Human Rights

[FoolKiller]

I disagree with this, not respecting others reduces your authority (= the respect others will have for you). If you only care about yourself, I will be unlikely to take into account your opinion on rights.
Respect should be seen in respect of rights, the rights of others, not admiration, etc...

Respect is an earned privilege. It is hinted to in your own comment regarding authority. If respect were a right then I must respect racists on some level or have some moral, legal, or civil consequence. But if my lack of respect of a racist means they won't respect me then I feel no loss.

If you can't respect my opinion on rights, and thus violate my rights according to your own definition, because I don't believe respect is a given thing that is fine. But respect in rights outside of natural/human rights can't be a right, as this very discussion shows no one agrees on what is or should be a right. If someone thinks having some of my money,because I earn more, is their right I can't respect that because of my view on property rights.

The discussion goes quickly to the authority of a state and should it be about more then Natural rights?

But the things you list do not violate free speech rights. They are civil and/or legal agreements or laws that are designed to defend property rights of the first party from violation by the second party. Claiming the AUP violates free speech is like saying you not allowing me to dance naked in your living room violates my right to the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

"Natural" rights and "human" rights are the same thing as far as I'm concerned. THey're human because they only apply to humans, and they're natural because of their logical existence. Both names describe the same principle.

because they only apply to humans: where does this come from, I have not found a way to convince myself of this, it is pure subjective as far as I have seen. The definition of "Human" is pure subjective, that is why it can be abused by a racist or if you are in favor of slavery.

Respect is an earned privilege. It is hinted to in your own comment regarding authority.

Sorry I missed the point of Crystal xxx, that respect is a right.
The right to be respected, would logically imply that I have to respect you, it would be your right. Seeing respect as a "respecting your rights" I actually would support this, however ...

If respect were a right then I must respect racists on some level or have some moral, legal, or civil consequence. But if my lack of respect of a racist means they won't respect me then I feel no loss.

I believe here we see respect as "hold value about your opinion" and in that context I completely agree it is no right, everyone can disrespect my opinion without me having any right to use force to change their mind about that. If I have a right I should be able to justify force/ impose restrictions to make certain I can exercise my right.

If you can't respect my opinion on rights, and thus violate my rights according to your own definition, because I don't believe respect is a given thing that is fine. But respect in rights outside of natural/human rights can't be a right, as this very discussion shows no one agrees on what is or should be a right.

It seems we discuss on the expression of rights. The actual theory on Natural Rights states we know rights (everyone the same), but it does not say we all agree with the way others express those rights. I'm still reading Kant on this subject and I'm at a part where Kant states that we fool ourselves in putting in doubt rights we known in order to be able to realise our desires.

However in my conflict theory I recognise we do not respect the rights of all, since the rights will come in conflict and thus we have to choose the right of the one or the right of the other is restricted to live in harmony. I came to the next example Person A has the right to hunt, Person B has the right to walk, they are in the same wood. The right to hunt of Person A might be restricted in the way that they can not put the life of the walkers in danger (the right to live goes above the right to hunt, but that is a judgement, not a right). The right to walk safely might be restricted, since it is indicated that hunting is ongoing in a part of the wood.

But the things you list do not violate free speech rights. They are civil and/or legal agreements or laws that are designed to defend property rights of the first party from violation by the second party. Claiming the AUP violates free speech is like saying you not allowing me to dance naked in your living room violates my right to the pursuit of happiness.

I understand the point you make above and it illustrates conflict (free speach vs property). One issue is that till now I also recognise only one property right, you own your own body. I started a thread on wealth to clarify this (work in progress).

The AUP is restricting like this: On GTPlanet you follow GTPlanet rules.
It does not restrict you somewhere else. The point on property is where is there ground that does not have ridiculous restrictions? Who decided to install property and ridiculous restrictions everywhere and on which basis?

My right to the pursuit of happiness: in my formulation "you are free to act without infringing the rights of innocent others", the pursuit of happiness does not need to be mentioned, you can act in whatever direction you want.

Feel free to go where you want and dance or dress the way you want, but let me enjoy the fruit of my wealth creation.

 

[Crystal xxx]

How is the AUP a violation of freedom of speech though? If you go to someone else's house and don't respect their rules, they will deny... Same here. If people dont like the rules here, then they're free to go somewhere else. Tbh it's common sense, andIMO there's not much to discuss regarding this.

Rules are there for society - if they're not obeyed there are consequences. The main one is respect everywhere. People do not like disrespectful people and may therefore deny some things.

 

[Keef]

The Constitution lays out a set of rules defining the operation of government, not of private enterprise. That fact also proves that anti-discrimination laws are in violation of the Constitution because the government was not allowed to make those rules via the restrictions in the Constitution. The natural right to property dictates that the property owner also must have the right to discriminate amongst who uses that property, what they can say on that property, etc, as long as it isn't illegal (with respect to laws based on the protection of life, liberty, and property, not on some arbitrary and unconstitutional ruling such as anti-discrimination laws).

 

[Vince_Fiero]

What I keep missing with people that protect property is where is the place that is no property where you could exercise your freedom of speech? The only time you can do this is when you are alone. In the street, in a park, etc... you always have to bend to the rules of society ...

It is the basis of freedom, to be able to enjoy rights, you need to respect some rules of the others. The issue is that people go to far with the rules, laws and constitution are no exception on this.

Property is not logical. The first man on earth owned everything, the second since he was equivalent as well, etc... every baby owns everything on earth. I hate to say it, but I'm becoming more and more a convinced communist. Although those systems have not proposed a convincing solution so that you can protect your wealth creation, a fundamental right according to me.

 

[Keef]

What I keep missing with people that protect property is where is the place that is no property where you could exercise your freedom of speech?

Public or government property, or private property owned by individuals who allow people to speak freely on their property.

You should keep in mind that most reasonable business owners will not limit visitors' rights unreasonably because if they do then the visitors won't buy their stuff. This is a slightly different strategy than you'd find in that person's home, a place not meant to be profitable, but a private sanctuary instead. Two different purposes behind the property, two different strategies for respecting visitors' rights.

 

[Encyclopedia]

"Natural" rights and "human" rights are the same thing as far as I'm concerned. THey're human because they only apply to humans, and they're natural because of their logical existence. Both names describe the same principle.

Could you expand a bit on the bolded part please? Why does it only apply to humans?

Why do we have "natural" rights, while other beings do not?

 

[Keef]

Humans are the only species on earth that has demonstrated an ability to understand the concepts of life, liberty, and property.

 

[Crystal xxx]

Who said that discrimination is considered freedom of speech?

Btw, I suppose this is the most important case going on here in the UK though...

 

[Encyclopedia]

Humans are the only species on earth that has demonstrated an ability to understand the concepts of life, liberty, and property.

Are those the requirments for rights of any kind or just human rights? Does a being that is not able to understand those concepts have any form of rights at all?

 

[Danoff]

Are those the requirments for rights of any kind or just human rights?

Any kind.

Does a being that is not able to understand those concepts have any form of rights at all?

Reciprocity is required. A being must observe the rights of others to have rights. For example, if dogs can understand the concept of pain and suffering and will generally not engage in torture - torturing dogs is a violation of their rights.

Dogs do not possess the ability to recognize a right to life, and so killing a dog is not a violation of the dogs rights (might be a violation of owner's property rights though).

This is the same model we apply to criminals. When you demonstrate an inability to recognize the rights of your neighbor (by stealing their property or killing them), we take away your rights by putting you in jail or executing you.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Reciprocity is required. A being must observe the rights of others to have rights. For example, if dogs can understand the concept of pain and suffering and will generally not engage in torture - torturing dogs is a violation of their rights.

Dogs do not possess the ability to recognize a right to life, and so killing a dog is not a violation of the dogs rights (might be a violation of owner's property rights though).

This is the same model we apply to criminals. When you demonstrate an inability to recognize the rights of your neighbor (by stealing their property or killing them), we take away your rights by putting you in jail or executing you.

So killing a dog is always right provided that the owner is ok with it? I'm not sure I agree on that. Doesn't seem one bit right to me.

And so it would be technically right to kill a mentally handicaped person, if they had the inability to understand right to life?

 

[Keef]

So killing a dog is always right provided that the owner is ok with it?

Killing a dog isn't always right, but it's not necessarily wrong. It's like the difference between being innocent and being "not guilty".

 

[Encyclopedia]

Killing a dog isn't always right, but it's not necessarily wrong. It's like the difference between being innocent and being "not guilty".

Could you give me examples?

It's one thing to kill an animal in self defence or for food, but a very different thing to kill it just for the heck of it wouldn't you agree. I struggle to find a reason why the latter could be considered right.

 

[FoolKiller]

Could you give me examples?

It's one thing to kill an animal in self defence or for food, but a very different thing to kill it just for the heck of it wouldn't you agree. I struggle to find a reason why the latter could be considered right.

Why don't we hold animals accountable for killing animals for the heck of it? If we did my cat would be way ahead of the Manson Family.

 

[Danoff]

So killing a dog is always right provided that the owner is ok with it? I'm not sure I agree on that. Doesn't seem one bit right to me.

We do that all the time. You must have no idea how many dogs are put down in shelters. I suppose the veterinarians that euthanize dogs are mass murderers?

And so it would be technically right to kill a mentally handicaped person, if they had the inability to understand right to life?

Terri Schiavo

 

[Encyclopedia]

Why don't we hold animals accountable for killing animals for the heck of it? If we did my cat would be way ahead of the Manson Family.

But animals are not capable of reasoning about it like we are. They tend to follow instinct more or less blindly. And I don't any animal kills for the sake of killing.

They can not be held accountable for it. We however can, since we've got the capability of reasoning.

We do that all the time. You must have no idea how many dogs are put down in shelters. I suppose the veterinarians that euthanize dogs are mass murderers?

I'm well aware of that.. But just because it's quite a common practise doesn't mean it's right. It just shows how unsuitable some people are to own pets. Yes I know not all animals in shelters are there because of neglecting owners, but a fair amount are.

What we do all the time does not automatically equal right.

As for Terri Schiavo, I'm not sure you could compare vegetative state with all types mentall handicaps.

 

[FoolKiller]

But animals are not capable of reasoning about it like we are. They tend to follow instinct more or less blindly. And I don't any animal kills for the sake of killing.

They can not be held accountable for it. We however can, since we've got the capability of reasoning.

So you want to respect rights that they themselves cannot respect or even recognize? We don't give humans that treatment. And at what point do you draw the line? I can't let my kids live outside in a cage, but I can let my dog live outside in a fenced in yard.

I'm well aware of that.. But just because it's quite a common practise doesn't mean it's right. It just shows how unsuitable some people are to own pets. Yes I know not all animals in shelters are there because of neglecting owners, but a fair amount are.

Most domesticated pet species are overpopulated as is. Euthanizing is arguably more humane than that many more roaming around starving and disease-infested. I recognize that spay/neuter can be better, but then we get back to rights issues. Forced sterilization could be considered mutilation when done to humans.

 

[Encyclopedia]

So you want to respect rights that they themselves cannot respect or even recognize? We don't give humans that treatment. And at what point do you draw the line? I can't let my kids live outside in a cage, but I can let my dog live outside in a fenced in yard.

Yes. You could say that. If an animal attacks you defend yourself. The same goes for a person attacking you. Neither should be punished for their lack of understanding of those concepts alone.

Most domesticated pet species are overpopulated as is. Euthanizing is arguably more humane than that many more roaming around starving and disease-infested. I recognize that spay/neuter can be better, but then we get back to rights issues. Forced sterilization could be considered mutilation when done to humans.

In a way I agree. The option is probably worse. So it's the lesser of two evils.
But it's not quite the same as killing for the sake of killing. Buying a dog just to shoot it for fun cannot be right.

 

[Danoff]

Yes. You could say that. If an animal attacks you defend yourself. The same goes for a person attacking you. Neither should be punished for their lack of understanding of those concepts alone.

With people we offer the benefit of the doubt. We wait until they demonstrate that they cannot understand the concepts, then we lock them up... even if they are not successful at violating the rights of others - attempting to do so absolves you of your rights.

With animals we offer no benefit of the doubt. They are assumed to be incapable of observing the rights of others.

We make these assumptions based on science.

In a way I agree. But it wouldn't be so if it weren't for us in the first place. We are the root of the problem, so why should they suffer?

You're completely missing the point. Euthanizing a dog is not murder not because it's the dogs fault for getting into a situation where it needs to be euthanized, but because the dog does not have a right to life.

Why does the dog not have a right to life? Because it (scientifically) cannot observe the right to life.

Also it's not quite the same as killing for the sake of killing. Buying a dog just to shoot it for fun cannot be right.

Torture. Which dogs do not necessarily engage in.

 

[Encyclopedia]

With people we offer the benefit of the doubt. We wait until they demonstrate that they cannot understand the concepts, then we lock them up... even if they are not successful at violating the rights of others - attempting to do so absolves you of your rights.

With animals we offer no benefit of the doubt. They are assumed to be incapable of observing the rights of others.

We make these assumptions based on science.

What i'm trying to say is, although an animal is uncapable of understanding, it doesn't mean they will "act it out" if you get what i mean. Just as a person.

Example:
A person who is incapable of viewing other human beings as human beings, aren't necessarily going to perform a crime against another person even if the person doesn't recognize the rights of others. So you couldn't say it's right to kill that person simply based on that.

You're completely missing the point. Euthanizing a dog is not murder not because it's the dogs fault for getting into a situation where it needs to be euthanized, but because the dog does not have a right to life.

Why does the dog not have a right to life? Because it (scientifically) cannot observe the right to life.

That's where my problem lies. I guess I base my views on rights on different things.

Torture. Which dogs do not necessarily engage in.

No not torture if it dies instantly.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes. You could say that. If an animal attacks you defend yourself. The same goes for a person attacking you. Neither should be punished for their lack of understanding of those concepts alone.

So we should remove all age-based restrictions on humans?

In a way I agree. The option is probably worse. So it's the lesser of two evils.
But it's not quite the same as killing for the sake of killing. Buying a dog just to shoot it for fun cannot be right.

I often engage in catch & release fishing. What does that make me?

And ever swat a fly just because it is being annoying?

 

[Danoff]

What i'm trying to say is, although an animal is uncapable of understanding, it doesn't mean they will "act it out" if you get what i mean. Just as a person.

Comprehension and observation are slightly different things I suppose.

Example:
A person who is incapable of viewing other human beings as human beings, aren't necessarily going to perform a crime against another person even if the person doesn't recognize the rights of others. So you couldn't say it's right to kill that person simply based on that.

We give people the benefit of the doubt. We wait until they demonstrate an inability to observe the rights of others before we lock them up or execute them. If you can manage to avoid violating the rights of others, that's all that matters.

That's where my problem lies. I guess I base my views on rights on different things.

....and what would that be?

No not torture if it dies instantly.

Killing an unowned (or your) dog instantly is not a rights violation and should not be illegal. People do it all the time (not just veterinarians). It may not always be the most pleasant choice (old yeller?), but it's not a rights violation.

 

[Encyclopedia]

So we should remove all age-based restrictions on humans?

I fail to see the connection.

I often engage in catch & release fishing. What does that make me?

And ever swat a fly just because it is being annoying?

I'm not a fan of it. But it doesn't kill the fish does it? So it doesn't have anything to do with the right to life.


Not since I was little.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Comprehension and observation are slightly different things I suppose.



We give people the benefit of the doubt. We wait until they demonstrate an inability to observe the rights of others before we lock them up or execute them. If you can manage to avoid violating the rights of others, that's all that matters.

Which is my point. The person doesn't lose his/her rights until he/she infringes on the rights of others.

....and what would that be?

I believe all beings have at least a fundamental right to live. Hence it can only be right to kill out of necessity. i don't want to sound religious, but I think life is a pretty smashing thing for the most part and if you look at the (potential at least) rarity of it in the universe, it becomes quite precious.

Now this, I'll admit, is an emotional belief. I don't claim to be logicaly superior here.

Killing an unowned (or your) dog instantly is not a rights violation and should not be illegal. People do it all the time (not just veterinarians). It may not always be the most pleasant choice (old yeller?), but it's not a rights violation.

Ok. I think it's dispicable. I'm sure you'll agree for the most part.

I realize you're arguing from a purely logical standpoint and you're doing so very well. But I think a certain amount of empathy is important, even towards lesser beings.

There's no way that senseless killing can be a good thing.

 

[Danoff]

I believe all beings have at least a fundamental right to live. Hence it can only be right to kill out of necessity.

It's not a right if it's right to violate it ever... even out of necessity.

But I think a certain amount of empathy is important, even towards lesser beings.

There's no way that senseless killing can be a good thing.

Nobody's arguing about what's good and what's not or whether something is important or not. We're discussion what constitutes fundamental rights - the violation of which are objectively wrong.

 

[Encyclopedia]

It's not a right if it's right to violate it ever... even out of necessity.

I see.

Nobody's arguing about what's good and what's not or whether something is important or not. We're discussion what constitutes fundamental rights - the violation of which are objectively wrong.

Ok then. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

I fail to see the connection.

We limit the rights of children due to their inability to recognize the rights and responsibilities that come with them.

I'm not a fan of it. But it doesn't kill the fish does it? So it doesn't have anything to do with the right to life.

It can kill them if they swallow the hook, but if they are below the legal size limit it is illegal for me to take it home to eat.

Wait, are we just talking about killing? I mean, fishing involves hooking a barbed hook through their jaw, then dragging them, while toying with them until they are exhausted, into an inhospitable atmosphere where they will struggle to breath and begin to suffocate. So, can I kick my dog?

Not since I was little.

Wow. Um, do not look at my garden supplies. It is a house of horrors.

 

[Encyclopedia]

We limit the rights of children due to their inability to recognize the rights and responsibilities that come with them.

Yes but there's a pretty big difference, at least to me, between the right to live an the right to drive a car isn't it? I mean it's the most fundamental right isn't it?

It can kill them if they swallow the hook, but if they are below the legal size limit it is illegal for me to take it home to eat.

Wait, are we just talking about killing? I mean, fishing involves hooking a barbed hook through their jaw, then dragging them, while toying with them until they are exhausted, into an inhospitable atmosphere where they will struggle to breath and begin to suffocate. So, can I kick my dog? [/quote}

I didn't say I thought it was right. I don't think it is. Unecessary suffering.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes but there's a pretty big difference, at least to me, between the right to live an the right to drive a car isn't it? I mean it's the most fundamental right isn't it?

Driving is not a right. You must pass a test and prove you are capable.