Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum
Posted: May 11th, 2018, 5:32 am
Thank you for the confirmation.
Philosophy for Philosophers
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15484
I have no problem with that and fully expect people who read and absorb new uncritically to swallow all they are fed.Eduk wrote: ↑May 10th, 2018, 5:53 pm So just to be clear. All criticism of any Labour party member is laughable and massively exaggerated, for presumably nefarious means. But all criticism of the conservative party is 100% accurate and buried, also presumably for nefarious reasons.
Do you have any idea how your points make you sound?
I endorse !ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑May 10th, 2018, 5:13 pmLOL.
In an organisation with 500,000 there have been 75 complaints. Two have been upheld by the party HQ. TWO.
That is not an "antisemitism problem", it is a media frenzy to denigrate Jeremy Corbyn.
Jacob Rees Mogg has called Vanessa Felz a "fat Jewish slag", and called Baroness Lawrence a N**G*R, but has received no sanction from is party, the Conservatives.
Our own foreign secretary, the RT Hon Boris Johnson has used racist language on numerous occasions.
e.g
"What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote. It also mentioned "watermelon smiles".
Currently the Tories are reeling from the racist immigration policy concerning the "Windrush generation' scandal. This has involved people who having lived here all their lives being "repatriated' to places like Jamaica, and having their driving licence being seized, jobs lost, and families broken up.
Have you joined Labour?Belindi wrote: ↑May 11th, 2018, 6:25 amI endorse !ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑May 10th, 2018, 5:13 pm
LOL.
In an organisation with 500,000 there have been 75 complaints. Two have been upheld by the party HQ. TWO.
That is not an "antisemitism problem", it is a media frenzy to denigrate Jeremy Corbyn.
Jacob Rees Mogg has called Vanessa Felz a "fat Jewish slag", and called Baroness Lawrence a N**G*R, but has received no sanction from is party, the Conservatives.
Our own foreign secretary, the RT Hon Boris Johnson has used racist language on numerous occasions.
e.g
"What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote. It also mentioned "watermelon smiles".
Currently the Tories are reeling from the racist immigration policy concerning the "Windrush generation' scandal. This has involved people who having lived here all their lives being "repatriated' to places like Jamaica, and having their driving licence being seized, jobs lost, and families broken up.
Belindi you don't have to actually do anything
From the UNUDHR:Dachshund wrote:My understanding of the notion of human dignity as it is used in the contemporary Human Rights discourse is that it refers to the fundamental moral status of human beings, that is, to their basic "worth" or "value". If so, the stipulation in documents like the current UNUDHR (United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that all men and women are unconditionally entitled to be accorded equal, basic Human Rights is directly founded on the claim that all human beings inherently possess an equal moral status, that is, that they all possess the same, inherent, equal dignity; - that they are, in short, to be understood as having an inalienable, non-fungible equal fundamental (moral) worth or value.
In my opinion, this is utter nonsense. I absolutely do not subscribe to the view that such a thing as human dignity exists in the sense that it is a real, inviolable, non-fungible, absolute normative property possessed in the same measure by all human beings.
From the US Declaration of Independence:All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God.
I see nothing there which states that man and woman possess an inalienable dignity, but some have more dignity than others. So it seems to me that on this particular subject of human dignity, at least in the abstract (if not when it comes down to interpreting the application of these general principles to individual cases), the Catholic Church and the enlightenment values of the UNUDHR and the US Declaration of Independence appear to agree.Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.
Emotional reasoning is not a logical fallacy. Must you be reminded in a thread on human rights that humans are emotional beings?It’s based on logical fallacies like emotional reasoning, ad hominem attack and strawmen, and gets in the way of the actual facts - facts which are needed to make informed decisions.and gets in the way of the actual facts - facts which are needed to make informed decisions.
It has become a definitive sign of an unwillingness or inability to think when one relies on generic attacks on political correctness in place of substantive argument. It does not take much thought to see that this is nothing more than the right’s own version of political correctness that uses free speech to defend incivility, rudeness, and a disregard for others who do not follow precipitously changing party lines.Political-correct manipulations …
Yes. A study found people who believed they were more objective and less prejudice actually displayed more subjective prejudice than those who acknowledged they had some subjectivity & prejudice.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2018, 3:56 pmYet of course that declaration of human rights is an assertion of objective rights.
And in a sense perhaps that is all objectivity is; an assertion of a view that disregards individual bias?