Basic Human Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 12:35 am
Age wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 9:33 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:07 pm

Age, you're fulla shit. And you're a damned liar.
Are you going to offer up ANY proof or evidence that i am "full of shit"?
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:07 pm I never said or hunted at that,
You never said nor hunted at 'what', EXACTLY?
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:07 pmso -- unless you wanna pony up some evidence -- you can just fuck right off to Happy Time Fuck Town.
Evidence for 'what', EXACTLY? I, obviously, have to KNOW what you are referring to BEFORE I could provide evidence for 'it'.

If you do not answer these clarifying questions, Honestly, then what is 'it', which you are 'trying to' hide?

Also, can i come and touch your toothpick, which is said, "your property", anytime i like and this is okay with you?

If not, then what are you going to do about it?
Get bent, needledick...I don't buy your idiot savant routine anymore.
So, I just ask six very simple clarifying questions. But you do not answer one of them.

This is because if you did answer any of them Honestly, then you would contradict "yourself".
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 10:56 am So, I just ask six very simple clarifying questions. But you do not answer one of them.
Sure I did.

Here, let me reiterate...
00AB836A-FDF8-4A85-A909-B1876185CA59.jpeg
00AB836A-FDF8-4A85-A909-B1876185CA59.jpeg (103.54 KiB) Viewed 1791 times
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 11:56 am
Age wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 10:56 am So, I just ask six very simple clarifying questions. But you do not answer one of them.
Sure I did.

Here, let me reiterate...

00AB836A-FDF8-4A85-A909-B1876185CA59.jpeg
LOL

Is that really the best you can do?

Have you ever considered just answering the clarifying questions posed to you, in order to 'try to' look like that you at least think you could back up and support your previous claims and expressions?

Or, do you ALREADY KNOW that you REALLY could not?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:06 pm Have you ever considered just answering the clarifying questions posed to you(?)
Have been: you just don't *like the answers.

*edit/addition (without which the line makes no damn sense)
Last edited by henry quirk on Sat May 08, 2021 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:53 pm
Age wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:06 pm Have you ever considered just answering the clarifying questions posed to you(?)
Have been: you just don't the answers.
LOL If you BELIEVE this, then you are more disillusioned than I first thought.

Even in that same post, which you quoted me here, there were two other clarifying questions, which you did NOT answer.

Besides this fact, the one question you have 'responded' to here, but did NOT 'answer', you only responded to half of the clarifying question I posed and NOT the whole question.

So, and furthermore, ONCE AGAIN, you have CONTRADICTED "your" 'own self' in 'your' own response and words.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 12:45 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:53 pm
Age wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:06 pm Have you ever considered just answering the clarifying questions posed to you(?)
Have been: you just don't the answers.
LOL If you BELIEVE this, then you are more disillusioned than I first thought.
What I BELIEVE is, no matter what I tell you, you won't understand or will misinterpret.

What I BELIEVE is, you're a kind of psycho-sinkhole suckin' down any fool who engages you.

What I BELIEVE is that I've wasted all the time I'm gonna on your sorry keister.

'nuff said.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 12:51 am
Age wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 12:45 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:53 pm

Have been: you just don't the answers.
LOL If you BELIEVE this, then you are more disillusioned than I first thought.
What I BELIEVE is, no matter what I tell you, you won't understand or will misinterpret.
If that is what you BELIEVE, then that HAS TO BE thee One and ONLY Truth, to 'you'.

Remember, it is 'I' who has been asking 'you' the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you FAIL to answer.

Also, just about EVERY thing that I have told you, you have misunderstood, misinterpreted, misconstrued, and/or mistaken. And, you have NOT even bothered to try to CLARIFY either.
henry quirk wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 12:51 am What I BELIEVE is, you're a kind of psycho-sinkhole suckin' down any fool who engages you.
This is because 'you' do NOT like having YOUR CONTRADICTIONS being POINTED OUT, EXPOSED, and SHOWN.

You CLAIM human beings have a 'right to life' but also BELIEVE and CLAIM that you have a 'right' to KILL human beings if they 'touch' (what you disillusion BELIEVE is) "your stuff".
henry quirk wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 12:51 am What I BELIEVE is that I've wasted all the time I'm gonna on your sorry keister.

'nuff said.
What I KNOW is that I have OUTED 'your' CONTRADICTIONS here in your views of 'human rights' and that you HATE this and can NOT handle this, and that this can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVEN above.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:53 pm
Age wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:06 pm Have you ever considered just answering the clarifying questions posed to you(?)
Have been: you just don't *like the answers.

*edit/addition (without which the line makes no damn sense)
Even after editing and adding to that line, you still have NOT been 'answering' my ACTUAL clarifying questions.

You, however, have been 'responding', and have been 'responding' to only just a very few of them.

This can be CLEARLY SEEN, and contrary to what you would like to BELIEVE, can be and has ALREADY been PROVEN TRUE.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

Good lord, leave me be, or I'll put you on ignore till the sun novas, swells in the sky, and engulfs the Earth.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Age wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 11:42 am
Gary Childress wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:35 pm
Age wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:27 am

I do not recall saying this.

Did I say, 'There 'should be' a basic human right to not be abused'?

If yes, then where?

But if no, then does that make what the rest, of what you said here, moot?



An example of 'abuse' that I would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused is ANY 'misuse' of a human being.

But in order to KNOW what is the 'misuse' of a human being, one would have to, first, learn and KNOW what the 'purpose' is of, and for, the 'human being'.



Not at all.



ANY physical, emotional, sexual, or mental 'abuse' will suffice. Or, ANY other 'abuse' one can think of.

What does the word 'abuse' mean to 'you'?



Do you agree, or do you disagree, with:

Do not abuse each other?
I agree that people should not be beaten or tortured. As far as "ANY" emotional abuse, that's a difficult thing to gauge.
If some 'thing' is 'emotional abuse', then what is there to 'gauge'?

Do you agree, or do you disagree, with:

Do not emotionally abuse each other?
Gary Childress wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:35 pm We all can suffer emotionally from things others say to us. There tends to be a natural inclination for humans to shape each other according to how each believes others ought to be. And that shaping sometimes takes the form of behavior that can be emotionally hurtful to various degrees. Also competitiveness can breed emotional hurt for those that lose at something. The idea of "micro-aggressions" comes to mind. I've seen the term used and abused when dealing with others. I don't think there can be a right against "micro-aggressions." If there were, we'd all be guilty of it just about all the time.
This is just an attempt at distraction, and/or a "justification" for your own, internally known, wrong doing.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like I'm just being realistic. I'm not saying it's right to emotionally abuse, however, making it a basic human right would probably lead to a lot of problems with people claiming that even the most minor emotional abuse is a violation of their rights. Is the UN supposed to intervene whenever someone feels insulted? Just about everything we humans say can upset someone else and that can be construed as emotional abuse by some. Others may have tougher skin and not think of anything as emotional abuse.

Do you think that a basic human right against abuse should include emotional abuse?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:00 pm Do you think that a basic human right against abuse should include emotional abuse?
The problem is defining "emotional abuse."

If you mean, "Should a man be permitted to tell his daughter she's fat and stupid for her 20 years or so of growing up, until she commits suicide," then the answer has to be "No,"obviously. That sort of thing isn't controversial, I think: it's probably criminal.

But if we mean, "If a person calls a male a 'she' by accident, that's emotional abuse," or "If somebody asks a visible minority person, 'Where is your family from?'" that's emotional abuse, or when somebody says, "I don't believe Mohammed is a prophet," that's abusive to those who do, then I think we see the problem: it can be defined far, far too loosely.

There really is a wide band of things that may not be welcome, may not be liked, may even be rude, offensive or insulting but are not "emotional abuse" of any actionable kind. An awful lot of our ability to solve social problems depends on people being able to speak what they think, even when you and I don't like what they have to say.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:23 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:00 pm Do you think that a basic human right against abuse should include emotional abuse?
The problem is defining "emotional abuse."

If you mean, "Should a man be permitted to tell his daughter she's fat and stupid for her 20 years or so of growing up, until she commits suicide," then the answer has to be "No,"obviously. That sort of thing isn't controversial, I think: it's probably criminal.

But if we mean, "If a person calls a male a 'she' by accident, that's emotional abuse," or "If somebody asks a visible minority person, 'Where is your family from?'" that's emotional abuse, or when somebody says, "I don't believe Mohammed is a prophet," that's abusive to those who do, then I think we see the problem: it can be defined far, far too loosely.

There really is a wide band of things that may not be welcome, may not be liked, may even be rude, offensive or insulting but are not "emotional abuse" of any actionable kind. An awful lot of our ability to solve social problems depends on people being able to speak what they think, even when you and I don't like what they have to say.
Good points.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:23 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:00 pm Do you think that a basic human right against abuse should include emotional abuse?
The problem is defining "emotional abuse."

If you mean, "Should a man be permitted to tell his daughter she's fat and stupid for her 20 years or so of growing up, until she commits suicide," then the answer has to be "No,"obviously. That sort of thing isn't controversial, I think: it's probably criminal
If she doesn't kill herself but rather takes the exact same treatment as just being banter between herself and her father, is it still criminal abuse? I mean, different people can react differently to various things. Some people may be more sensitive to things than others.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:23 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:00 pm Do you think that a basic human right against abuse should include emotional abuse?
The problem is defining "emotional abuse."

If you mean, "Should a man be permitted to tell his daughter she's fat and stupid for her 20 years or so of growing up, until she commits suicide," then the answer has to be "No,"obviously. That sort of thing isn't controversial, I think: it's probably criminal
If she doesn't kill herself but rather takes the exact same treatment as just being banter between herself and her father, is it still criminal abuse? I mean, different people can react differently to various things. Some people may be more sensitive to things than others.
It's a scale, isn't it?

At some point, it's going to be hard to say where rudeness, bluntness, and unkindness of ordinary sorts tips over into verbal abuse. There will be a grey zone, for sure.

Even in the case above, it would be possible perhaps for you and I to know that was abuse, but it would be considerably harder for a court of law to prove, especially beyond a reasonable doubt, that the father's conduct was a main causal factor in his daughter's suicide. Morally, it might be clear; but legally...well, legally is harder, sometimes.

So even if we would WANT to create a legal right not to be abused, I don't think it would be easy to achieve in practice. We'd either end up condemning people whose behaviour had not actually risen to the level of abuse, or failing to condemn those whose conduct had...but only just, perhaps.

But such a right could be truly "basic" if something with which a human being is born indicates that he/she is not to be a subject of emotional abuse. And we should ask what that innate property would be. A Christian could say that it's something like the fact that he/she is ultimate property of God, so an abuser is acting against God by acting against the child. But what would a secular person have that would rationalize such a right -- or any right -- as truly "basic"?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:23 pm If you mean, "Should a man be permitted to tell his daughter she's fat and stupid for her 20 years or so of growing up, until she commits suicide," then the answer has to be "No,"obviously. That sort of thing isn't controversial, I think: it's probably criminal.
If she's fat because she's a lazy glutton and stupid because she refuses to learn, not telling her the truth would be cruel. If someone hates the truth so much they let their feelings determine their behavior and they choose off themselves, it's their own fault. Poor baby!

This idea that words can actually harm someone else is the lie behind all the so-called the PC nonsense. It is still true, sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me. If you suffer from what anyone says, it's your own fault.
Post Reply