I'm sure there probably is a thread already titled this lurking deep within the depths of long forgotten threads list, however I thought I would start one off again.
Now it's been some years since theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up by the United Nations with the goal to try and premote a better respect for our fellow personkind.
The question however is "Do you actually know what they mean?"
My standpoint can be seen as follows: (You don't have to read what I've wrote, but it's my answer to my own question)
=======================================================
I say that generally, but the true scope to that question is deepened when you look at the different countries that still have death sentences, the different military's being trained not just for combat but how to kill (Which usually means undermining what Moral and Ethical judgements are usually made when reasoning why a person shouldn't kill)
So it's not so much the question of "What do you think they mean?" but "What do you think they mean from your perspective? (Your job, your way of life, how you have been treated, how people have interacted with you)"
The next question is those countries that always have the politicians declaring that Human Rights abuse is going on elsewhere in the world, do you think they truly don't do such abuse themselves? (Afterall I mentioned the key apsect of a Military Psyche is that of a trained killer)
The way I perceive it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is suffering some outdatedness, and should have an Admendment of the Worlds leaders lowering the number of people hired into their military forces, to reduce the number of Human Rights offenders.
I know that people in the military will be quite upset at the apsects of losing their jobs, but the simple understanding is this:
Some people that leave the military do so with a disfunctional state of mind, they cause violent abuse against their spouses and can eventually cause violent crimes to occur because they don't get the support needed to bring them back into a better moral understanding of why the things they did in the military could only be done while in the military.
In fact some of these Ex-regiment types believe that the worst a country can do to them is kill them or put them in prison for anything they do, and since their job originally was placing them on a field of battle where their life could be plucked by a stray bullet at any time, they have come to terms with the potential of dieing far before being caught of a crime.
You might state that it's unfair to just point at the military, but its a known fact that the military takes pride in breaking people to make them more controllable and to cause them to respect their chain of command.
None the less there are other forms of abuse that occur that aren't related to the military. Some people don't have a policy of indifference, therefore when someone speaks about something they disagree with, or they thing is "funny" they resort to attacks of ridiculing. Although this is lesser an offence of beating someone black and blue, it still has repurcussions of mental stability on both the victim of the attack and the aggressor.
The Aggressor begins to generate a psychological view that what they do is tolerated, when in fact it's not.
This can even be said about drug users, that get to the point of spending all their money on their beloved drug but allowing their lives to slip into a depressive recess. When they eventually realise how their life has gone, they either spend the rest of it trying to dig themselves out of the hole that the lack of responsibility over that period of life has dug, or they allow themselves to dig further down with thoughts of "Well my life is that messed up, why should I bother trying to correct it, I give up".
The reason why I mention such drug uses is that they tend to lose track of ethics and moral standings, they conform new rulings based on their way of life which is far different than that of the world around them. They can become aggressors or abusers through their altered moral and ethical state.
I would like to see your thoughts in this area too, so I know that I haven't generated moral standards that others don't appreciate.
Now it's been some years since theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up by the United Nations with the goal to try and premote a better respect for our fellow personkind.
The question however is "Do you actually know what they mean?"
My standpoint can be seen as follows: (You don't have to read what I've wrote, but it's my answer to my own question)
=======================================================
I say that generally, but the true scope to that question is deepened when you look at the different countries that still have death sentences, the different military's being trained not just for combat but how to kill (Which usually means undermining what Moral and Ethical judgements are usually made when reasoning why a person shouldn't kill)
So it's not so much the question of "What do you think they mean?" but "What do you think they mean from your perspective? (Your job, your way of life, how you have been treated, how people have interacted with you)"
The next question is those countries that always have the politicians declaring that Human Rights abuse is going on elsewhere in the world, do you think they truly don't do such abuse themselves? (Afterall I mentioned the key apsect of a Military Psyche is that of a trained killer)
The way I perceive it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is suffering some outdatedness, and should have an Admendment of the Worlds leaders lowering the number of people hired into their military forces, to reduce the number of Human Rights offenders.
I know that people in the military will be quite upset at the apsects of losing their jobs, but the simple understanding is this:
Some people that leave the military do so with a disfunctional state of mind, they cause violent abuse against their spouses and can eventually cause violent crimes to occur because they don't get the support needed to bring them back into a better moral understanding of why the things they did in the military could only be done while in the military.
In fact some of these Ex-regiment types believe that the worst a country can do to them is kill them or put them in prison for anything they do, and since their job originally was placing them on a field of battle where their life could be plucked by a stray bullet at any time, they have come to terms with the potential of dieing far before being caught of a crime.
You might state that it's unfair to just point at the military, but its a known fact that the military takes pride in breaking people to make them more controllable and to cause them to respect their chain of command.
None the less there are other forms of abuse that occur that aren't related to the military. Some people don't have a policy of indifference, therefore when someone speaks about something they disagree with, or they thing is "funny" they resort to attacks of ridiculing. Although this is lesser an offence of beating someone black and blue, it still has repurcussions of mental stability on both the victim of the attack and the aggressor.
The Aggressor begins to generate a psychological view that what they do is tolerated, when in fact it's not.
This can even be said about drug users, that get to the point of spending all their money on their beloved drug but allowing their lives to slip into a depressive recess. When they eventually realise how their life has gone, they either spend the rest of it trying to dig themselves out of the hole that the lack of responsibility over that period of life has dug, or they allow themselves to dig further down with thoughts of "Well my life is that messed up, why should I bother trying to correct it, I give up".
The reason why I mention such drug uses is that they tend to lose track of ethics and moral standings, they conform new rulings based on their way of life which is far different than that of the world around them. They can become aggressors or abusers through their altered moral and ethical state.
I would like to see your thoughts in this area too, so I know that I haven't generated moral standards that others don't appreciate.
