Difference between revisions of "Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?"
(→No) |
m (Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right? moved to Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Yes== | ==Yes== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Although I also posted below, in general I feel that one standard should be applied, especially in articles an a "trustworthy encyclopedia". Emphasizing [[human rights]] abuses in countries friendly to American values while downplaying or ignoring human rights abuses which are hundreds of times greater, only serves the enemy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : MLK: 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'. Any human rights abuse is wrong and should be criticised. That's a standard that we should consistently hold to. <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]</sup> | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::::I've noticed no dearth of references here to the atrocities committed by Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Mao. Rest assured, Ed, if I saw an article here about Stalin that was as eager to soft-pedal his crimes as the article here about Pinochet, I would feel compelled to add a few unpleasant details. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | They're called <B>Human</B> rights for a reason! | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]] | ||
==No== | ==No== | ||
| Line 7: | Line 18: | ||
America should be held to a higher standard, because of the special claim of the [[American Dream]]. This is easy to do, because America is hundreds of times better than the barbaric [[totalitarian]] regimes which murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT) | America should be held to a higher standard, because of the special claim of the [[American Dream]]. This is easy to do, because America is hundreds of times better than the barbaric [[totalitarian]] regimes which murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | ::Quite a few of those "barbaric | + | ::Quite a few of those "barbaric [[totalitarian]] regimes" of the 20th century, like [[Rios Montt]]'s Guatemala and [[Pinochet]]'s Chile and the [[Shah]]'s Iran and even, for some years, [[Saddam Hussein]]'s Iraq, were supported and in some places even installed and propped up by the United States. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT) |
| + | |||
| + | :::Why Do You Hate America?(tm) --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I think we should first define what are human rights first. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Like homosexual marriage and abortion, I don't think they should be included, but others think otherwise. | ||
| + | |||
| + | By the way, human rights come from God, that why often time those atheistic and close nations don't have much of it.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 17:05, 25 December 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Immaterial == | ||
| + | |||
| + | There's no such thing as a human "right". Freedom, liberty, all the things that are considered "rights", they're privileges that were obtained through bitter fighting, and maintained through constant vigilence. That which you consider to be a "right" is a privilege, that's why a lot of people in the world don't have the same freedoms you do. It's also worth remembering that they are privileges that you have to guard, because if you start to think that they are inviolate you will be surprised at how quickly they can be stripped away from you. Just ask anyone who has lived in a democracy that suddenly became a dictatorship.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 18:55, 25 December 2008 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 07:33, January 4, 2009
Yes
Although I also posted below, in general I feel that one standard should be applied, especially in articles an a "trustworthy encyclopedia". Emphasizing human rights abuses in countries friendly to American values while downplaying or ignoring human rights abuses which are hundreds of times greater, only serves the enemy. --Ed Poor 08:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- MLK: 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'. Any human rights abuse is wrong and should be criticised. That's a standard that we should consistently hold to. Wikinterpretertalk?
- I've noticed no dearth of references here to the atrocities committed by Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Mao. Rest assured, Ed, if I saw an article here about Stalin that was as eager to soft-pedal his crimes as the article here about Pinochet, I would feel compelled to add a few unpleasant details. --PF Fox 13:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
They're called Human rights for a reason!
No
America should be held to a higher standard, because of the special claim of the American Dream. This is easy to do, because America is hundreds of times better than the barbaric totalitarian regimes which murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. --Ed Poor 14:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Quite a few of those "barbaric totalitarian regimes" of the 20th century, like Rios Montt's Guatemala and Pinochet's Chile and the Shah's Iran and even, for some years, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, were supported and in some places even installed and propped up by the United States. --PF Fox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Why Do You Hate America?(tm) --Gulik2 13:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I think we should first define what are human rights first.
Like homosexual marriage and abortion, I don't think they should be included, but others think otherwise.
By the way, human rights come from God, that why often time those atheistic and close nations don't have much of it.Kmcheng 17:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)
Immaterial
There's no such thing as a human "right". Freedom, liberty, all the things that are considered "rights", they're privileges that were obtained through bitter fighting, and maintained through constant vigilence. That which you consider to be a "right" is a privilege, that's why a lot of people in the world don't have the same freedoms you do. It's also worth remembering that they are privileges that you have to guard, because if you start to think that they are inviolate you will be surprised at how quickly they can be stripped away from you. Just ask anyone who has lived in a democracy that suddenly became a dictatorship.--Ieuan 18:55, 25 December 2008 (EST)
