Debates
01 Oct 09
02 Oct 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree with the rights to economic support for basic needs, but I don't think people should have children unless they're financially capable of supporting them independently. How that could be enforced, though, I don't know -- but nothing useful is achieved by denying welfare to children; poverty only puts them in a worse position.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
Article 25
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, clo ...[text shortened]... disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
03 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirYou are mistaken. You should read up on the topic of rights. The UN decided to choose different rights than we did in the US...they chose some that are not liberty rights.
Yeah... I think the bases upon which your liberty is defined should be waved away like that.
It only took us 2000 years to create it.
Who is "us" by the way? As one who refuses to claim a nationality, who are you to take credit for what the United Nations did?
05 Oct 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhich UN rights are you suggesting aren't "liberty" rights, for example?
You are mistaken. You should read up on the topic of rights. The UN decided to choose different rights than we did in the US...they chose some that are not liberty rights.
Who is "us" by the way? As one who refuses to claim a nationality, who are you to take credit for what the United Nations did?
06 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by karnachzPossibly Article 13.1 in which is guaranteed the "right to residence". This must be clarified before I can answer for this one.
Which UN rights are you suggesting aren't "liberty" rights, for example?
Article 17 as well, in which it is written that people have the "right to own property". Most likely this is a liberty right, in which people have the right to own the property they earned, but if the state guarantees that everyone is owed property then it's different.
Article 22, in which is written that all people have a right to "social security".
Article 25 in which it is written that all people have the right to be fed, housed, given medical care, clothing, and be given "special assistance" with the raising of their children by society.
Article 26 in which is described a "right to free education".
Article 29.1 is not a right at all but rather claims all people owe "the community" some sort of "duties".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
06 Oct 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYour OP is a kind of rant.
Reread the OP
I asked "Do you have the right to have a family in the U.S.?"
You said: yes.
Presumably you favour that right, then.
So what could be wrong with stating it explicitly?
Does doing so remove "...all natural barriers to reproduction like having to work to feed your kids" and lead to "an ever growing underclass of people who live in poverty" in the U.S.?
Do you oppose the right to have a family in the U.S.?
06 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou're ignoring some of the words in the OP. By doing so, you're setting up a Strawman Fallacy. I never claimed that the right to have a family leads to disaster alone.
Your OP is a kind of rant.
I asked "Do you have the right to have a family in the U.S.?"
You said: yes.
Presumably you favour that right, then.
So what could be wrong with stating it explicitly?
Does doing so remove "...all natural barriers to reproduction like having to work to feed your kids" and lead to "an ever growing underclass of people who live in poverty" in the U.S.?
Do you oppose the right to have a family in the U.S.?
06 Oct 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe US always was, and still is, only interested in protecting the rights of property owners.
You are mistaken. You should read up on the topic of rights. The UN decided to choose different rights than we did in the US...they chose some that are not liberty rights.
Who is "us" by the way? As one who refuses to claim a nationality, who are you to take credit for what the United Nations did?
Anything that isn't about property is binned as "socialist".
That's why your country is falling apart at the seams and nearly every American you meet is a complete moron.
06 Oct 09
Originally posted by shavixmirProperty rights will go away just shortly after the guns are taken away. So will the rest of your rights in America. We can trust foreign mercenary police forces such as the American Police Force setting up shop in Hardin Montana where the chief has about 15 felonies to keep order with deadly force, but you had better not trust the average citezen with a firearm. They might some day decide to fight for their rights.
The US always was, and still is, only interested in protecting the rights of property owners.
Anything that isn't about property is binned as "socialist".
That's why your country is falling apart at the seams and nearly every American you meet is a complete moron.