Yes, but we all know that’s not going to happen. It’s easy to say you don’t think people should be killed, tortured, or enslaved. It’s another thing to actually do something about it.
And you know the saying, “Shit flows downhill”? If you do specifically target a country’s movers and shakers, they’re going to pass that suffering down to the average person in the country anyway.
Yes, I know the saying. It’s not exactly a statement of fact, is it?
“moral police” is about as accurate as calling the Soviet Union the “capitalist pep squad”. Except Stalin wasn’t quite as evil.
So sick fucks arrest 13 year old girl for being alone with a boy as “chaste crimes” then abuse her in prison. What the hell was she supposed to do with no family support? Was the prison abuse “chaste”? Given the kind of pedophilic trash they have working for them I’m going with no.
So sick fucks rape a 13 year old girl with little consequence. But they have oil.
Yea bitch had it coming, that sexy 13 year old ass and all. Also apparently it’s perfectly okay to marry and fuck 9 year olds.
As a man I find that last part offensive as all hell. They’re basically saying us guys are out of control pedophile rapists, every one of us.
Yes clearly we don’t have a natural right to free speech. Here we have a person, after her short and brutal time on earth choosing to sacrifice any last possible hope of life for one last act of protest against her injustice. This woman is a hero.
If free speech, fair and equal treatment under the law, and freedom from cruel punishments are not innate to the very things that define our species. Then why did this martyr sacrifice all hope of life when denied them?
Give me liberty or give me death is a phrase we Americans have had drilled into us from a young age to the point of meaninglessness, but the sentiment isn’t American. It’s a reflection on humanity. She made her choice. Taking sure death for just a moment of liberty. What would you choose?
That sums it up right there, thank you.
I don’t think she traded life for a moment of liberty, I think she fought back (in the only way she knew how) when attacked or provoked, which is a natural instinct for pretty much all animals.
Don’t get me wrong - what happened to this girl is clearly abhorrent and offensive to most humans currently living on Earth. But, I still don’t think it’s proof of the innate nature of human rights. And despite us, and most likely the UN, thinking this shouldn’t happen, I still don’t see a workable way of making sure this doesn’t happen.
Np
So you don’t think she knew taking that veil off was assured death? Let’s work from the premise she’s not an idiot, and assume she did. Therefor we know she tried her life just to take that veil off. She didn’t take that veil off because it was hot or to try to use it as a weapon. she took it off in anger and frustration at being tried for being a rape victim. If that isn’t making a statement about her injustice I don’t know what is.
She might not have even been aware of the concept of natural rights, but she gave her life just to use one. To just to tell those bastards who persecuted her for the crime of being born female off.
Rosa Parks later said she was just tired after a day of work and didn’t want to give up her seat. Does that make her actions any less of a stand for civil rights?
You just don’t get it. You’re too busy trying dehmanize people to nothing but animals. The Constitution proclaims a right of Free Speech, but it can’t enforce that right, only serve as a tool to measure if that right has been infringed. If someone chooses death just to make a statement that is another measure.
I think you are arguing against yourself. Apart from a few casual words here and there, I haven’t noticed anyone fighting for the idea that there are inherent and innate rights. Such an idea would really only be workable in the context of a deity, I think.
What I have argued is that certain fundamentals should be considered basic human rights and protected as such.
Because I agree… no rights are innate, just as there is no such thing as innate value to human or any other kind of life.
PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS. We are not immune to the instinctive responses that they have. Reading that report as written it seems that she responded that way when she believed she was going to be killed regardless of what she said. It was a reaction of anger - lashing out in the face of extreme threat. This sounds like an instinctive animal reaction to me.
Really? You don’t think that these people believe rights to be innate?:
Anyways, I see that you agree that human rights are not innate. You and I and I’m sure everyone else reading this agrees that that teenage girl was treated terribly and certainly does not deserve death. But the fact remains that that is what will happen to her under the laws of her country. If you were, say, the president of the United States (or some other position of power), what would you propose doing about this? I’m interesting in how you would actually stop this from happening.
I still would like to hear the answer to this:
Sanctions, kidnapping, war… whatever it takes.
It would be far easier if more people would agree. More people would agree if the list of things that would trigger sanctions, war, kidnapping, whatever it takes, were way shorter. The longer and more conplex, the more people fall away. Start small: torture, rape, murder.
and by the way, when I said “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.” how do you arrive at the idea that I’m declaring that RIGHTS are innate? I was explaining why people feel that way, by identifying what it genuinely true of us that leads to that idea in the first place.
I just read the “Execution of a teenage girl” article and if someone pointed it out, I missed it, so I will-
Shariah Law’s age of consent for sex & marriage- Nine year old.
And anyone who knows the history of Islam knows why. The Prophet & his law actually institutes pedophilia. At least the pedophile priests & their accomplice bishops who cover for them are acting in violation of Catholic teachings.
To Hell with respecting that! And kudos to any Muslim who breaks with that despicable tradition!
This line has been attributed to various members of the Nazi hierarchy.
According to the wiki Hanns Johst - Wikipedia , it’s adapted from a line in a 1933 play by the Nazi playwright, Hanns Johst.
For a long while, I more or less agreed.
When I look around the world, from my admittedly limited perspective, I see a world driven insane by religion-fired culture. I still can’t shake the idea that if one were to selectively assassinate all religious leaders who do not actively preach global human rights and an end to violence, things would change PDQ.
But then, I’m a pacifist and I don’t need religion to tell me.
Hitler, not religious, European.
Stalin, not religious, European.
Mao, not religious, Asian.
Yes, religious people in less-developed countries are in need of assassination.
And, of course, none is with us today and all have been repudiated. The “free market” is the dominant religion in “developed” countries today and it is no more observant of human rights and is every bit as violent as any other and certain politicians are its priests.
I can think of a few in this country we’d be better off without.
How unchristian of you.
I can see how you might think that.
You aren’t protesting your treatment if it’s out of anger? Are you fucking stupid or trolling? Did you type that post out of soulless instinct?
I ask you again, was Rosa Park’s stand any less meaningful because she just didn’t want to get up after a hard day’s work?
If you’re trolling, well played.
If not I ask you this. Do you believe what happened to this girl was wrong? Do you believe there are no circumstance that would morally justify her being executed for being raped by a pedophile regardless of what the law says?
If so congratulations on your recognition in your belief of inalienable rights, you believe she had an inalienable moral entitlement not to be raped then murdered that was violated.
The only way your arguments make sense is if you’re fighting some kind of straw man that a right isn’t a right if it can be unjustly violated. Which just isn’t the case. Even civil rights are violated, they might be redressed, but that doesn’t stop them from being violated in the first place. For example you have a civil right not to receive an arbitrary beating, but if a cop gives you one during arrest, the judges rebuke and legal attempts to make you whole won’t undo your actual beating.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/right[2]
I see nothing about it only being valid if it’s not violated. Do you have a cite that a right is only valid if it isn’t violated?
Good so you do agree. Congratulations. Your own posts show your agreement of natural rights.
Irrelevant, and a hijack. Solutions may not be easy, but recognizing it is a violation of human rights is a damn bit better as a first step then blubbering about ducks.
Also, adhay bullets in brains is the wrong way to go about it for so many reasons. Be more like FriarTed, he’s got the right idea.
Honestly, no, I don’t think a reaction made in anger is the same thing as a protest. If you hit a guy in a bar because he’s hitting on your girlfriend, is that at protest? Yes, protesters are usually angry, but I think protest implies more forethought, your meanderings about Rosa Parks notwithstanding.
Are you unable to read? Or do you just not bother? I said:
Never anywhere in this thread have I suggested that I personally am down with things like this happening in the world. In fact, if you read what I have written, I think it’s pretty clear that I find it appalling. I have not defended the rapists and murderers of the world. Rather, the people I’ve disagreed with are those that have said things like “natural rights are the product of our very existence, eternal and inalienable”, and people who have acted like outlawing these acts would be simplicity itself.
Again, I don’t think anyone in the thread has claimed that these girls were not violated in our view. The problem is that the concept of rights violation is a product of our culture (that was the point of the ducks part, which obviously went over your head). The question of how to address international issues that are not considered crimes in their own country is hardly irrelevant. In fact, right in the OP it says:
In other words, the OP BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF PUNISHMENT, therefore I don’t think it’s outside the scope of this thread to ask how these human rights are to be upheld (assuming she wasn’t serious about the bombing to oblivion). Without discussing practicalities it’s just all so much first-year sociology naval-gazing. If you want to naval-gaze, be my guest, but don’t blame the realists for ruining your ‘deep philosophical discussion’ with reality.
As Captain Amazing said, way back on page 2:
And there you were, a few posts later, calling him stupid too. It’s still a reasonable question - who decides what rights exist? What makes these rights ‘real’ and ‘natural’ when obviously there are parts of the world where they are *not *rights? What are we going to do about it?
If you’ll check my first post here,
I was speaking in the past tense.
These days, I’m a bit more charitable, christian, if you will, having given up on Christianity and its “just wars” and its sanction of institutionalized greed.