governing body can figure out how to insert electronics to control your brain.... no governing body will ever have absolute control of anyone. period. You think you don't have the right to get up right now and kill as many people as you want until the government finds out who you are and puts you in jail? Why do people think they are powerless.... I really think it has to do with becoming complacent in this quote on quote more civilized world we are all living in. When your government decides to think it can control you... that's when you will find out just how much power you really have.click to expand
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Do we really think this nation was created by a bunch of people who had no 'control', no free will, no inherent inalienable rights that no one can give you.... you just have no matter what the constitution or the UN defines them as? England's government went too far and you know what happened? People just said FUCK YOU I DON'T HAVE TO DO A DAMN THING YOU SAY. Even if England had won the Revolutionary War.... if England truly had control why would the people have subordinated? It's because you will always have the right to choose to follow and submit or to fight back. You only feel powerless because you fear death and persecution... and WHY do you fear this I ask? Because you don't have control over the actions of others just like they don't have control over the actions, thoughts, and free will of your own.
Seems I tried to point out here that true human rights are and never will be regulated by written documents formed by any man... and that only those that could be are the REAL 'Civil Rights' whether they are considered as such or not...
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
It does seem the guy in my previous post might have been confusing a 'civil right' with a 'human right' which is not the same thing.
1. Human rights are those rights that an individual enjoys because of being human. Civil rights are rights that an individual enjoys by virtue of citizenship.
2. No government body, group or person can deprive human rights to an individual.
3. Civil rights protect the individual from discrimination and unjustifiable action by others, government or any organization.
4. Civil rights is related to the constitution of each country, whereas human rights are considered a universal right.
5. While human rights do not change from one country to another, civil rights differ from one nation to another.
6. Human rights are universally accepted rights regardless of nationality, religion and ethnicity. On the other hand, civil rights fall within the limits of a country??s law, and pertain to the social, cultural, religious and traditional standards, and other aspects.
And in a way makes the debate moot in that the very definition of any human right is that it is inalienable and universal
So yeah Feb let's stop the Libel K hun. 🙂
Okay first Feb I want to make sure something is clear....
You do claim that the 'right to life' is a human right that 'transcends' government regulations correct?
You do claim that the 'right to life' is a human right that 'transcends' government regulations correct?
The Document's don't matter.....
Posted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by feby16aqua
We have the right to our 5 senses: to see, to feel, to hear, to taste and to touch. Some even believe in a 6th sense and even more than just 6 to be exact, proprioception is one of them.
Most of us attain and acquire knowledge due to our 5 senses. It is our way to collect data about our surroundings in order to process it and make decisions. With just any one of them missing we struggle, any loss is a handicap.
Technically if they couldn't be taken away I'd agree but definitely three of them can most certainly be ruined on purpose by tyrant government if they were to detain and choose to do so. The three main ones I'm thinking of that could easily be eviscerated from your body would be:
Sight - All one would have to do is simple gouge them at and presto no sight that you supposedly have an inalienable right to.
taste - Another easy one to get rid of just cut out someone ones tongue not only ripping from their body the source by which the taste but you also take away their ability to speak!
Hearing - This I'm guessing would be a little harder but I'm sure if playing really loud sound at high intensities did not do the job on your eardrum... they could always poke your ear with a nice point object till the dead was done.
Scent - is possibly not easy to get rid of I'm not entirely sure if you care to argue that it never can be.... I'll be glad to look up away that it could ^.^
Honestly, the only sense I think you could honestly say everyone has an inalienable right to would be the sense of touch BUT even then if you wanna get extreme, an oppressive government that likes to torture individuals could intentionally break your neck without killing you so that you essentially loss all feeling below the neck...I would presume that feeling is still present above the neck if you are still alive lol.... SOOOOOO the sense of feeling above the neck I suppose you could get away with being inalienable until death true..THAT BEING THE ONLY ONE THOUGH and only being contingent because if it were taken you would be dead.click to expand
Don't you have a right to not have your senses taken from you?
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
Over the past year and a half on this site, I have seen many Aquas state that they don't share their feelings for someon
the males always wrongly assume things about me, or are aloof.... the females are to open,and provocative or damaged an
Aquasnoz, the votes are in and you have been voted out. Remaining players: From specifying the general subject ma
Can anyone tell me..does aqua guys take long to approach someone they like? i am a bit curious. I have known these three
If my SUNS house of love is also my ASC house of losses, what does that mean? i am aquarius sun and cancer rising....
For this debate, the players are divided into two teams comprised of aquasnoz and NotYourAverageAquarius in this corner
Can anyone give me any insite into how forgiving Aquarius' are? I acted inappropriately when out with him and his friend
My aqua ex has a tendency to talk and suddenly after being into the convo for about a minute he suddenly stops replying
Some peeps know my story.. but just a quick recap.. been with gem(aqua moon) for 4 years. We've had a pretty good relati
You guys (we) get the gold medal in patience!!!! Lol!!!
about a week ago i was reading through astrology sign descriptions and i found this one for aquarius. Aquarius Yo
Are aqua males famous for leaving their businesses, relationships hanging in mid air? what i mean by this is do they jus
...and a tragedy to those who feel. Smile, world. The Aquarians are laughing at YOU! Hello everyone, I've been a
Are there any other aquarians that would consider themselves intense here? It just seems the older I get, the more...I d
Hello aquas...:)could you help me understand? im confused i have two good aqua male friends...both are interested in a
i get the number but thats where it allways end ....i thought we where soulmates!!!!!!
Some peeps know my story.. but just a quick recap.. been with gem(aqua moon) for 4 years. We've had a pretty good relati
do people always accuse air signs of hypocrisy or being twofaced? Aquarians get the hypocrite title a lot, Librans ar
Hey everyone. First I want to say I really appreciate all the feedback from the multiple posts I made about how to get m
I might be wrong and I know you guys probably dont like admitting flaws in your character, but every time I notice more
Many nations guarantee the right of every person to hold any opinion and to practise any religion an individual might desire. However, this is not true in all nations and in some these civil rights are entirely absent. Given the disparity with which the governments of the world view their citizens' civil rights, are there any human rights that transcend regulation? That is, what rights do we humans possess without regard to whether the government under which we might live at any particular point in time approves of them or not? If you believe we have no such rights, defend your case. If you believe we do have such rights, identify them and defend why they deserve to be characterised as such.
The 2013 DXP Sole Survivor will be decided by a vote of those players who have been voted off. Although their votes will ideally be based upon which of you best stakes your position, defends it against attack, and logically and empirically supports it, there is no way to enforce this, so all bets are off. If there is a tie, I will cast the deciding vote. This debate will end 47 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds after the time stamp on this post. Comments from the audience are welcome in this thread.
Good luck!