Quote from: ZalmoxisI think the problem with your idea is that at it's base level, it's unethical. I say a lot of things like that when I'm hammered.

I see it from the opposite side. I think it's unethical to allow a child rapist to begin farming his own victims. If that means irradiating the bastard's sperm or whatever, I'm fine with that.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonAnd it's a right

Article 16

Or, if you live in Europe, Article 12

Ah, yes, because writing it down somewhere makes it so.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeAh, yes, because writing it down somewhere makes it so.  :rolleyes:

Yes.  That's what "human rights" mean.  What do you think those words mean?

I thought they meant "rights which all humans have" not "rights that some guy agree to."

If they're not written down do they not exist? If they are written down are they automatically true? Does that article 12 mean that we're not allowed to seperate child abusers from their children?

I didn't read far (because I didn't have to), but that first document says that all humans are endowed with reason and conscience. Writing that little bit down certainly didn't make it true.

Thank you, James, for handling that somewhat oddball question. I do believe I was momentarily stumped when I read it.  Not stumped because I didn't have an answer, stumped because I couldn't believe the question.

What does writing have to do with rights? Or is it an esoteric pun?

Well, I feel a little bad for not asking if Article 18 means I can sacrifice people as long as I'm practicing my religious observances of Tezcatlapocl.

To make it ok with EC's articles all I have to do is pass a law that makes being sacrificed to Tezcatlapocl the penalty for not offering oneself up as a voluntary sacrifice to Tezcatlapocl.

Serious question:

What do you think "human rights" are?

Those things which humanity is predisposed to have. They're precious few though compared to what you'll find on lists made by poeople with too much time.

Life: yep, that's your right until you do something to forfeit it, usually involving interfering with someone else's right to life.

Liberty: Go for it, until you screw up and then we'll snatch that liberty away.

Happiness: Hell no. The world is a tough place, and while you have the right to try for happiness, that's not a gaurantee. Too many people get the pursuit and the acquisition mixed up and start thinking the world owes them something.

Children: Nope. The "right" to forge future generations should be earned.

I can't really lay them all out for you, but the first three are the biggees that everyone talks about, and the last applies to this thread.

A-ha, here's our problem.  I think that my "rights" are the freedoms granted to me by virtue of being a citizen of the United Kingdom

There you go then. Looks like our basic difference is that you agree with what some guys wrote down about what your rights should be and I disagree. I think we can still get along (as long as you don't cross Tezcatlapocl).

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonA-ha, here's our problem.  I think that my "rights" are the freedoms granted to me by virtue of being a citizen of the United Kingdom

"A right is an articulated might."

Quote from: James McMurrayI see it from the opposite side. I think it's unethical to allow a child rapist to begin farming his own victims. If that means irradiating the bastard's sperm or whatever, I'm fine with that.

Well now you are speaking about specific instances. I personally would not have a problem with that, but then I am of the mind that anyone convicted of raping a child should be locked away forever unless they successfully fight the charge on appeal.

I could get on board with that, although I think locking them away forever is too much of a drain. Give em' X appeals and then toss them out the airlock.

That doesn't sound too liberal, does it?

Quote from: James McMurrayI could get on board with that, although I think locking them away forever is too much of a drain. Give em' X appeals and then toss them out the airlock.

That doesn't sound too liberal, does it?

If our system was one in which every tool available was exhausted for every defendant, then I would be down with that. Unfortunately though, "sex offenders" are often convicted on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, and I really don't like the idea of frying someone who very well might be innocent.

But locking them away forever where they may very well be sodomized until the day they die is ok?