Basic Human Rights - Define them?
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
............:smile:
You mean the demarcation between basic needs and basic rights? Why, certainly. Look into dictionary for the meaning of 'rights' and 'needs'. One has nothing to do with other.
A need is something we cannot live without, such as food and water. a right is something that is good to have (freedom of press, freedom of religion etc.), but we can exist without them.
Last edited:
Then maybe they shouldn't just be handed out on a silver platter, you should have to work for them. WE may be getting altogether too Molly coddled. It's just that sort of thing that led to the demise of empires in the past- people getting too complacent. :smile::smile:
What should not be handed out, the needs or the rights? As to rights, I think basic rights should be granted to each and every human being on earth (though there are plenty of dictatorships in the world who don’t do that).
As to needs, I think if a nation has enough resources to satisfy the basic needs (food water, shelter), these needs should be provided. But where the nation is too poor, does not have the resources to provide them (Liberia, Congo or Zimbabwe, the countries with the lowest per capita income), they are not obliged to provide them.
:roll: Rights? Needs? Lety me guess who started quibbling over semantics. Someone that needs to grow up a little, perhaps?
If you do not have the "right" to seek and acquire the items that you need to survive, then unless these items are given to you, any other "right" is completely irrelevant. Perhaps it is simply that we take it for granted that we have the right to water, food, etc. that we feel no need to designate those things in the Charter. But if you were Ethioppian with extremely little access to food and water, being given the right have have those items would be immensely important. It's all fine and dandy to sit back on your fat, overfed ass in your cushy chair with your Cadillac parked in your garage, income flowing in from a half dozen sources, and say having food and water isn't a right, but that only shows how insensitive you are to those whom water and food is all there is in life. What an extremely narrow view you have in your extremely tiny world.
BTW, someone mentioned that there's no such thing as true altruism somewhere. They can't see it because they don't have it. There are people in this world that DO help others regardless of whether they get any satisfaction from helping or not. Does it feel good for a firefighter to help someone escape a fire and die doing it? Get a grip.
Also, if a country cannot give the right to life (and that's the right to have those things that support life) to its citizens, it shouldn't even be a country.
If you do not have the "right" to seek and acquire the items that you need to survive, then unless these items are given to you, any other "right" is completely irrelevant. Perhaps it is simply that we take it for granted that we have the right to water, food, etc. that we feel no need to designate those things in the Charter. But if you were Ethioppian with extremely little access to food and water, being given the right have have those items would be immensely important. It's all fine and dandy to sit back on your fat, overfed ass in your cushy chair with your Cadillac parked in your garage, income flowing in from a half dozen sources, and say having food and water isn't a right, but that only shows how insensitive you are to those whom water and food is all there is in life. What an extremely narrow view you have in your extremely tiny world.
BTW, someone mentioned that there's no such thing as true altruism somewhere. They can't see it because they don't have it. There are people in this world that DO help others regardless of whether they get any satisfaction from helping or not. Does it feel good for a firefighter to help someone escape a fire and die doing it? Get a grip.
Also, if a country cannot give the right to life (and that's the right to have those things that support life) to its citizens, it shouldn't even be a country.
Last edited:
I think if I had the power, I would force each and every pompous ass with the sense of entitlement (like our own Campbull, Toure of Guinea, a certain narcissist here, etc.) to a year of dumpster diving and living in cardboard boxes in alleyways for a year. Perhaps then they'd have a little better perspective on "rights".
YOu are arguing from a false premise again as you often do- these "rights" you keep yammering about are actually privileges.
A 'wish' list? no. the fact that the article pertaining to the right to an adequate standard of living is number 25, indicates nothing other than that's where it was placed. I would imagine that if you spoke to Eleanor Roosevelt she would tell you that all parts of the declaration have equal value. For that matter, the part referring to freedom of speech only occurs in the preamble. If one were to intuit a motive behind that, one might think that while it was good to note, it didn't merit an actual article.
For the record, Article 25 of the universal declaration of Human Rights states,
"(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."
Now to me, it's pretty obvious that 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,would include clean water.
I used to put a lot of stock in Wikipedia too, until a couple of weeks ago when one of the posters (forget who right now) put me on to how bogus it is- Wickedpedia I believe he called it. So I guess what they quote could be regarded as anecdotal more than statistical.
These are the rights enumerated in the Charter of Rights, Bill of Rights, by UN etc. These are considered to be the basic rights. Why would anybody consider them to be privileges? Maybe you consider them to be privileges and perhaps think that they should be granted only to a select few (as privileges normally are). But Freedom fo speech, of press, of religion etc. are rights and not privileges.
Last edited:
I disagree. Normally when there is a long list of anything, items of greater importance are placed first, the lists usually go in the order of decreasing importance. Unless it is specifically stated that the list is not in any particular order. I don't think the UN says that.
25th in a list of 30 rights tells me that the right is not all that important, that it was placed there only as an afterthought.
In other words, you are merely assuming it was an afterthought, based on how you personally would have constructed the document.I on the other hand, look to the intent of the document and to the demenour of the woman who drafted it. I don't believe that she would have relegated the basic necessities of life to an afterthought.
Again, th3e Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically mentions the right of humans to have decent living conditions - and I assume that means potable water.
The declaration does NOT mention "freedom of press' - and why should it? The press is a money driven entity. Advertisements are set in publications before copy is, and when copy is placed? It's placed where it can accent an ad. The whole concept of the press bringing the 'truth' to the masses is bogus. Sometimes it happens but more often it's an afterthought. The purpose of the media is not to inform the public, it's to sell ad space.
I like wikipedia. I take it for what it is - a jumping off point. I read the article and then I go to the references - that's where I find what I want, usually.
Exactly. I made out shopping list today and at the very bottom is "pick up MIL's drugs". Did that mean that they aren't important? Nooooo. It means that the drugstore is the last stop I'll make. Sir Potter is just being obtuse.
I wish every question I was asked was this easy!!!!!!!!!!! Try your telephone directory for starters - go on line and google the list of M.P.s for Canada. Need I go on?