If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Universal rights?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Should rights be universal in nature?
Or should rights be subject to the society one lives in?
Or should rights be subject to the society one lives in?
0
Comments
What is your question, youve lost me
You can read can't you?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No need to be so patronising. Not her fault if she can't make sense of your posting style that has led to your new nickname of Monocrap, especially when she actually posts well and responds to questions others put to her... Monocrap.
No your question is not clear, so tell me what the hell your asking?
Shit is that too hard for you to do? you knew I didnt understand the question so you decided to try and take the piss :rolleyes:
I simply asked if rights should be universal in nature, or whether a person's rights should be dependent on the society in which they live.
Yes they should.
No, they shouldn't.
:eek: :eek: :eek: Oh my god! Monocrat answered a question!!!:eek: :eek: :eek:
what the fuck does he wanna know
Becky - ignore him.
What He would like to know is, do you think that all humans deserve the same rights, or should their rights differ depending on their society?
For example, in our society (the western world) we have the rights to free speech, but in some nations they don't. Is that fair? It could be argued that no of course that is not fair, but some people say we do not have the right to impose our own laws on others.
Take a tribal society. Perhaps their law states that women are pocessions of their men and should do everything they say. However, in our nation we would find that silly. Women have equal rights to men but in their society they don't. Some people would say that the people in those societies have lived by those rules and will continue to and we should not enforce our own ideals of what constitutes a person's rights on another society. Does this make more sense? He wants to know if our "civilised" society is really in any position to impose our morals on others who don't follow ours - can we really decide what "rights" everyone should have, because they may go against what their society sees as "right". Meh, hope this makes more sense?
Ok what rights are we talking about, hell there are millions?
Explain yourself then you might just get replies :rolleyes:
Like are we talking about freedom of speech? freedom to come and go as we please? freedom to break the law?
Come on help me out
NO !!!!!!! I like taking the piss outta him
and thanks for helping me out
Well there is no established right of 'freedom to break the law', as far as I know of.
I was referring to natural or human rights, which are supposed to be universal in application.
The principle opposition to universal rights is that a person's rights should be determined by the society in which they live.
Who are you to state what I can believe?
ah tis ok thats our Simone
and she has every right to state her opinion, just like you do. Only she explains herself a little bit better than you do.............just a little bit like
what about drink driving? you say thats ok unless your caught
Drink driving is wrong because of potential harm caused. I think only ACTUAL harm from drink driving should be prosecuted.
Also, show me where I told you what to believe. You are making it up as you go along. I seriously doubt your age sometimes. You are like an argumentative five year old - you stamp your feet making the same point over and over again. And nobody cares.
It is quite obvious that you have never been the victim of anything tragic because your views of the world are so blinkered and so naive. You have very little grasp on reality, and I think you have taken your philosophy and decided that even though in practice no philosophy can work, you will stick to it no matter what.
no its just a fecking joke
No Drink Driving is breaking the law :rolleyes:
And I get criticised for making unsubstantiated remarks?
How do you know for sure that nothing 'tragic' has happened to me?
Yes. I think victimless crimes should be legal.
However, it has been ratified by less than half countries that have signed it (and the US has now effectively withdrawn it's signature) so I guess sovereignty counts for more than the notion of one world under the same sky.
My notions aren't stupid at all.