A debate on human rights. Please take part.

I wouldn't say that actual capitalism has much of a history, actually.

You guys are going way beyond what the question is all about. Please try to stick to the main topic which tackles "specific debatable cases" of human rights violation.

I guess nobody liked my comment lol

I guess nobody liked my comment lol

1) Not having a birth certificate

Big deal. I do not see a government certificate of your existence as any violation of human rights. Birth at home recorded in a family Bible was proof enough for many years to date.

2)A baby placed on the stairs of an orphanage and left alone

I see no violation of human rights here either. A parent may not be equipped to raise an infant or child. An infant left on an orphanage step will not go long without being noticed. They will be cared for immediately. I think it is far better to ignore this sort of thing, where a parent places a child to people they know for fact will care for that life better than they are able. They do not wish to be known. This is abandonment, which is preferential than parents like this keeping a child. I wouldn't even try to hunt them down, just find a good home for the child. I seriously doubt an infant will die of dehydration without being quickly noticed in an obvious place, right at the front door.

3)Child labor

That depends on many things. How old is the child? Can they still work and have adequate education? Kids can earn money with a job of some sort and still be able to continue education. I feel it is neglect by parents to use their children as an income source for the family that they should be supporting at the expense of their education, as a minor.

4)"Preferring" the white colored children over the black colored

Who is doing the 'Preferring? In the private sector, it is commonly done. It is unacceptable for a white child to get help from the United Negro College Fund because of race. Shouldn't we all hold the same standards? Opportunity should be offered to all, but it isn't realistic in some ways. No violation of human rights here depending on circumstance, which has to be made more specific.

5) Strikes,vacations and holidays in a certain company are not allowed

Not exactly sure what this one intends. Some professions can cause serious collapse if allowed to strike. I'm a nurse. What if we all denied care to patients for a pay raise? This is extortion. Not all should be allowed to strike. This is profession dependent and not necessarily a right.

6) Physical torture

Obvious violation.

7) Sentence to death

How many people on Death Row already gave at least one person a death sentence? This is no violation of human rights.

8) An organization was banned because of the religion it preached
Another obvious violation.

9) No right to shelter/food

You don't have the right to have anything you didn't earn, including food and shelter. You should work, as the rest of us do. If this is a right, then I would like the government to start paying my mortgage payment and grocery bill.

That's very well said Wildflower63. Well organized and straight to the point.

Any comments guys before I state my own?

Thanks Vonderjohn!

Come on, let's hear what you think!!!

that's terrible! everybody should have basic rights!!!

I agree. We should have basic rights. Too many people around the world don't. I feel fortunate to be born here instead of many other countries where people are impoverished, ill, and oppressed with no opportunity at all.

I'm not sure what you find terrible or if I even said it. If it's the food and shelter thing, I'm going to start forwarding my house payment to the government and demand food stamps. I shouldn't have to work for it since it is a basic human right.

I don't see it that way. Who is going to bother contributing to society if everyone has the right to food and shelter without earning the money to pay for it? No one! We will have everything we need and there will be no government money to pay for it. The majority of our paycheck goes towards food and shelter!! Most of us feel lucky to have a whole lot left over for clothing we need or money to go out to eat without going into credit card debt. We need a good running car, which many also have debt, so that we can have reliable transportation to work and back. We all work to pay for our basic needs and have very little left over for fun things in life. We are not entitled to anything we don't earn.

If it is the racial preference thing, that depends. No one objects to any racial preference unless it is person of the white race wanting a white only private club, for example. Other races are allowed to prefer. When does the United Negro College Fund help a poor white person get an education? They wont because of race.

When we are talking anything further than private type of organizations, there is a problem. If we use preference of race for employment and have no law to protect any race, including the white race, this is clearly wrong and a violation of human rights of opportunity to provide food and shelter, which I do not feel is a basic human right.

Everyone should have opportunity if they want to work for it. Every race should be allowed equal opportunity for education and employment. The current law protecting the oppressed of the past is just. Oppression of any race, religion, or culture, is clearly wrong and I do feel there is a definite human right in this case.

I will not complain about the United Negro College Fund not helping poor white people. They are trying to solve problems of their own race and culture to enable them to be educated. This is a very real problem. I also do not feel that private country clubs should have to allow black members if they do not wish to do so. Black people have every opportunity to go places where they are welcome and create their own country clubs.

Minorities are not oppressed today, but you can't let the ills of the past bias thinking rule any judgment call of today on this issue. If my kids are any example, living in an all white neighborhood their entire lives, the young are colorblind of all races in this country, at least the majority of them who will have power as well as young adults do right now who don't really notice race, just the person and whether they like or dislike, as it should be.

My kids tell me about their friends at school. I am the one surprised to find a person of differing ethnic background when meeting their friend I have already been told about assuming them to be white. Doesn't Wayne sound like a white name? He is from Guam and speaks broken English. My son didn't think his race was worth mentioning. Mary is black. My daughter didn't see this worthy of mention either.

Older people are the bias ones. I don't consider myself racist at all. I'm also 40 years old and think I have to walk on eggshells speaking to a minority. My kids don't. My kids even think racial jokes are funny in the company of a person of another race. So do their non-white friends loaded with white jokes, which are funny. My comfort level tells me making a black joke in front of a black friend is completely offensive. They young don't see it that way.

They see adult attitudes as funny and they are right, we are idiots about racial issues and they are not. My daughters black friend laughed when she looked at how messy my daughter's room was and called her a spoiled white bitch with no ill intent at all. I completely agreed with her friend. She used the phrase as humor. It was about being a slob, not race, even if a racial remark was used to express this.

It is people like me, 40+, that remember racism. I am including all races here, not just white. I have asked my kids why they didn't tell me their friend wasn't white, only so I don't make a complete fool of myself by obvious confusion upon meeting them. My kids look at me like I am crazy and want to know why it matters. It doesn't matter. It is my own age group that feels uncomfortable with people of differing races, not the younger generation.

This is a good thing that my children choose friends because of the person inside, not race. It's older people, like me, that feel uncomfortable. I think minorities don't like me because I am white and the reason for oppression of the past I had nothing to do with. That was a generation or two previous to mine. It is me that feels that I am supposed to walk on eggshells with a minority, not younger people. They laugh at us for this type of thing.

I only want to know so that I am aware when a person of a different race I meet does not feel uncomfortable by my reaction that will definitely show on my face. I don't want anyone coming to my home to feel unwelcome and don't care what race they are. I do trust my children and their judgment call with friends, no matter what race. I don't trust my own reaction of feeling like minorities resent me because of my race and do feel uncomfortable. I wish my kids would tell me so I don't make an ass of myself or make their friends feel uncomfortable in my home. They don't. They don't understand my age group, but I do understand theirs, which is something much better.

Racism is going away. The ones that did participate in oppression are dying out. My generation had nothing to do with oppression. My parents and grandparents do and I know this. I have never seen a black person forced to sit in the back of a bus or give up a seat for a white person. That is unthinkable to us. People my age do remember things of the past told to us by our parents who do remember of all races. I do feel resented by minorities for things I had no participation in at all.

I'm just being completely honest. Criticize away! People of my age have parents who remember oppression and have told their children, of all races. Being white, I automatically think I am going to be resented because of my race by minorities. That is the singular reason I would like my kids to tell me their friend's race, so I am not showing any funny reaction people can read by assuming their friends are white. The last thing I want to do is make anyone feel uncomfortable in my home because of my obvious reaction of surprise when answering the door to a minority teen.

I do honestly believe racism is a thing of the past. Can anyone identify with my thoughts on this?

On second take, I am going to say that the only "natural" or "god-given" right is that we all have the same rights. After that, you have a right to what you can take.

No criticizm intended at all. Please clarify that one! I would think 'take' could be substituted with 'earn'. Is that the intended message? By taking, you can voilate another's rights. I guess those rights are on a bit higher level than basic human rights though.

Yeah, take = earn. I don't mean, take from other people, I just mean take, in general. But if no one has the right to not have stuff taken from them, than it includes both. It's ok, though, because if one person can take from another, the first person can always take it back. This would encourage people to find ways of preventing such taking though, and so someone who successfully stole something would have to have earned it to get to it.

For instance, countries fight each other all the time to take land from each other, but that isn't stlealing.

I get the idea. I can't say all the wars of past were in just cause. They weren't. It comes down to either religion or Darwinism, as I see it.

A lot of people died for a cause under both circumstances, religion or technologically superior. I can't reason any war or a matter of 'taking' in the name of religious belief since I believe all religion teaches a completely different thing. Religion teaches acceptance of differences. I consider it to be nothing more than group murder if anyone death occurs in the name of religion. Rot in hell for this one.

A battle of taking of technology and education, I can justify. In my personal life, if I allow anyone to take advantage, shame on me. I am not allowed to break the law because of ignorance. This is not accepted under the most just government in the world today, the US.

I can't say that the descendants of slavery or American (what is the PC term?) Native people had anything but gain in this country by Darwinism taking. The original people have suffered absolute crimes of humanity that gave their decedents something much better.

I am not saying it is just, but a reality is all. The strong will take the weak and ignorant. The descendants will be much more informed and educated than their ancestors. I feel a cause is sometimes misunderstood.

For example, slavery of any individual is clearly a violation of human rights. The decedents of slavery today have a better life because of it. I am only speaking of the US slave trade. That is fact. Look at the truth of African countries today and try telling me black people of the US don't have a better life than the ancestry of Africa.

What about American Natives? Most of true ancestry are dead. They mixed with the blood of European Immigrants and are accepted as white. Historians, please correct me if I am wrong! I read that Native American's did sell land to foreign immigrants. It was a problem when too many appeared. There was brutal murder of families by Native Americans. The immigrants responded to this in a very fierce form against those who could not win this battle of immigration only because of the vast difference in technology possessed by immigrants that would not accept murder of families and did not feel safe living with or among Native Americans.

European immigrants were not safe at all. They were secluded farmers, for the most part, and easy targets of terrorism.

The action on either side is clearly wrong and unjust. Terrorism by murder of families because of race is unjust against immigrants who where honestly sold land by Native Americans. The two lived by very different rules. The right of hunting grounds is as ridiculous today as it was to early European immigrants, who gave up a lot for some opportunity in life.

So was the sentence of innocent Native Americans to be sent west by force and death. I'm sure we all have heard of 'The Trail of Tears'. This did not happen without reason, but was extreme in nature punishing the innocent as the guilty.

Since most Native Americans were tribal people with no written language, who will prevail in a war of this sort? Common sense dictates the more advanced society will and did win this war. I don't intend to justify the cruelty to these people. It is just another harsh reality of humanity on both parts, murderes.

I believe that people are so much more barbaric in nature than we like to think we are. We are animals. We will spill blood to further our own. That means religion wars as well as technological ones.

When did we ever stop to justify what we do in the name of a cause we feel is just? We haven't and never will. We are just as animal as my house cat that will show fangs and claws at any threat. We are no better than the average house cat, which we all know, has far less intelligence than humans. Strange enough, we animals all react the exact same way every time we feel threatened.

Are we so different than any other animal life? We just like to think humanity has a soul, but my cat doesn't. Screwed up, in my opinion. That is humanity, another group of animals, nothing more.

Wildflower, you said:
" I can't say all the wars of past were in just cause. They weren't. It comes down to either religion or Darwinism, as I see it "

What do you mean by Darwinism? What does Darwin have to do with wars??

To clarify, by Darwin theory of nature, the strong will survive only because of weakness of another species to the point of extinction of. Have you read about Galapagos Island when Darwin saw it?

Read what happened to the many species of birds after this island was know to others. Many visited, using cats to kill rodents, on ships of the past. These cats equated to the average housecat.

There was another species introduced on this island, a house cat, that never existed before allowing the weak to survive, but no longer. The average house cat managed to extinct many species only because the cat is superior in the food chain.

The nature of species that Darwin initially saw and recorded, as an educated and spoiled brat of a wealthy father, no longer existed because of instinction through the superior animal, an average house cat. Many sailors abandon cats if they happened to get loose. They did and were the stronger species. Sailors did not see cats as pets. They used a house cat for a practical purpose on these ships of long ago.

I feel this also applies to people. The more advanced society will prevail over a weaker one. History dictates this over and over. The singular reason for human advancement is different from a cat. A cat is physically superior to the point that they could and did extinct many species on Galapagos Island. Humans are intellectually superior to animals and we also have extinct and endangered other life forms for our own purpose.

The Bible says, "The meek shall inherit the earth." Well, history tells a different tale. How could one plantation owner own many slaves and get away with this? It was because they were technologically superior. Humans utilize intelligence, not physical attributes.

These African slaves where sold by rival African tribal people as prisoners of war and were rewarded for this by trade that was agreed upon. How can tribal people ever compete with an advanced society and win? They couldn't and neither could the American Natives.

I have owned many cats. I no longer allow them outdoors. My orange male would torture, then kill his prey, as so many of my indoor/outdoor cats did. Humans are not above that. We see examples of it every day in the news. We are not above any animal, just more powerful is all. We are barbaric and utilize the exact same instinct as any animal. This is my Darwinism comparison.