Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 5:27:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Do you agree with the rights it lays out? If not, what would you change? Or would you trash it all together?

http://www.un.org...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 5:38:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with every last word of it and will use it as a better reference than the Constitution for debates and essays to come.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 5:43:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 5:27:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you agree with the rights it lays out? If not, what would you change? Or would you trash it all together?

http://www.un.org...

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Some people are born broke in the head.

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Disagree, especially in welfare states.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Protection from who? Predatory divorce lawyers?

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Neat, socialism is now a human right.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Paid vacation is a human right... see a trend coming along here? Unpaid vacation would be such an untolerable human indignity.....

Education shall be free

Okay I got tired of the gobbledy gook after that point.....
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 5:49:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 5:27:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you agree with the rights it lays out? If not, what would you change? Or would you trash it all together?

http://www.un.org...

I agree with 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 18, and 25.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 5:55:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 5:38:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
I agree with every last word of it and will use it as a better reference than the Constitution for debates and essays to come.

*bro-fist*
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 5:58:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
All punishment is inherently degrading. Without punishment there can be no rights-enforcement. Contradiction.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law
Without any discrimination, including on one's criminal status? Contradiction for the same reason.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Contradiction. One's reputation consists of other people's opinions about you, either you own it or they do, can't have it both ways.

non-political crimes
Contradiction.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses
A positive right to marriage contradicts a negative right to refuse a suitor, as someone will inevitably be refused universally.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Free at the point of provision protection of the family necessarily involves deprivation of someone's property. 1 implies 2 without the arbitrariness clause anyway so they are foreshadowing more contradiction later. Also, making it "everyone" prevents the stripping of property from criminals, which makes the whole scheme unenforcable again. Also, if everyone has rights alone, then they are as individuals the fundamental unit of society, not families.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Can't happen. No government can operate on a basis of unanimous consent, and any other version of "taking part" is pure nonsense and leads to representatives that are assuredly not freely chosen.

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government
For same reason, impossible. The elections subsequently called for only establish a will of the majority, not "the people."

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security
Contradicts property clause.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment
Contradicts property clause.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Contradicts property clause so hard

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
Same.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Not a problem unless some idiot interprets this as forbidding you from firing someone who joins a trade union, which they usually do because this is the UN, which only lib'ruls care about.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Contradicts property clause (hereafter referred to as CPC).

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
CPC

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
CPC.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
Contradicts pretty much the whole notion of human rights.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations
The limits of the rights are in their definitions, anything more denies that the right exists.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Contradicts rights, human, CPC, opinion clause, not being a bunch of fascist asshats...

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
In other words, the Declaration can't be interpreted as authorizing itself, as it's a pseudolegal document rather than mere speech, and thus clearly aimed at destroying any coherent notion of rights, as shown by its contradictions.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:06:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
lol at the people who are trying to dissect blanket statements that they still haven't actually proved untrue, despite their criticism.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:10:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:06:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol at the people who are trying to dissect blanket statements that they still haven't actually proved untrue, despite their criticism.

you say Nothing.. Always.

Please go away.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:14:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:10:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:06:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol at the people who are trying to dissect blanket statements that they still haven't actually proved untrue, despite their criticism.

you say Nothing.. Always.

Please go away.

I think ike has made a lot of positive contributions.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:15:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 5:49:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:27:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you agree with the rights it lays out? If not, what would you change? Or would you trash it all together?

http://www.un.org...

I agree with 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 18, and 25.

Why do you disagree with some of the others?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:15:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:14:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I think ike has made a lot of positive contributions.

I think Not!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:21:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:15:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:49:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:27:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you agree with the rights it lays out? If not, what would you change? Or would you trash it all together?

http://www.un.org...

I agree with 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 18, and 25.

Why do you disagree with some of the others?

Freedo, do you really think socialism is a human right?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:23:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:15:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:49:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:27:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you agree with the rights it lays out? If not, what would you change? Or would you trash it all together?

http://www.un.org...

I agree with 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 18, and 25.

Why do you disagree with some of the others?

Just to go over some.

#3 - I disagree to security of person and liberty.

#4 - I support prison immates being required to do manual labor as part of their punishments (servitude)

#5 - "torture" is subjective, as is "cruel" "inhuman" and "degrading." If I get to define those words, sure, I'll support it, if the UN does, heck no.

#9 - I support some people being arrested/detained for what some may call "arbitrary" reasons (namely on suspicion of serious crimes, while investigations are still happening). Though if you don't count that as arbitrary, then mark that one as an agree.

#10 - I don't support public hearing for all crimes.

Those are just the first 10. But, you get the idea.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:27:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:23:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:15:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:49:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:27:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you agree with the rights it lays out? If not, what would you change? Or would you trash it all together?

http://www.un.org...

I agree with 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 18, and 25.

Why do you disagree with some of the others?

Just to go over some.

#3 - I disagree to security of person and liberty.

#4 - I support prison immates being required to do manual labor as part of their punishments (servitude)

#5 - "torture" is subjective, as is "cruel" "inhuman" and "degrading." If I get to define those words, sure, I'll support it, if the UN does, heck no.

#9 - I support some people being arrested/detained for what some may call "arbitrary" reasons (namely on suspicion of serious crimes, while investigations are still happening). Though if you don't count that as arbitrary, then mark that one as an agree.

#10 - I don't support public hearing for all crimes.

Those are just the first 10. But, you get the idea.

Are you disagreeing to the vagueness that allows for UN interpretation of certain terms, or are you disagreeing to the principles themselves? I'm not sure how one of sane mind can disagree with Article 3.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:36:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:26:03 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
#3 - I disagree to security of person and liberty.

What exactly does that right mean? I am not sure.

If you're referring to social security and the right to an education as Socialism then, yes, absolutely.

I would have made the economic rights in the declaration even more expansive. I believe in the right to free housing, nutrition, health care, employment, transportation and communication. It gives a sort of overview for some of these in Article 25.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:37:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:27:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:23:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:15:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:49:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:27:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you agree with the rights it lays out? If not, what would you change? Or would you trash it all together?

http://www.un.org...

I agree with 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 18, and 25.

Why do you disagree with some of the others?

Just to go over some.

#3 - I disagree to security of person and liberty.

#4 - I support prison immates being required to do manual labor as part of their punishments (servitude)

#5 - "torture" is subjective, as is "cruel" "inhuman" and "degrading." If I get to define those words, sure, I'll support it, if the UN does, heck no.

#9 - I support some people being arrested/detained for what some may call "arbitrary" reasons (namely on suspicion of serious crimes, while investigations are still happening). Though if you don't count that as arbitrary, then mark that one as an agree.

#10 - I don't support public hearing for all crimes.

Those are just the first 10. But, you get the idea.

Are you disagreeing to the vagueness that allows for UN interpretation of certain terms, or are you disagreeing to the principles themselves? I'm not sure how one of sane mind can disagree with Article 3.

http://www.google.com...

Security of Person - since I disagree with torture laws, I'm naturally going to disagree with this.

Liberty - This is an individualistic concept. "Liberty is a Right that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions." As with "rights" in general, this is able to be twisted into supporting whatever anyone wants it to support.

For example, later in the same UN article, it talks about people of "full age" in regards to marriage. That implies that there is an age limit (7 years can't get legally married), but does that not impose a limit to one's liberty? Doesn't putting that age restriction basically say "you do not have absolute free will and you cannot take responsibility for your actions?" It is a limit on liberty. Once I recognized that such limits on liberty were a net positive, I realized that right to liberty was not something I supported (I'll support some liberties, sure).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:39:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:26:03 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
#3 - I disagree to security of person and liberty.

What exactly does that right mean? I am not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Security of the person is...In general, the right to the security of one's person is associated with liberty and includes the right, if one is imprisoned unlawfully, to the remedy of habeas corpus. Security of person can also be seen as an expansion of rights based on prohibitions of torture and cruel and unusual punishment."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:40:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:36:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:26:03 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
#3 - I disagree to security of person and liberty.

What exactly does that right mean? I am not sure.

If you're referring to social security and the right to an education as Socialism then, yes, absolutely.

I would have made the economic rights in the declaration even more expansive. I believe in the right to free housing, nutrition, health care, employment, transportation and communication. It gives a sort of overview for some of these in Article 25.

oddly enough, 25 was one that I actually agreed to.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:45:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:37:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:27:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:23:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:15:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:49:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:27:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you agree with the rights it lays out? If not, what would you change? Or would you trash it all together?

http://www.un.org...

I agree with 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 18, and 25.

Why do you disagree with some of the others?

Just to go over some.

#3 - I disagree to security of person and liberty.

#4 - I support prison immates being required to do manual labor as part of their punishments (servitude)

#5 - "torture" is subjective, as is "cruel" "inhuman" and "degrading." If I get to define those words, sure, I'll support it, if the UN does, heck no.

#9 - I support some people being arrested/detained for what some may call "arbitrary" reasons (namely on suspicion of serious crimes, while investigations are still happening). Though if you don't count that as arbitrary, then mark that one as an agree.

#10 - I don't support public hearing for all crimes.

Those are just the first 10. But, you get the idea.

Are you disagreeing to the vagueness that allows for UN interpretation of certain terms, or are you disagreeing to the principles themselves? I'm not sure how one of sane mind can disagree with Article 3.

http://www.google.com...

Security of Person - since I disagree with torture laws, I'm naturally going to disagree with this.

Liberty - This is an individualistic concept. "Liberty is a Right that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions." As with "rights" in general, this is able to be twisted into supporting whatever anyone wants it to support.

For example, later in the same UN article, it talks about people of "full age" in regards to marriage. That implies that there is an age limit (7 years can't get legally married), but does that not impose a limit to one's liberty? Doesn't putting that age restriction basically say "you do not have absolute free will and you cannot take responsibility for your actions?" It is a limit on liberty. Once I recognized that such limits on liberty were a net positive, I realized that right to liberty was not something I supported (I'll support some liberties, sure).

As far as presentation of argument, it does not do your position any justice to openly declare to be "against liberty". There is a finite but lengthy list of preconditions that may render pure liberty unfeasible. Liberty in principle, granted those preconditions are not in effect, is something everyone supports, as does the UN Dec. of Human Rights.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:50:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is nothing that makes liberty an inherently good thing that we should make a base principle of our political theories but being more at liberty certainly does increase the standard of living most of the time because people are just happier when they are free.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:50:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:45:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:37:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:27:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:23:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:15:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:49:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 5:27:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you agree with the rights it lays out? If not, what would you change? Or would you trash it all together?

http://www.un.org...

I agree with 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 18, and 25.

Why do you disagree with some of the others?

Just to go over some.

#3 - I disagree to security of person and liberty.

#4 - I support prison immates being required to do manual labor as part of their punishments (servitude)

#5 - "torture" is subjective, as is "cruel" "inhuman" and "degrading." If I get to define those words, sure, I'll support it, if the UN does, heck no.

#9 - I support some people being arrested/detained for what some may call "arbitrary" reasons (namely on suspicion of serious crimes, while investigations are still happening). Though if you don't count that as arbitrary, then mark that one as an agree.

#10 - I don't support public hearing for all crimes.

Those are just the first 10. But, you get the idea.

Are you disagreeing to the vagueness that allows for UN interpretation of certain terms, or are you disagreeing to the principles themselves? I'm not sure how one of sane mind can disagree with Article 3.

http://www.google.com...

Security of Person - since I disagree with torture laws, I'm naturally going to disagree with this.

Liberty - This is an individualistic concept. "Liberty is a Right that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions." As with "rights" in general, this is able to be twisted into supporting whatever anyone wants it to support.

For example, later in the same UN article, it talks about people of "full age" in regards to marriage. That implies that there is an age limit (7 years can't get legally married), but does that not impose a limit to one's liberty? Doesn't putting that age restriction basically say "you do not have absolute free will and you cannot take responsibility for your actions?" It is a limit on liberty. Once I recognized that such limits on liberty were a net positive, I realized that right to liberty was not something I supported (I'll support some liberties, sure).

As far as presentation of argument, it does not do your position any justice to openly declare to be "against liberty". There is a finite but lengthy list of preconditions that may render pure liberty unfeasible. Liberty in principle, granted those preconditions are not in effect, is something everyone supports, as does the UN Dec. of Human Rights.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone at this point. I'm against Absolute Liberty, I support liberty with a few limits (or preconditions, if that is what you want to call them).

It's kind of like free speech. You'll find alot of people that support absolute free speech, that like to say "if you don't support absolute free speech, then you're against free speech!!!! You damned NAZI!!!!!! (or some other cheap shot)," so I've basically desided than rather saying "I support free speech with some limits" to just saying "yep, I'm against [you're idea of] free speech." It is the same with liberty. I'm against [the absolutist's idea of] liberty.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:52:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:50:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There is nothing that makes liberty an inherently good thing that we should make a base principle of our political theories but being more at liberty certainly does increase the standard of living most of the time because people are just happier when they are free.

I agree. In most cases, liberty is benefitial. My position is merely that I'm against the absolutist view of liberty. Maybe I've just become too jaded over my many many many many many years on internet forums :P.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 6:56:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:52:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:50:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There is nothing that makes liberty an inherently good thing that we should make a base principle of our political theories but being more at liberty certainly does increase the standard of living most of the time because people are just happier when they are free.

I agree. In most cases, liberty is benefitial. My position is merely that I'm against the absolutist view of liberty. Maybe I've just become too jaded over my many many many many many years on internet forums :P.

You certainly have. Since you've clarified your position, I find it easier to admit that I agree with you.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 7:26:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:56:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:52:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:50:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There is nothing that makes liberty an inherently good thing that we should make a base principle of our political theories but being more at liberty certainly does increase the standard of living most of the time because people are just happier when they are free.

I agree. In most cases, liberty is benefitial. My position is merely that I'm against the absolutist view of liberty. Maybe I've just become too jaded over my many many many many many years on internet forums :P.

You certainly have. Since you've clarified your position, I find it easier to admit that I agree with you.

http://www.debate.org...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 7:35:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 6:14:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:10:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/19/2011 6:06:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol at the people who are trying to dissect blanket statements that they still haven't actually proved untrue, despite their criticism.

you say Nothing.. Always.

Please go away.

I think ike has made a lot of positive contributions.

Not there he didn't.

As far as presentation of argument, it does not do your position any justice to openly declare to be "against liberty".
It does it exact justice-- he is being honest about his position. You are advocating that he be dishonest.
Reading his subsequent posts in this thread, you have convinced him. Great job.

Principles are absolutes, that's why we call them principles, not washy-wishes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
crackrocks
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 7:43:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only right we have, is the right to react with what has been done to you. To say that I have a right not to be murdered would make me feel like a faggot when I get murdered. However if I do have the right to demonstrate my clear contention or even submission to the person murdering me. Everyone is stupid except for me.