Do you agree or disagree with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...hts/index.html
I'm sorry if this is a controversial topic.
To me, they seem utterly unproblematic and it is difficult to comprehend that someone could object to them. However, I find there are commonly-held ideologies worldwide that if genuinely held would run contrary to them. I also know there is an argument that instead of "Human Rights", we should have "Human Duties".
Tomorrow on the radio in various countries there is going to be a performance of Max Richter's Voices, a work "inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
https://www.maxrichtermusic.com/news/voices-broadcast/
Reeeeaaaaaally don't think it's feasible.
people have been scared by the idea that we can't afford them in a capitalistic society, which is a deeply unimaginative conclusion.
I was raised in right-wing country.
I agree, with a few provisos :
"attacks upon his honour and reputation"
I'm all about warning people when someone is a threat. If we're talking protection from made-up threats to honor and reputation; yeah, those are messed up.
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
naw. that's the individual, ime. An orphan who is single and childfree or childless is still a part of society.
17 2 I agree with. 17 1, I think is something I'm just used to, and I'm happy to explore whether or not it is a right. I think caring very little for my own possessions and finding so many instances where something wasn't considered owned and then was claimed for one individual's use alone (e.g. Native American land) I am happy to re-think my position on ownership being a right. I still think people shouldn't be deprived arbitrarily, so I'm good with 17 2.
There's a great court case in U.S. dealing with a good limit to 18...you can't endanger someone over you spiritual beliefs. There were venomous snakes in fundie circles a bit like the one I was raised in, and ppl would force kids to hold the snakes in order to prove that they trusted God enough (protecting them from venomous snake) to not be condemned to eternal torture in Hell. The courts eventually were like "That's bad. No." You can practice non harmful religious things and can think what you want, but you can't be endangering
19. I mostly agree with, but again, when we're talking about endangering people, I'd put some proviso in there.
20.1. There are some stipulations on it in the U.S., and I'm not sure if I agree there should be.
25 2, I'd like to see dads actually parenting. Some do. With that as a reality, I think fatherhood ought to have almost as much support as motherhood. I know dads don't grow a human in their freaking body or nurse it (and some moms do nurse their kids), but other than that, ideally, a parent regardless of their sex is in a caregiving role. And some parents adopt, so ...
26 I think making ed compulsory brings up some problems. I'm not saying don't, but ...maybe something about taking kids' individuality and internal motivation into consideration in organizing schools would be good.
and I can't agree with 26 3. HAVE YOU MET SOME PARENTS? Those kids are citizens. They're part of us. They need us, and some parents are NOT going to choose adequate material for their kid. Even if they love their kid. Even if the parent is educated. YES, I was homeschooled. YES, I was raised in a conservative, military family. I'm not unaware of the arguments for putting all the power in the hands of parents. I'm ag'n' it.
Our kids have civic rights. They aren't property. They aren't lesser beings. And parents DO NOT always know best.
27 Question, wouldn't that be a privilege, not a right, given imprisonment deprives somewhat the imprisoned of the list, there?
29 2 HANDLES MOST OF MY OBJECTIONS.
29 3....uh, I'mma need some examples and some reasons why on that one...
To an extent. Not really though.
The mistreatment of Jewish people in Nazi Germany during/around World War II is what supposedly inspired the creation of it.
First of all - what happened during the Holocaust was the result of targeting of a large group of people, not individuals per se. The Declaration however deals exclusively with the rights of the individual human being without even mentioning collectivities.
Second of all - claiming that human rights are universal inevitably results to us ignoring, as well as undermining the cultural differences that exist between societies in different parts of the world. Not everything revolves around the West and the West's values.
This is a pretty good legalistic critique i remember reading a while back: https://blog.ipleaders.in/critical-analysis-udhr/
The formalization of 'rights' becomes tendentiously misleading—especially the notion that there should be anything universal about them.
Can I get myself out of the deal? Where are the forms?
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote