Humanity is Politically defined very narrowly by the UDHR! Do you meet the definition of Article 1?

"and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

This would be the problem? Brotherhood... ? Like the Muslim Brotherhood?

to answer the OP's question.....every human meets the definition. pretty simple to me.
2nd line

If we take one of the OP's tests:

"Do you meet the definition of Article 1?"

(note: all this requires is a yes or no answer ok!)

NO! ... Becuase I am unreasonable and hence can not be politically human as defined by that legal document.

Isn't this going to irritate all of the women of the world? Are you suggesting we classify them as "fauna," or "monsters?" Maybe the UN should consider relaxing the standard a bit for their benefit.



Listen, I needed a smile after reading through this.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by OmegaLogos

 

Article 1.
•All human beings are born - FALSE
free - FALSE
and equal in dignity - FALSE
and rights - FALSE.
They are endowed with reason - FALSE
and conscience - MAYBE
and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. - DEFINE "spirit of brotherhood" please

I'd go with false on the conscience part. Sociopaths have no conscience. Makes me wonder how many of them were involved in this proclamation.

•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.

I should expand on what I think. This resolution seems to be directed towards the future, because none of us are a worldwide brotherhood at the moment.

What comes to my mind when I first read this passage is if the U.N. is interested in a brotherhood, why are secular humanists promoting feminism? I don't have a problem with feminism - but - it isn't brotherhood.

It is highly speculative, but if the U.N. and the people involved were influenced by Freud at all (which a lot of politicians have been, especially in the early 1900's) they might have picked up on his assertion that culture was passed down through men.

So, it's easy - promote feminism and atheism to wipe out previous culture, which seems cool, but then when it becomes apparent that this is causing problems, replace it with a new, U.N. sanctioned culture.

Then all that is left to do is battle it out with entrenched sects from past periods.

----------

Speculative though.

I get the idea that the OP is either confusing what 'politically' means, or is deliberately attacking international human rights laws in order to make it appear these laws are 'political' (thus, presumably, not fundamental or inherently meaningful).

Another misanthropic attempt to attack human rights law?

reply to post by OmegaLogos

Article 1. •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.

This thread is pointless and not at all confrontational. I don't even understand what you are trying to get across. Article one describes human beings and there are no disqualified parties.

Yes we have reason and conscience; our brain gives us that ability. WE ARE ALL HUMAN. What about article 1 is confusing you enough to think that they are classing some people as non-human?

Now, can you kindly give us some examples of what you consider, in context of article 1, a non-human?

I can see this going one of two ways.

a test to see if you are a human or sub human.
to take rights away from people.
will people who dont work still be huma? still VOTE.

a new computer intelligence that is human by this new standard.
will this computer get to VOTE?
and will it take over.

or Aliens will be joining us!

Originally posted by OmegaLogos

Article 1.
•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.

Aren't the majority of humans born into a society, and are in actuality NOT free because right from the very second they enter this world they are already governed by rules and laws which subtly dictate their life hence forth (unless an individual is born in the wilderness and has no record kept on their behalf for their birth).

Based on this - No I am not politically human and nor can ANYONE be!

Therefore because I am not human and neither can you be we should not have to abide by human law and I demand our names be taken off the list of people who HAVE to pay TAX!

~ CrzayFool

reply to post by buddha


I'd imagine the most likely outcome (based on the probability of external lifeforms being present within the universe, recent events/news and a little non-ignorance) would be that 'Aliens' will be introduced in the near future to our terrifying and violent species. I'd hazard a guess that they'll look nearly identical to humans - hence this definition has been drafted up.


~ CrzayFool