Schools have changed

[DeadPoolX 9]

I heard that Cobra Commander is considering running for president.

Damn straight. Serpentor was a wuss, too.

[Jenn! 918]

There are no cheerleaders in Saudi Arabia.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's quite simple. Human rights are not a 'western' concept.

However, as far as 'us' adherents and 'them' non adherents are concerned, yes to an extent those who adhere to the principals of human rights are trying to persuade those that don't to sign up to the notion and some sanctions can and should be applied to nations that don't sign up to them via the UN (South Africa anyone?). However, there is no logical way to force a society that doesn't wish to sign up to do so, nor in a way should there be. On the flip side, to expect that the notion of human rights can be altered to accomodate those who don't currrently agree with these principals makes no sense whatsoever.

The declaration is a human construct, I agree, but it is one that is based in prinipals of parity and equality that can be universally applied. There is no way to include suppressive or selective principals into human rights, and one should not attempt to.

As regards to telling each other how to behave. In terms of those who have signed the declartation, that is what they have siged up to do.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am curious for instance, how can one incorporate the notion of female subjugation into a concept of human rights?

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I heard that Cobra Commander is considering running for president.

Damn straight. Serpentor was a wuss, too.

Serpentor doesn't care what you think. He's all about accessorizing.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I am curious for instance, how can one incorporate the notion of female subjugation into a concept of human rights?

I'm not sure you can, honestly.

But here's my point, PH. I don't personally agree with many of these acts, such as female circumcision, stoning people to death, honor killings, and so on. I'd like them to stop. But I (or rather, the U.S. or UN) can't order any other country to stop this so long as it's part of their culture, their society and even their legal system.

If we could tell other countries to do what we'd like, based on our own ideas of what's moral and what's not, then what's stopping them from doing the same to us in return? Does it eventually come down to "might makes right?" Is that all there is to it? Is the reason we can push our weight around due having military strength behind our so-called moral convictions and most of these countries do not? If that's the case, one day we may be in for a very rude and unwelcome surprise, as I'm sure we'll come across some nation at some point that will fight back and have sufficient firepower to do a great deal of harm.

Edited February 28, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Peikko 1,575]

Human rights are more on the lines of ethics than morals. Again, you seem to think that the 'west' has imposed values on 'some other value system'. This is so far from how the human rights decalartion was conceived and implementated as it is possible to go. Human rights, as I said, can be universally applied. None of the countries that violate human rights (and may I suggest you look at the similarities between these countries) can say that their citizens are treated with parity. To a greater or lesser extent their citizens are supressed and differentiated along gender, economic, religious and/or political lines. The reason they don't wish to sign up to the declaration of human rights isn't because of some cultural discrepancies, but because it is politically expedient not to do so. The power bases use these abuses of human rights to control their populations.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[mawilson 2,133]

There are no cheerleaders in Saudi Arabia.

That's because their cheerleader mothers never got pregnant

[DeadPoolX 9]

Human rights are more on the lines of ethics than morals. Again, you seem to think that the 'west' has imposed values on 'some other value system'. This is so far from how the human rights decalartion was conceived and implementated as it is possible to go. Human rights, as I said, can be universally applied. None of the countries that violate human rights (and may I suggest you look at the similarities between these countries) can say that their citizens are treated with parity. To a greater or lesser extent their citizens are supressed and differentiated along gender, economic, religious and/or political lines. The reason they don't wish to sign up to the declaration of human rights isn't because of some cultural discrepancies, but because it is politically expedient not to do so. The power bases use these abuses of human rights to control their populations.

I can already see where this is going and I'm going to save us both some time and aggravation by just stopping here. There's no point in continuing. Neither one of us will ever see eye-to-eye on this issue, so there's really very little point on wasting even more energy on debating it.

I think you have good intentions and your heart is probably in the right place, PH. Even so, we just don't (and most likely won't) agree. That's okay, too. As the old saying goes, we can "agree to disagree." It might be better than way.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am curious for instance, how can one incorporate the notion of female subjugation into a concept of human rights?

I'm not sure you can, honestly.

But here's my point, PH. I don't personally agree with many of these acts, such as female circumcision, stoning people to death, honor killings, and so on. I'd like them to stop. But I (or rather, the U.S. or UN) can't order any other country to stop this so long as it's part of their culture, their society and even their legal system.

If we could tell other countries to do what we'd like, based on our own ideas of what's moral and what's not, then what's stopping them from doing the same to us in return? Does it eventually come down to "might makes right?" Is that all there is to it? Is the reason we can push our weight around due having military strength behind our so-called moral convictions and most of these countries do not? If that's the case, one day we may be in for a very rude and unwelcome surprise, as I'm sure we'll come across some nation at some point that will fight back and have sufficient firepower to do a great deal of harm.

What is wrong with condemning those acts and the legal and governmental systems that impose and perpetuate them?

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't believe that trying to promote the declaration of human rights is a waste of time, far from it. However, I am not interested in attempting to force anyone to accept that what I say is right either. The declaration of human rights will stand or fall based on it's fitness to promote its ideals of freedom and equality for all. I am happy to allow that to be the ultimate arbitrator.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am curious for instance, how can one incorporate the notion of female subjugation into a concept of human rights?

I'm not sure you can, honestly.

But here's my point, PH. I don't personally agree with many of these acts, such as female circumcision, stoning people to death, honor killings, and so on. I'd like them to stop. But I (or rather, the U.S. or UN) can't order any other country to stop this so long as it's part of their culture, their society and even their legal system.

If we could tell other countries to do what we'd like, based on our own ideas of what's moral and what's not, then what's stopping them from doing the same to us in return? Does it eventually come down to "might makes right?" Is that all there is to it? Is the reason we can push our weight around due having military strength behind our so-called moral convictions and most of these countries do not? If that's the case, one day we may be in for a very rude and unwelcome surprise, as I'm sure we'll come across some nation at some point that will fight back and have sufficient firepower to do a great deal of harm.

What is wrong with condemning those acts and the legal and governmental systems that impose and perpetuate them?

I think the point is it's wrong if you can accept that governments that allow these acts do so based on a different but equally valid notion of human rights. I don't see how that works, but that appears to be what is being said.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am curious for instance, how can one incorporate the notion of female subjugation into a concept of human rights?

I'm not sure you can, honestly.

But here's my point, PH. I don't personally agree with many of these acts, such as female circumcision, stoning people to death, honor killings, and so on. I'd like them to stop. But I (or rather, the U.S. or UN) can't order any other country to stop this so long as it's part of their culture, their society and even their legal system.

If we could tell other countries to do what we'd like, based on our own ideas of what's moral and what's not, then what's stopping them from doing the same to us in return? Does it eventually come down to "might makes right?" Is that all there is to it? Is the reason we can push our weight around due having military strength behind our so-called moral convictions and most of these countries do not? If that's the case, one day we may be in for a very rude and unwelcome surprise, as I'm sure we'll come across some nation at some point that will fight back and have sufficient firepower to do a great deal of harm.

What is wrong with condemning those acts and the legal and governmental systems that impose and perpetuate them?

I think the point is it's wrong if you can accept that governments that allow these acts do so based on a different but equally valid notion of human rights. I don't see how that works, but that appears to be what is being said.

Perhaps we should start with an example for discussion. MaWilson mentioned Saudi Arabia earlier - seems a good place to start.

Can anyone explain "Saudi Human Rights"? Preferably on a constitutional or judicial level.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think you will get many takers for that question. Still you never know.

[Not Available 0]

Wow , I didn't realize this post would get so much communicaiton.

You mentioned God, that always turns into an argument, until the thread gets locked.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Stina