Universal rights?

[monocrat]

Should rights be universal in nature?

Or should rights be subject to the society one lives in?

[Creeper]

A question of "should" has little relevence to the real world anyway. We're not going to change anything.

[monocrat]

Shit, that answers my question...:rolleyes:

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat
Shit, that answers my question...:rolleyes:

What is your question, youve lost me :confused:

[monocrat]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You can read can't you? :p

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You can read can't you? :p

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No need to be so patronising. Not her fault if she can't make sense of your posting style that has led to your new nickname of Monocrap, especially when she actually posts well and responds to questions others put to her... Monocrap. :p

[monocrat]

I'm 'patronising' because my statement was clear.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat
I'm 'patronising' because my statement was clear.

No your question is not clear, so tell me what the hell your asking?

Shit is that too hard for you to do? you knew I didnt understand the question so you decided to try and take the piss :rolleyes:

[monocrat]

:no: :no:

I simply asked if rights should be universal in nature, or whether a person's rights should be dependent on the society in which they live.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by monocrat
Should rights be universal in nature?

Yes they should.

Originally posted by monocrat
Or should rights be subject to the society one lives in? No, they shouldn't.

[monocrat]

Any explanation as to why?

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
:no: :no:

I simply asked if rights should be universal in nature, or whether a person's rights should be dependent on the society in which they live.

:eek: :eek: :eek: Oh my god! Monocrat answered a question!!!:eek: :eek: :eek:

[BeckyBoo]

for fucks sake will someone help me here :lol:

what the fuck does he wanna know :lol:

[monocrat]

I give up. :lol:

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by monocrat
Any explanation as to why?
No. You never give any reasons other than the same tripe about infringing the rights of others, blah blah blah.

Becky - ignore him.

What He would like to know is, do you think that all humans deserve the same rights, or should their rights differ depending on their society?

For example, in our society (the western world) we have the rights to free speech, but in some nations they don't. Is that fair? It could be argued that no of course that is not fair, but some people say we do not have the right to impose our own laws on others.

Take a tribal society. Perhaps their law states that women are pocessions of their men and should do everything they say. However, in our nation we would find that silly. Women have equal rights to men but in their society they don't. Some people would say that the people in those societies have lived by those rules and will continue to and we should not enforce our own ideals of what constitutes a person's rights on another society. Does this make more sense? He wants to know if our "civilised" society is really in any position to impose our morals on others who don't follow ours - can we really decide what "rights" everyone should have, because they may go against what their society sees as "right". Meh, hope this makes more sense?

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat
I give up. :lol:

Ok what rights are we talking about, hell there are millions?

Explain yourself then you might just get replies :rolleyes:

Like are we talking about freedom of speech? freedom to come and go as we please? freedom to break the law?

Come on help me out :lol:

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by BumbleBee
Becky - ignore him.


NO !!!!!!! I like taking the piss outta him :p

and thanks for helping me out :)

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Ok what rights are we talking about, hell there are millions?

Explain yourself then you might just get replies :rolleyes:

Like are we talking about freedom of speech? freedom to come and go as we please? freedom to break the law?

Come on help me out :lol:

Well there is no established right of 'freedom to break the law', as far as I know of.

I was referring to natural or human rights, which are supposed to be universal in application.

The principle opposition to universal rights is that a person's rights should be determined by the society in which they live.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BumbleBee
[B]No. You never give any reasons other than the same tripe about infringing the rights of others, blah blah blah.





Who are you to state what I can believe?

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat
Who are you to state what I can believe?

ah tis ok thats our Simone :)

and she has every right to state her opinion, just like you do. Only she explains herself a little bit better than you do.............just a little bit like :)

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat
Well there is no established right of 'freedom to break the law', as far as I know of.



what about drink driving? you say thats ok unless your caught :confused:

[monocrat]

My opinion isn't fact. :)

Drink driving is wrong because of potential harm caused. I think only ACTUAL harm from drink driving should be prosecuted.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by monocrat
Well there is no established right of 'freedom to break the law', as far as I know of.
But, according to your law there should be. If you had your way, nothing would be illegal unless it infringed the rights of another person.

Also, show me where I told you what to believe. You are making it up as you go along. I seriously doubt your age sometimes. You are like an argumentative five year old - you stamp your feet making the same point over and over again. And nobody cares.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by monocrat
Drink driving is wrong because of potential harm caused. I think only ACTUAL harm from drink driving should be prosecuted.
What about near misses? Say someone loses control of their vehicle and hits a lamp post but only missed the person standing next to it because they jumped out of the way. Is it ok to patch the drink driver up and send them on their merry way.

It is quite obvious that you have never been the victim of anything tragic because your views of the world are so blinkered and so naive. You have very little grasp on reality, and I think you have taken your philosophy and decided that even though in practice no philosophy can work, you will stick to it no matter what.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat
My opinion isn't fact. :)



no its just a fecking joke :lol:

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat

Drink driving is wrong because of potential harm caused.

No Drink Driving is breaking the law :rolleyes:

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BumbleBee

It is quite obvious that you have never been the victim of anything tragic because your views of the world are so blinkered and so naive. You have very little grasp on reality, and I think you have taken your philosophy and decided that even though in practice no philosophy can work, you will stick to it no matter what.

And I get criticised for making unsubstantiated remarks? :lol: :lol:

How do you know for sure that nothing 'tragic' has happened to me?

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BumbleBee
But, according to your law there should be. If you had your way, nothing would be illegal unless it infringed the rights of another person.

Yes. I think victimless crimes should be legal.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by monocrat

I was referring to natural or human rights, which are supposed to be universal in application.

The principle opposition to universal rights is that a person's rights should be determined by the society in which they live. The Code of Human Rights is intended to be universal, and has been written with the intention of covering every conceivable circumstance.

However, it has been ratified by less than half countries that have signed it (and the US has now (http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-headlines/markup/msg00399.html) effectively withdrawn it's signature) so I guess sovereignty counts for more than the notion of one world under the same sky.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by monocrat
How do you know for sure that nothing 'tragic' has happened to me?
You wouldn't be such a nob about things sucj as drink driving, and gun ownership. You come across as a middle class snob who is far too preoccupied with ideas and philosophies than with living life and experiencing real things. You would see quite soon how stupid some of your notions really are.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BumbleBee
You wouldn't be such a nob about things sucj as drink driving, and gun ownership. You come across as a middle class snob who is far too preoccupied with ideas and philosophies than with living life and experiencing real things. You would see quite soon how stupid some of your notions really are.

My notions aren't stupid at all.

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by monocrat
My opinion isn't fact. :)

Drink driving is wrong because of potential harm caused. I think only ACTUAL harm from drink driving should be prosecuted.


Drink driving is illegal to prevent potential harm. What do you suggest we do? Legalise it, watch as the death rate on the roads soars then ban it again?
Idiot.

[monocrat]

No I think that only incidents of drink driving that harm someone should be prosecuted against.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by monocrat
My notions aren't stupid at all.
Yes they are, they are unfeasible in the real world.

[monocrat]

I doubt it.

The only reason people oppose gun ownership is because it scares them.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by monocrat
I doubt it.

The only reason people oppose gun ownership is because it scares them.
What a load of rubbish. They oppose the ownership of guns because there is no logical reason to own a gun. You have said you think ownsership should be legal but you have not proved that there is a purpose for them, except to kill and injure.

[monocrat]

That's is nonsense.

It's an issue of freedom. People should be free to own guns.

The Code of Human Rights is intended to be universal, and has been written with the intention of covering every conceivable circumstance.

Didn't I say it was intended to be universal already?

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by monocrat

Didn't I say it was intended to be universal already? Yes, and I agreed with that part - that human rights are intended to be universal - hence the accenting of 'is'. I then followed up by explaining that they aren't universal because they haven't been ratified by many countries. You need to read the whole message (or at least quote it).

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BumbleBee
What a load of rubbish. They oppose the ownership of guns because there is no logical reason to own a gun. You have said you think ownsership should be legal but you have not proved that there is a purpose for them, except to kill and injure.

I think a person should be able to own anything as long as they don't violate another's rights. This includes gun ownership.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by monocrat
I think a person should be able to own anything as long as they don't violate another's rights. This includes gun ownership.
Yet again you avoid the question. Please answer the question.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
I think a person should be able to own anything as long as they don't violate another's rights. This includes gun ownership.

But you surely own a live gun to use it? Therefore there is a large risk that it will infringe another human beings right to life it is used - hence it should be banned.

[BumbleBee]

So, if we follow your theory, I can do anything I want as long as it doesn't violate your rights, or those of another person?

Which rights are these? Human rights or rights granted by law? Because if you are referring to rights granted by law, then it is my right to live in a society where gun ownership is illegal. If you own one, then you violate my right.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BumbleBee
So, if we follow your theory, I can do anything I want as long as it doesn't violate your rights, or those of another person?

Yes.

Which rights are these? Human rights or rights granted by law? Because if you are referring to rights granted by law, then it is my right to live in a society where gun ownership is illegal. If you own one, then you violate my right.

Non sequitur.

If there is a statute allowing gun ownership, then there is nothing you can do to stop people owning guns.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BumbleBee
Yes they are, they are unfeasible in the real world.

And yours are not?

Tell me how is freedom a negative notion?

How is respecting another's rights a negative notion?

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
But you surely own a live gun to use it? Therefore there is a large risk that it will infringe another human beings right to life it is used

Only if it's used to kill. If not, there is no evident problem in my eyes.
[b]
- hence it should be banned.

Heck should it.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
Only if it's used to kill. If not, there is no evident problem in my eyes.


Heck should it.

The whole point of a gun is to kill someone, if you use a gun against another person it has the effect of injuring/killing them that's the whole point. Therefore by your own admission it infringes the other persons rights and therefore should be banned.

[monocrat]

Well if you use a gun to shoot someone then yes.

I have never said that you should here.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
Well if you use a gun to shoot someone then yes.

I have never said that you should here.

The whole point of a gun is to kill or injure someone - that is what it was designed for. When you fire it a little flag doesn't come out saying "BANG!" on it, what comes out of a gun is a little metal bullet travelling at speeds fast enough to at best cause severe harm to a human or at worst kill them. Therefore it is patently obvious that they should be banned.

[BumbleBee]

:lol:

I can just imagine you now, with your political theory books open.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat
Well if you use a gun to shoot someone then yes.

I have never said that you should here.

Well why the fuck carry a gun????

gawd your a fucking nutter mate !!!!!!!!!

[BumbleBee]

So do you think people should be allowed to just have guns do you? Just up there, hanging on the wall?


To be honest, I see nothing wrong with people owning a gun.... as long as they don't have any bullets to put into it. Like Chris Rock once said, make bullets $5000 and there will be far less gun crime.

[BeckyBoo]

Guns should only be allowed if the people are members of a gun club, members of the public should not be allowed to access to guns.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Guns should only be allowed if the people are members of a gun club ... and leave their guns at the club when they've finished their shooting.

[Man Of Kent]

monocrat, who should decide what our "universal rights" should be? Remember that the UN Charter covers most of this already.

Who should enforce that they are maintained because the UN clearly doesn't?

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BumbleBee
So do you think people should be allowed to just have guns do you? Just up there, hanging on the wall?

Yes.

[b]
To be honest, I see nothing wrong with people owning a gun.... as long as they don't have any bullets to put into it. Like Chris Rock once said, make bullets $5000 and there will be far less gun crime.

That makes no sense. You need bullets in order to use a gun.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BumbleBee
:lol:

I can just imagine you now, with your political theory books open.

Actually my view on gun ownership is based on my 'political theory'.

I NEVER follow what society has to say.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
... and leave their guns at the club when they've finished their shooting.

Heck no.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Guns should only be allowed if the people are members of a gun club, members of the public should not be allowed to access to guns.

I believe they should.

[Aladdin]

Heck yes.

Originally posted by Bumblebee
To be honest, I see nothing wrong with people owning a gun.... as long as they don't have any bullets to put into it. Like Chris Rock once said, make bullets $5000 and there will be far less gun crime.

Monocrat's response:
That makes no sense. You need bullets in order to use a gun.

And those bullets will pierce someone's body and kill them. But that is something that seems to have flown other your head.

You make me laugh monocrat you really do.

[monocrat]

You people have even said guns can be used at gun clubs.

Tell me when have I even stated that guns should be used to kill others?

[Aladdin]

No but what you keep avoiding- because it utterly demolishes your argument- is that the only use for guns is to kill people. And since killing people is illegal then there is no point or issue about "the right" to own a gun.

The same pretty much applies to the principle of owning a nuclear weapon (which incredibly you also argue for). The notion that "it's okay to own it if you're not going to use it" it's completely ridiculous and invalid, and you know it.

[monocrat]

I 'avoid' it because the killing others is not the only use of a gun.

[Aladdin]

Yes it is. Unless you are referring to hunting rifles or those used for clay pigeon shooting.

You will find that handguns and revolvers are not designed for either hunting or clay pigeon shooting. They are solely designed for killing other human beings.

[monocrat]

Double post

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Yes it is. Unless you are referring to hunting rifles or those used for clay pigeon shooting.


I'm referring to all guns.

You will find that handguns and revolvers are not designed for either hunting or clay pigeon shooting. They are solely designed for killing other human beings.


So?

[Aladdin]

So that's why it's illegal to own them, and that is also why you don't have a "right" to own them.

No matter how many times you ask the question or from which angle you want to look at it, the answer will always be the same.

Perhaps you can buy a desert island and create your own country, and there you will be allowed to carry guns. Not here mate, and rightly so. Give the issue a rest.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
So that's why it's illegal to own them, and that is also why you don't have a "right" to own them.


I think people should have a right to own them as banning them impedes individual freedom.

No matter how many times you ask the question or from which angle you want to look at it, the answer will always be the same.

Perhaps you can buy a desert island and create your own country, and there you will be allowed to carry guns. Not here mate, and rightly so. Give the issue a rest. [/B]

Never.