Human Right to Brainwash and Prostitute

[James R]

Norsefire:

The only problem is the "Universal" part.

When all the nations of the world agree in the UN, that's as close to a universal declaration as you can get.

You say democracy is great, but now you're saying that not only do you have to be democratic, but you have to VOTE A CERTAIN WAY? No. They can vote for whatever damn well they please.

I didn't say people had to vote a certain way. They can vote however they like. Some votes will be based on morals, others on self-interest. That's the way it goes.

You can think it's backwards religious thinking all you want, but that's your opinion and not a fact; I can think Massachusetts is a dirty backwards dump, and that's my opinion.

Correct. Whose opinion am I supposed to have? I'm entitled to mine.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



When all the nations of the world agree in the UN, that's as close to a universal declaration as you can get.

Yes, except not all the nations of the world agree. Which is the problem. Not all people agree.

I didn't say people had to vote a certain way. They can vote however they like. Some votes will be based on morals, others on self-interest. That's the way it goes.

Great. Those Conservatives in Texas, then, voted as they did.

Based on their own morals, you see.

Good that we are in agreement.

Correct. Whose opinion am I supposed to have? I'm entitled to mine.

That's fine, but you ought to refrain from making judgments in these sorts of debates if you call yourself an academic and intellectual

 

[786]

I didn't say that. I said that in some cases it is acceptable to restrict an insane person's freedom of action to prevent him from harming himself. Do you disagree?

Is that another one of your self-made protectionist rule? Are Human Rights really rights or privileges that can be stripped due to countless reasons? Perhaps political reasons?

Most of them in democracies, I'd hope. If the government doesn't represent them, they can vote in a new one that does.

Thanks for the idealism..

Nobody said the UN is perfect.

Lol... but we must follow their rules?

Have you looked up the UN Declaration on Human Rights? It's online. Go and look at it. Read the whole thing. See if you can see how the right to be a prostitute is covered in the Declaration. It will be a good exercise for you, and you'll also get more of an idea about human rights in general.

Well apparently you can't give a yes or no answer?

I never claimed a special privilege.

Well apparently only 'Enlightened People' have the right to create Human Rights and impose them... that indeed is a special privilege. Its kind of like white supremacist type ideology.

Education. Once you know more about the Enlightenment and its philosophical ideas, you'll agree with me. Unless self-interest gets in the way, of course.

And you're self-less?

What are you talking about? People generally agree on human rights, except where self-interest gets in the way.

But when they don't you will take action against them and impose your rules...

I was very specific about war. Go back and read my previous post where I explained. Read it until you understand the important point I was making.

Well I also did mention sanctions? And my inquiry was the general idea that you will impose your morals on others, and you responded 'yes' just like religions want their morals to be imposed on 'you'- so at least you and religions see eye to eye.... But when religions impose morals that is somehow subjugation but when you want to change full regimes and have a judicial system that imposes on everyone that is just ..... well... I'm waiting for the word?

I never mentioned subjugation. You're the one who keeps bringing that up.

It doesn't matter if you don't bring it up because that is essentially what you're saying needs to be done.... Human Rights Abuse must be stopped and you have 'all options on the table'- where you will apply your 'Human Rights' and impose them on people who may have different Human Rights- women rights for example.

Peace be unto you

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Yes, except not all the nations of the world agree. Which is the problem. Not all people agree.

You'll never get 100% agreement on anything. Self-interest gets in the way, for one thing.

Great. Those Conservatives in Texas, then, voted as they did.

Based on their own morals, you see.

Which are a backwards religious dogma. Like I said.

Good that we are in agreement.

Yes. Good.

That's fine, but you ought to refrain from making judgments in these sorts of debates if you call yourself an academic and intellectual

Nonsense. It is the job of intellectuals to make exactly these kinds of judgments. Otherwise, some societies will never crawl out of the backwards religious swamp they find themselves in.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . of course there are prostitutes who are not being forced (by some gang or something) but do so of their own free choice.. Perhaps they don't like working hard and just want to use the 'resources' they have to make some money?

If you think that prostitution is not "working hard," does that mean that you would be willing to take the job if circumstances made other work difficult to find? I mean wow, who wouldn't be happy to take an easy job just to make ends meet? (Yes there are plenty of jobs for male prostitutes, especially in Muslim countries which actually do a pretty thorough job of suppressing female prostitution and all non-marital heterosexual intercourse. If you wonder why so many of those guys are bonkers it's because they're terminally horny and can only get laid by other guys.)

I'm well aware of what the Enlightenment was; that doesn't help the argument. The point is, we still won't agree on what enlightened values are.

The Enlightenment with a capital E was a historical period and the cultural trend which defined it. The other type of enlightenment, with a lower-case e and no definite article, is a human condition. The original question was about the latter.

 

[James R]

786:

I didn't say that. I said that in some cases it is acceptable to restrict an insane person's freedom of action to prevent him from harming himself. Do you disagree?

Is that another one of your self-made protectionist rule? Are Human Rights really rights or privileges that can be stripped due to countless reasons? Perhaps political reasons?

You avoided the question again. Why?

Can't you answer it honestly?

Nobody said the UN is perfect.

Lol... but we must follow their rules?

The good ones - yes, we should. Of course. It's the right thing to do.

Have you looked up the UN Declaration on Human Rights? It's online. Go and look at it. Read the whole thing. See if you can see how the right to be a prostitute is covered in the Declaration. It will be a good exercise for you, and you'll also get more of an idea about human rights in general.

Well apparently you can't give a yes or no answer?

Did you not understand me? Prostitution is allowed as a legitimate personal choice by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but there is no explicit clause that mentions this. I will not do your work for you. Go and read the Declaration.

Well apparently only 'Enlightened People' have the right to create Human Rights and impose them... that indeed is a special privilege.

No. I didn't say that. In fact, I explicitly said that most people have a good intuitive sense of human rights, even if they've never heard of the Enlightenment or the UN Declaration.

Its kind of like white supremacist type ideology.

No it isn't. You seem confused. You're still stuck with your religious idea that "subjugation" is necessary to get people to accept ideas. It is not.

And you're self-less?

Of course not. Nobody is completely selfless.

What are you talking about? People generally agree on human rights, except where self-interest gets in the way.

But when they don't you will take action against them and impose your rules...

I took you through this previously. You need to weigh up the good and bad outcomes of acting in a certain way. Then you make a decision to act if the good outweighs the bad. Get it?

And my inquiry was the general idea that you will impose your morals on others, and you responded 'yes' just like religions want their morals to be imposed on 'you'...

See above.

But when religions impose morals that is somehow subjugation but when you want to change full regimes and have a judicial system that imposes on everyone that is just ..... well... I'm waiting for the word?

Religions subjugate when they impose rules that are in conflict with fundamental human rights.

Human Rights Abuse must be stopped and you have 'all options on the table'- where you will apply your 'Human Rights' and impose them on people who may have different Human Rights- women rights for example.

There are no "different human rights". All enlightened peoples agree about basic human rights. No enlightened person things women ought to be subordinate to men. And yes, human rights abuses should be stopped. Of course they should, provided that the action taken to stop them does not result in greater harm. How could you disagree with that?

 

[Michael]

The problem is defining brainwashing.......simply raising your child is brainwashing.

Raising your child to agree with you politically, for instance, could be considered brainwashing.

Which is why I figured the OP had to do with adults.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Which is why I figured the OP had to do with adults.

It's always best to explicitly state your assumptions. In my first post I was careful to specify consenting adults, which goes a step further.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:

You'll never get 100% agreement on anything. Self-interest gets in the way, for one thing.

That's politics.

Which are a backwards religious dogma. Like I said.

In your opinion. You don't set the standard for what is progressive, James, even though you might be an intelligent fellow.

Nonsense. It is the job of intellectuals to make exactly these kinds of judgments. Otherwise, some societies will never crawl out of the backwards religious swamp they find themselves in.

America, the strongest and best nation in the world, is still largely a religious nation. So...what is your point?

Texas, a fairly religious state, has one of the highest GDP's; it's a center for computer manufacturing and development and home to ATT and Dell, Inc; it has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state; it has one of the highest education expenditures than any other state; it is home to NASA; it's the most business friendly state and has some of the lowest taxes; it contributes more to US agriculture than any other state, more to the Army, and has the highest potential for energy development; etc, etc

The list could go on and on. Texas is a very 'progressive' state, then. What is your point?

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

You don't set the standard for what is progressive, James, even though you might be an intelligent fellow.

No, but I recognise progress when I see it.

America, the strongest and best nation in the world, is still largely a religious nation. So...what is your point?

No it isn't. Australia is the best nation in the world. Prove me wrong.

Texas, a fairly religious state, has one of the highest GDP's; it's a center for computer manufacturing and development and home to ATT and Dell, Inc; it has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state; it has one of the highest education expenditures than any other state; it is home to NASA; it's the most business friendly state and has some of the lowest taxes; it contributes more to US agriculture than any other state, more to the Army, and has the highest potential for energy development; etc, etc

It also kills the most Americans every year with its death penalty. So?

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:

No, but I recognise progress when I see it.

You recognize what you define as progress

No it isn't. Australia is the best nation in the world. Prove me wrong.

I'm glad you have a lil national pride. Unless you are only saying that in jest.

It also kills the most Americans every year with its death penalty. So?

It executes more criminals, yes; so?

In the US, the overwhelming majority is in favor of the death penalty.

So yes, Texas cares deeply about justice. Good point.

 

[James R]

In the US, the overwhelming majority is in favor of the death penalty.

I think you ought to check just how "overwhelming" that statistic is.

 

[Norsefire]

I think you ought to check just how "overwhelming" that statistic is.

I have. It's in favor. In some parts more than others, of course.

Why, that's not a good thing? If I were you, I'd be working to get it back up in Australia. Unless you don't like justice.

See, the problem with your thinking is that you automatically equate softness with progress and harshness with barbarism; it doesn't quite work that way. Sometimes we have to be strict.

 

[Doreen]

According to Human Rights as known.....

Do Humans have the right to brainwash?
Do humans have the right to prostitute?

If No, please defend your answer...
If yes, why do almost all 'human rights' loving countries have problems with prostitution? And if these countries do not respect these Human Rights, why should anyone respect the "Human Rights" that these countries made themselves- because it would seem that it is only a political tool.

Peace be unto you

1) in most countries I know of prostitution is illegal, so it is not considered a right.
2) you might want to include being a customer of prostitutes. Without the market, no prostitution, and purchasing sex can be seen as the source. Also if prostituting in the focus - rather than johning and pimping, for example, the moral issue will seem all female. In fact the problem is partially that in general the men are not prosecuted or harassed as much as the women. You might not want to contribute to that.

As far as I can tell every country accepts what I would call brainwashing as part and parcel with parenting, education, advertising and politics.

Sadly.

 

[James R]

I have. It's in favor. In some parts more than others, of course.

I notice you're not quoting the actual statistics.

Why, that's not a good thing? If I were you, I'd be working to get it back up in Australia. Unless you don't like justice.

Australia abolished the barbaric practice of the death penalty years ago. It's time for the US to move into the 21st century and join us.

There's no justice in executing innocent people.

See, the problem with your thinking is that you automatically equate softness with progress and harshness with barbarism; it doesn't quite work that way. Sometimes we have to be strict.

I think you have a simplistic view of my thinking. If you want to know what I really think, ask. Don't assume.

 

[Norsefire]

I notice you're not quoting the actual statistics.

The actual statistics agree with me: most Americans support cp.

Australia abolished the barbaric practice of the death penalty years ago. It's time for the US to move into the 21st century and join us.

I like the US just the way it is, so how about no?

How about Australia move into the 21st century and join the US. Uncivilized and barbaric, sheesh.

There's no justice in executing innocent people.

There's no justice in doing anything bad to innocent people, including wrongfully imprisoning them for years and years.

Doesn't mean we'll stop the whole justice system for it.

 

[Doreen]

I assumed you were talking about adults.

If it's children then No and No. Child prostitution is wrong. Child should be taught to be open minded.

'taught to be open minded'. This sounds like brainwashing. Are their limits to this open-mindedness? How are these limits arrived at? Children are generally not very openminded, so you will be forcing them to have this as a value?

 

[GeoffP]

According to Human Rights as known.....

Do Humans have the right to brainwash?
Do humans have the right to prostitute?

If No, please defend your answer...
If yes, why do almost all 'human rights' loving countries have problems with prostitution? And if these countries do not respect these Human Rights, why should anyone respect the "Human Rights" that these countries made themselves- because it would seem that it is only a political tool.

Peace be unto you

That's absurd. Brainwashing is wrong, and prostitution harmful to the self and others. If the latter became legal, it would be a failure of human rights, not the proper expression of same.

 

[James R]

I notice you're not quoting the actual statistics.

The actual statistics agree with me: most Americans support cp.

I notice again that you are not quoting the actual statistics. Why not?

Australia abolished the barbaric practice of the death penalty years ago. It's time for the US to move into the 21st century and join us.

I like the US just the way it is, so how about no?

Fine. You want a backwards society. Go for it.

There's no justice in executing innocent people.

There's no justice in doing anything bad to innocent people, including wrongfully imprisoning them for years and years.

Better to execute them?

Ho hum.

I don't think your brain is switched on.

 

[Norsefire]

I notice again that you are not quoting the actual statistics. Why not?

I didn't feel the need to, but okay

Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of the American public supports the death penalty. A May 2005 Gallup poll had 74% of respondents in "favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder". In the same Gallup poll, when life imprisonment without parole was given as an option as a punishment for murder, 56% supported the death penalty and 39% supported life imprisonment, with 5% offering no opinion.[80] Elections have sometimes turned on the issue; in 1986, three justices were removed from the Supreme Court of California by the electorate (including Chief Justice Rose Bird) partly because of their opposition to the death penalty.

Fine. You want a backwards society. Go for it.

Oh, it's not that; I don't think it's backwards. Though, you are also making another assertion: you are saying that holding on to anything from the past makes a society backwards.

See, I think there are some things we can keep. Other things we can improve in. Keeping some old ways doesn't make a state "backwards"; so how about this: you can keep your Australia with no culture or interesting history whatsoever, and America will stay America.

Better to execute them?

Ho hum.

I don't think your brain is switched on.

No, not better to execute them; but I asked you, IS IT WORTH HALTING THE ENTIRE JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR SUCH A SMALL RISK?

Like I said, the key is to improve our legal review process, not become more lenient. One thing we could do is assign an execute after x amount of time, and if an inmate shows signs of improvement, that sentence can be commuted; innocent people wouldn't have been bad to begin with, and this method would weed them out.