Human rights, God, and Neo-Nazism

Serious discussion about news, politics and whatever is on your mind.

Moderator: Forum Guards

Human rights, God, and Neo-Nazism

Postby synthetic » Fri Nov 14, 14 1:58 am

Freedom of speech (expression) is a human right that most of the emergent nations' laws also cover, and also a right that most vocal neo-nazis use as a shield. Advocating the breach of human rights while being shielded by those that the opposed regime has established, is one of the more ironic fallacies of logic - or a highly cynical strategy.

Legally defining these rights and getting as many nations as possible to accept them is an on-going battle when it comes to topics not yet properly covered; and then there are those countries where only power grants the rights. We all know that at the root level all of these rights are very basic, easily understandable - even if intuitively for some - and for the "Western culture" come as the norm. Media is also making a decent campaign out of displaying all those third world dirt-holes where those basic rights are being violated - ratings and pragmatic reasons aside, I think it is a good trend.

While we protect individual beliefs with these rights, I think we also have the right for peer-reviewed, consensual information; as well as - even more importantly - a protection of individuality. Some might say that the act of defined rights already covers it, but in reality we see that it doesn't work - in any part of the world.

It is about looking at the purpose of these rights - to treat a human being by respecting its needs and existence - and how they conflict in practice: people who promote violence, slavery, unequal treatment claiming the right to do so under select grants of their preference; people deliberately providing false information to their peers with the intent of indoctrination or participation in unnatural conduct.

If I may go even further to fetch another example: prisons are considered correctional facilities, while practice (statistics from so many different fields pertaining to the topic) shows that they represent detainment facilities. We as a society punish those that have grossly violated the others' rights, while respecting the rights of the offending parties at a lower tier, and in theory attempt to rehabilitate them - by putting them in a confined space with many other like-minded individuals and forgetting about them for x amount of time.
Its clumsy, it is clumsy how we define these rights and get the legislative and enforcing system to process them.

So we all understand that it is bad to treat other individuals in a condescending manner, to put it lightly, or to outright deny them of their freedoms. So how exactly is it different to deny them from the freedom of thought by deceiving our peers with false information? Or what about the promotion of violence just under the prosecutable line? Or about the correctional facilities where no "correcting" takes place?

We cannot claim rights after or with the intent of violating the very same said rights! What sense does that make?

And, to take a step back - for further clarification - and bring up the vaguely covered topic of god again: any religion deliberately and openly promotes deception and indoctrination, in many cases through very hands-on conduct - in yet other cases literally so. Now, how can we claim it to be deception?
Forget about science as a concept and look at it this way: in our society there are tiers of capability and knowledge. We experience and respect those who have worked to advance themselves in some field or another, be it building furniture or counting apples. These tiers extend to levels that in our every day life and as every day individuals we have neighter obvious and direct need for, nor do we even precisely understand what it all is about; or when we step from our class room into a professional heavyweight MMA match, we won't really have time to register what happened or how we could've evened the odds given immediately available means. Or yes, in other words we specialize. Some of us specialize in figuring out how parts of the world and life work, their equals argue with them, and what most of them can agree upon makes for currently accepted facts and norms.

Unfortunately to get to that level it takes more than a gentle tone, good speech skills, and your personal prayer hours counter record; because the only developed skills here would be comprehension of someone's topic(1), ability to convey information(2), and the ability to convey said information from unoriginal source in a convincing manner(3) - while the specific source is already discarded by general educated consensus. Someone might believe that by bashing his head against a solid block of reinforced concrete he might eventually be able to split it, if he bashes it enough times. Yes, we have our beliefs, we are entitled to them, but there are many others who do not need to follow your example to tell you that you are wrong - and be able to prove it. Again, by rights you'd be entitled to discard their beliefs, but my entire point here is that it is yet another logical fallacy to endorse public promotion of violence and deception just as long as no heads are cracked.
Unfortunately, that - too - is taken literally.

edit: the very right for individual beliefs (or privacy for that matter) itself has certain obvious issues, but it represents far more complicated topic that I'd prefer not to discuss in this thread.
User avatar
Forum Hero
Posts: 2918
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 05 4:04 pm
Location: land of green elephants

Return to Rants & Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest