Sure, that works in a pure intra-society context. But our esteemed OP is discussing “basic human rights” that exist of their own accord in a context-less void that crosses all temporal and societal boundaries. “Morality” (er, I mean “robotic chocolate”) in that context is completely meaningless.
Dude - read my post #103:
You are agreeing with exactly the same position I have been arguing since well before you even showed up in the thread. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE OP. There is no reason to attack me as though I do. It would be nice if you read the thread before you came in swinging.
(Can anyone recall a thread that devolved into personal attacks so completely? How very un-Dope!)
Sure it is. If we (mostly) agree on some simple core no-nos, then enforcing them through some kind of (mostly) agreed-upon method, who cares what we call it? It’s the next level of “government”: worldwide.
And in response to any and all continued assertions about how hard it is for people to agree: DUH. That’s why I think we should keep it SIMPLE. Is anyone going to argue that any cohesive 25% of the planet is going to disagree with the idea that freedom from grievous bodily harm and enslavement is the most basic things that any innocent human being can hope to call a right? If not that, then what?
If it really is hopeless to think we can get some kind of (majority) agreement on the topic of extreme bodily violence and enslavement… then the whole subject should be dropped by everyone everywhere. But it isn’t. The topic is very much alive. But nothing comes of it. I’m saying is that if the idea of human rights is stripped to the bare essentials, it might have a chance of taking hold.
But if we try to venture into freedom of speech, religion, parenting, economics, education… THAT is pointless white noise that means nothing and goes nowhere.
Oh dear…bad form. Very bad form.
You made the assertion. Pit or no, it’s on you to back it up or withdraw it. And remember I’m no fan.
(If you were wrong you’d look better admitting it than becoming abusive and dismissive of Paul. People make mistakes, no big. )
I think you are doing a bit of padding, expanding, and assuming.
My OP was a rant. I’ve since clarified what I mean, and I haven’t said that basic human rights exist of their own accord. I’ve said that most people feel pretty similarly about some very basic things (do I have to repeat them again: KILLING TORTURE MAIMING RAPING AND ENSLAVEMENT).
Not everyone, obviously. But most, to some degree if not completely. Therefore it seems possible and worthwhile to declare and enforce the protection of that minimal standard for everyone.
And I even allowed for different societies’ willingness to punish with death, maiming, etc - it’s just limited to punishment for those who violate those rules. No cutting off hands for stealing, that’s a violation of the Planetary Laws to Protect All Human Beings. Someone steals, you can make them miserable in other ways. Someone kills, you can kill them if you must. Someone tortures and maims…well, I don’t approve, but you can torture and maim them right back.
Super simple. Very minimal standard. And no claims that these rights “just exist”.
There are no “basic human rights”. The reason being, an effective organisation for their guarantee has not been created yet. But there are basic human needs, and anyone depriving another of any of these without justifiable cause, should be made accountable. That is the situation we are working towards.
Why, if there are no rights?
Because we are by nature social animals and we are innately concerned, to one degree or another, with our fellow beings. And that concern stems in part from our understanding of the fact that if we don’t protect them, they won’t protect us.
Is that down to the moral-free primate level enough for you?
It was a joke, actually. I don’t really think of Paul as a servant or a loser, well ok, I do think he’s a loser.
I don’t remember his exact words, it was when he was back in the US for a while. He lamented about his disapproval of how the women here dressed. I did a quick search but couldn’t find it.
Okay - 25% of the world needs to agree. Let’s say, oh, most of North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Great! Now, what are you going to do about the places that won’t agree - the Afganistans on the world? How will we compel them to go along with this idea? It’s all fine and well to say that there are rules, but what are you planning to do when they violate your ‘Planetary Laws to Protect All Human Beings’? How can we punish people who live under a government that condones their actions? We are already bombing them to smithereens, so I’m not sure how else we should make them suffer.
And, even ignoring the Middle East and it’s issues, what about the people here at home who disagree with you? What about people who’s religion tells them that abortion is murder (I am not one of them, BTW, just playing devils advocate) - what happens when they want the murder rule invoked to kill abortionists, who in their eyes are killers themselves? Where does the death penalty fit into this - many people feel that that is wrong, even as a punishment for murder, but under your rules it’s a-okay. What about people who want to take your system one step farther and say no vengeance-type punishments (death, torture, etc.)?
Don’t you see how even your ‘simple’ system is fraught with flaws?
Everything is taking longer than we fucking thought. 
CMC fnord!
Guess we know which book the fourteen-year old Hillel read … the one that involves orcs. 
I know, that crazy stoid and her wacky ideas! What silly crap will she come up with next?
It’s still WAY simpler than what it would replace, which is the UN’s idea of human rights, as follows. I have highlighted some things the general assembly of the UN wants to impose on all the people of the world that I wouldn’t dream of even though I agree with them, simply because it’s getting too detailed and complex to ever be workable as a worldwide standard.
Yeah, I’m living in a wacky dream world filled with meaningless white pages of nothingness… a blur of noise…
I say again: MY idea of what constitutes human rights is something we could PROBABLY get sufficient agreement on to MEAN something.
The UN is masturbating. For a good cause, yes, but it’s still masturbating.
Stoid, you are also masturbating. You’ve sprayed smegma and lube all over this thread. At least the UN has actual troops. Your idea is just some vague notion that people should make citizen’s arrests or something when someone violates your “simple rules.”
And about those simple rules–they ain’t so simple. I think that most people would agree that maiming and torturing and killing are only bad when those actions are not justified. Justification is in the eye of the beer holder, thus rendering your simple rules fraught with complications.
People should read before they speak, it’s really helpful at preventing waste. As you can see, the very post which introduced my idea addressed both of your concerns directly and specifically. Almost like I could see it coming… downright amazing.
How about you address the rest of my post and not just the last sentence?
And BTW, I don’t think your ideas are wrong per se, I just think they are utterly unworkable. There is a difference.
I have addressed them. I’m not going to keep saying the same thing different ways. Read what I’ve said.
My point is and remains: my idea of human rights stands a better chance of adoption than the one that actually exists and is being promoted. Take those 30 articles and strip away 25 of em, and you’d stand a much better shot of selling it to the whole world than the West-centric excess the UN has come up with.
You haven’t addressed them, and I have read what you’ve said. Not once have you said what you propose as punishment for countries that will not agree to this pact - surely a law is only as good if there are consequences for breaking it. Anyways, you are clearly not interested in debating the logistics of the idea.
So, how about this - if your idea is so simple and so obvious, why do you think it is that the UN has not tried such a thing? They’ve been around since 1945, and they have yet to stop all these atrocities you claim are simple to solve. This is an organization peopled by proffesionals from around the world, educated in International Relations. What do you know that they don’t?
Denying them a place at the dining table the world eats from would be a start. And I don’t mean blockades on the country involved, I mean specific targeting of all a country’s shakers and movers, intended to cramp their lifestyles considerably.
I simply never said any such thing. You are lying.