[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90131]"There are some people who just don't belong in this world".[/QUOTE]

..and that is defined by whom?

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90130]we have to never have on-hand protection and allow strangers on our property without having the right and ability to make them leave? How does that even begin to be ok?[/QUOTE]

Speaking generally, that's why the State exists.
Btw, believe it or not, anyone "trespassing on your property" is a human being, just like you.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90128]Personally, I think, as one person mentioned about having the same jail sentence for every crime, I find that idiotic, honestly.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone here has even suggested the idea of "having the same jail sentence for every crime". What exists in Brazil is a maximum limit to the amount of time someone can actually serve in a prison, and that is 30 years. If you're sentenced less time (which will happen with almost every offender) then you serve less time, obviously. Now, since the range of atrocities humans can commit is unfortunately very wide, I wonder where does "punishment fitting the crime" go when you sentence someone who murdered one person to death, and then the next trial you have to proceed to is of someone who murdered hundreds, or thousands, of people.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90125]I've no problem with EU countries and Brazil electing not to implement the death penalty. Countries have the right to choose the penal code they are most comfortable with. I'm only ask for the same consideration without being condescendingly called backwards.[/QUOTE]

People's Republic of China and North Korea agree wholeheartedly with you. So would Stalin. [SIZE="1"]And GW Bush's Torture Law... (hope he doesn't listen to me)[/SIZE]

I thought criticism helped mature people and societies progress. George, since you've read that paper, which describes my country in so thorough a way, I know you'd have a lot to say about it, and I probably wouldn't like to hear most of it. But I honestly think I'm not defending (most of) Brazil's wrong laws.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90125](Quote:
Concepts like inherent, inalienable human rights?)
As defined by Europe? Amnesty International?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the ones the US uses to accuse other countries...
Now, to be a bit less cynical, that's indeed a point. Perhaps, if someone legally has a given right or protection (e.g. not being executed) somewhere in the world then everyone else everywhere else should have that protection, too. The similarity of rights inherent to the human condition is the basic principle underlying the idea of human rights, and that idea is essential to avoid things like Nazi Germany, PR China or US planned execution of proven innocent Mumia Abu-Jamal.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90125]Consensus is that right-to-life is an inalienable human right. There is no consensus on whether this is one of the rights you can lose after committing a crime. After all, by my count, there are 17 countries on the U.N Human Rights Council that still permit the death penalty.[/QUOTE]

:cynical: So what, there are 5 countries in the UN Security council which are the largest collective threat to security in the world! :cynical:

I'm too lazy to check that now. But what is evident is that human rights have to stop to be used as a mere rhetorical device by some certain nations...

With regards to punishment, why not restricting every authority to using the only right which is consensually viewed as being "loseable" by commiting a crime, that is, freedom of movement?

Bruno

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90138]So would Stalin.[/quote]

Stalin, Hitler, and GW Bush probably all loved their mothers. That doesn't make it wrong for me to love my mother too.

[quote]I thought criticism helped mature people and societies progress.[/quote]

Debate, yes. Criticism, much less so.

[quote]George, since you've read that paper, which describes my country in so thorough a way, I know you'd have a lot to say about it[/quote]

In the same way I don't want government meddling in my personal business, I don't feel it is my place to comment on your country's internal policies. There are political, economic and historical forces in play that I cannot begin to comprehend.

[quote]Perhaps, if someone legally has a given right or protection (e.g. not being executed) somewhere in the world then everyone else everywhere else should have that protection, too.[/quote]

That doesn't seem like a very workable solution. After all, in the U.S. a citizen has a right to own a gun.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;90128]Human rights are for the law abiding, if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
This is an unsustainable position. I will give you an example: in Germany the Baader-Meinhoff group did not recognise the state law, what did the German state do to address the problem? They changed their laws, made them retroactive (which is an aberration in any legal system), denied the right to legal counselling, "suicided" one of the prisoners... By doing this the German state recognised their law system did not work. If Human Rights are only for people respecting the laws they have no meaning, Human Rights are above the law, just as a constitution is above the law. The law is there to try to implement Human Rights and the Constitution.

Another example: in NAZI ruled Germany Jews had no rights by law; did they forfeit their Human Rights?

A last example: in Cambodia, under Pol Pots rule, people had no rights by law; did the people from Cambodia lose their Human rights?

[QUOTE=Prime95;90142]Stalin, Hitler, and GW Bush probably all loved their mothers. That doesn't make it wrong for me to love my mother too.[/QUOTE]

Agreeing with their (real or, as in this case, likely but supposed) political views is an entirely different issue.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90142]Debate, yes. Criticism, much less so. [/QUOTE]

Criticism is often the very beginning of a debate, and it is almost always an inherent part of it.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90142]In the same way I don't want government meddling in my personal business, I don't feel it is my place to comment on your country's internal policies. There are political, economic and historical forces in play that I cannot begin to comprehend.[/QUOTE]

Even if individually you choose not to comment on my country's or any other's policies, that doesn't make the idea of doing it wrong. Take, for instance, that very paper - it is a comment on our policies and politics. And, since regimes like that in North Korea ban internal debate - and criticism - it's up to us, who are outside, to do that.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90142]That doesn't seem like a very workable solution. After all, in the U.S. a citizen has a right to own a gun.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes rights conflict with one another, and views on these issues have to be [I]criticised[/I] and debated until a more rational solution, one which is for the greater good, can be reached. There are often pairs of opposing rights: the right to smoke vs. the right not to inhale smoke from someone else; an industry's right to throw up in the air any of its polluents vs. everyone's right to a clean environment; each one's right of having a gun vs. the right of living in a gun-free society.

As for human rights, I subscribe entirely to Jacob Visser's post.

Bruno

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90172]Even if individually you choose not to comment on my country's or any other's policies, that doesn't make the idea of doing it wrong. Take, for instance, that very paper - it is a comment on our policies and politics.[/quote]

Thanks for the correction, again I chose my words too hastily. I should have said I won't criticize your country's internal policies. I am willing to comment on and debate them. Criticizing is much more judgmental.

[quote]Sometimes rights conflict with one another, and views on these issues have to be [I]criticised[/I] and debated until a more rational solution, one which is for the greater good, can be reached. [/QUOTE]

The term "greater good" immediately raises my suspicions. This is often a euphemism for taking rights and/or property from the individual. That said, all I ask is you respect our country's right to weigh these conflicts and come up with our own answers. I'll respect your country's right to do the same.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90188]That said, all I ask is you respect our country's right to weigh these conflicts and come up with our own answers. I'll respect your country's right to do the same.[/QUOTE]

Sorry for insisting on much of the same point again and again (I'm a very boring person), but:

If I'm right to generalize what you're saying, then it means everyone should respect everyone else's country's answers to those questions, right?

If I understand it correctly, then you think "yes, everyone should... those questions". I should then ask you: do we have to respect Myanmar and Swaziland or (to take better-known examples of dictatorships) N. Korea or Cuba's answers, too?

What does exactly that mean? If that, in the end, means we cannot [I]criticize[/I] their dictatorial policies, then I should reject the original premise.

I'd propose something else: once some rights have been agreed upon (e.g. those generally conferred by liberal democracy), the the whole world should do policy to enforce those rights. I intend no pun here, but this is what's right, and I think the opposite (letting each country doing what they wish) is wrong. When a US citizen says "foreigners shouldn't criticize our death penalty policy" and a Chinese says "foreigners shouldn't criticize our information censorship policy", I don't see these statements as qualitatively different. I mean, either we're right to criticize both things, to put them both under our consideration whether they're right or not, whether they're progressive or backwards, or we're wrong doing it. I prefer to think we're right.

Bruno

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90201]do we have to respect N. Korea or Cuba's answers, too?[/quote]

Yes, but we don't have to agree with them. If the U.S. finds a country's policies too "backward" it can elect to have nothing to do with that country. The end result is the same. You boycott North Korea because you righteously believe you are morally superior and they must be punished until they change, I boycott North Korea because their value system is so fundamentally different than mine that I prefer not to have anything to do with them. Admittedly, a subtle distinction.

[quote]I'd propose something else: once some rights have been agreed upon (e.g. those generally conferred by liberal democracy), the the whole world should do policy to enforce those rights. ... I mean, either we're right to criticize both things, to put them both under our consideration whether they're right or not, whether they're progressive or backwards, or we're wrong doing it. I prefer to think we're right.[/QUOTE]

What bothers me most about your reasoning is the underlying air of superiority. [I]You've[/I] thought about some issue therefore the rest of the world must conform to your conclusion. This is the [I]exact[/I] same logic the religious right uses in the U.S. to try to ram anti-abortion, anti-gambling, anti-drug legislation through Congress. And to some degree, this is the same motivation that allows radical muslims to use violence in Allah's name.

In many respects you seem to be a religious zealot. Human rights, as defined by you, is your religion. All non-believers are to be scorned and must be converted at any cost.

Even if I agree with 90% or more of your human rights beliefs, I humbly suggest that you are human and may not be right on every issue. Or that on some issues there may be more than one right answer. Or that sometimes there are grey areas with no right or wrong answer.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90225]Yes, but we don't have to agree with them. If the U.S. finds a country's policies too "backward" it can elect to have nothing to do with that country. The end result is the same. You boycott North Korea because you righteously believe you are morally superior and they must be punished until they change, I boycott North Korea because their value system is so fundamentally different than mine that I prefer not to have anything to do with them. Admittedly, a subtle distinction.[/QUOTE]

Sounds nice. But you seem to have ignored the distinction between pure isolationism ("I don't want to have anything to do with them"), coordinated international efforts (e.g. UN sanctions) and unilateral use of force ("we're taking democracy to Iraq").
Also, there's a double standard in US foreign policy, since the N. Korean and Chinese regimes are essentially the same but are treated very differently.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90225]What bothers me most about your reasoning is the underlying air of superiority. [I]You've[/I] thought about some issue therefore the rest of the world must conform to your conclusion. This is the [I]exact[/I] same logic the religious right uses in the U.S. to try to ram anti-abortion, anti-gambling, anti-drug legislation through Congress. And to some degree, this is the same motivation that allows radical muslims to use violence in Allah's name.[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree. If you read my post again, you'll see the only things I propose should be adopted by the whole world are the ones upon which democracies, i.e. regimes where everyone has the right to think and express themselves, have reached a degree of consensus. These are things upon which people under dictatorships [I]would[/I] agree if they had the right to free information, free reasoning and free expression. This isn't some conclusion to which [I]I[/I] have come.

OTOH, you and I don't agree with the worldview fundamentalist Muslims want to impose. To see the difference, just ask yourself if you agree with the following two statements:
1. The media should be free to provide information from any viewpoint, about any subject, and, provided it doesn't incite the disrespect of other individuals' rights, it should be free to express any opinion, including criticizing the government.
2. God has said women should wear a black bed linen from the top of their heads to the tip of their toes, with only a few small holes in front of the eyes and nose, so they should.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90225]In many respects you seem to be a religious zealot. Human rights, as defined by you, is your religion. All non-believers are to be scorned and must be converted at any cost.

Even if I agree with 90% or more of your human rights beliefs, I humbly suggest that you are human and may not be right on every issue. Or that on some issues there may be more than one right answer. Or that sometimes there are grey areas with no right or wrong answer.[/QUOTE]

Taken by itself, I don't dislike the idea of human rights being my kind of "religion". Since you've come from that to those conclusions, then I'm probably expressing my views in too harsh a way. I'd just point out, with regards to the second paragraph, that I don't believe to be personally right on everything; as I said above, I think the right options and ways to take come not from an individual's beliefs, but from the [I]criticism[/I] and debate of ideas.

Finally: the reason why I think your division between "criticism" and "debate" is so subtle it ends up having no practical value, is that [I]you've just criticized my views[/I], in much the same way you said you didn't like yours to be criticized.

Heartfully,
Bruno

Can i make a susgestion....
This thread be locked...
this is a hot topic in the world and if say google comes trawling along and posts this wont this attract more pro choiceers and pro lifers

and Carlsagan43
if you join a forum just to post about a pro life or pro choice you mine as well go join the forums that are actually devoted to it and not some math forum that you found had a lot of people watching it.

Our little discussion has probably about run its course.

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90240]But you seem to have ignored the distinction between pure isolationism ("I don't want to have anything to do with them"), coordinated international efforts (e.g. UN sanctions) and unilateral use of force ("we're taking democracy to Iraq").[/quote]

Not at all. In my NK example, I may very well talk to my like-minded friendly countries and tell them what we are doing and ask them to consider joining in.

Actually, for the gross offenders I think we are mostly in agreement. The only difference I see is in tone. Both methods end up with sanctions against the target country which offers economic incentives to change.

For the minor differences we are in disagreement. You seem to be appalled over the U.S. death penalty law as a violation of human rights. Holocaust denial laws in many European countries are a violation free speech rights, yet I'm not upset in the least. I prefer to see EU countries and Brazil as basically "good guys" and to not sweat the small differences.

[quote]Also, there's a double standard in US foreign policy, since the N. Korean and Chinese regimes are essentially the same but are treated very differently.[/quote]

I've not been speaking for the U.S. government, only expressing my "live and let live" philosophy.

NK and China are quite different in that China is making extraordinary economic progress and it is hoped this will lead to social progress. I think of it as a foreign policy experiment.

[quote]...propose should be adopted by the whole world are the ones upon which democracies, i.e. regimes where everyone has the right to think and express themselves, have reached a degree of consensus. These are things upon which people under dictatorships [I]would[/I] agree if they had the right to free information, free reasoning and free expression. This isn't some conclusion to which [I]I[/I] have come.[/quote]

I just don't think you (by you I mean your consortium of like minded countries) have the right to impose your beliefs on the other countries of the world.

[quote]you and I don't agree with the worldview fundamentalist Muslims want to impose[/quote]

Yet you seem to want to impose your worldview on them.

[quote]God has said women should wear a black bed linen from the top of their heads to the tip of their toes, with only a few small holes in front of the eyes and nose, so they should.[/quote]

If that's the rule certain muslim countries wish to live under, that is fine by me.

[quote]Taken by itself, I don't dislike the idea of human rights being my kind of "religion".[/quote]

I thought you wouldn't mind. :wink:

[quote]the reason why I think your division between "criticism" and "debate" is so subtle it ends up having no practical value[/quote]

Perhaps so. This thread is likely to come back to haunt me at a later date :)

[quote]is that [I]you've just criticized my views[/I][/quote]

No criticism intended. A friendly debate on theories for how countries should interact.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90260]This thread is likely to come back to haunt me at a later date :)[/QUOTE]

Possibly (though I can't see why, unless you wind up running for office in Liberalleftissville, PA), but thinks of it this way:

At the moment you feel you can no longer speak your beliefs on matters not related to primes and coding because of your status as a famous prime discoverer and programmer, the algo-rists will have won, or something.