state prisons finally forced to take action

[Nyoibo]

Nope you lose your freedom, unless they take away a few chromosomes or alter your DNA-you are still human and thus entitled to basic human rights.

Bull, you're entitled to nothing, but you can have what you can take for yourself or someone else chooses to give you

[Flyndaran]

Bull, you're entitled to nothing, but you can have what you can take for yourself or someone else chooses to give you

That's called nature not civilization.
Society is completely based upon accepted rules and rights.

[BroomJockey]

Bull, you're entitled to nothing, but you can have what you can take for yourself or someone else chooses to give you

That would be anarchy. Literally. The entire point of government is supposed to be ensuring that life is as good as possible for as many of its members as possible, usually by both taking care of tasks that would be neglected if left to individuals, and that no one takes more for themselves at the blatant expense of others. And of course, in an anarchic system, the most powerful person eventually amalgamates more and more power, taking more for themselves, forming a dictatorship.

Most people tend to agree, dictatorships are bad. But if we're entitled to nothing but what we can take for ourselves, then I suppose dictatorships, and the abuses of powers therein are acceptable, eh? Wait a second. I've got more power than you. How'd you like a ban? Doesn't damned well matter what you want, does it? You're on here at the sufferance of the mods. Live in fear, for tomorrow your account may be gone.

[BroomJockey]

Wait a second. I've got more power than you. How'd you like a ban? Doesn't damned well matter what you want, does it? You're on here at the sufferance of the mods. Live in fear, for tomorrow your account may be gone.

To clarify, if anyone only has something because someone's allowed them to have it, this would be appropriate. But society has rules. This group has rules that bannings require reasons. Society at large has the rules that each person has certain rights that should not be taken away, and cannot be tolerated to be removed.

[Nyoibo]

One of societies rules is if you break those rules, you are no longer part of society, therefore you are no longer beholden to those rules, nor are you pfotected by them.

Civilisation is an illusion that can disappear at any time in a second.

[BroomJockey]

One of societies rules is if you break those rules, you are no longer part of society, therefore you are no longer beholden to those rules, nor are you pfotected by them.

Hardly. That would be the entire point behind prison. You broke the rule, you are beholden to it by being deprived of things you value. When society gives these things back to you, if you break the rules again, society punishes you again. By the same token, after you have been given back your things of value (in Western Society, the thing of value being freedom of movement and association), if someone else breaks a rule on you, such as assault, they are then punished, thus you being protected by society's rules in the deterrent capacity in which they nominally serve.

In older societies, where prison was not an option, since no people could be spared to stand over those being punished, making someone an outcast was still not a common punishment, and in many places it was basically the highest price one could pay. If society's rules never applied again to anyone who broke them, society would have crumbled already.

As for civilization disappearing, I have one word, then an explanation.

Bullshit.

Civilized peoples are unable to survive for lengths of time in isolation. They've simply forgotten, or never learned, too many of the necessary skills. If a major event occurred which removed national governments, the overarching nations would disappear, but people would still band in smaller groups to provide each other with necessary skill sets. Farmers would need someone to work metal. Metalworkers would need people to supply food. Doctors would be needed to tend to the ill. Technologically advanced societies require cohesion and diversified skill sets. The further back you go in technology, the more generalist you can be. So unless you're suggesting that everything would be reset in a firey nuclear apocalypse, and that would be the vanishing of the illusion of society, you better re-evaluate how capable you are of mining your own metal, smelting it, casting it in to bullets and casing, creating gun powder, packing bullets, hunting animals, identifying safe-to-eat vegetation, prepping said animals for consumption, creating your own clothing, and healing your own wounds and illnesses.

Because if you can't do any one of those skills, you're going to need to trade with another human who does, which is the basis of society.

[Nyoibo]

Apart from the mining of the metal I can do all of those things, I have no use for society or other people so that probably skews my view.

When I said civilisation is an illusion I meant the whole civilised facade, try this, Martial Law, there go your "rights" you do what you're told, when youre told, so much for being entitled to something. One arguement I give is this, if we were sitting in a room you don't have an inalienable right to safety, your safety is dependent on me not attacking you if I so feel inclined, or in your ability to defend yourself from me.

I make no bones about the fact that the only "rights" I or anyone else has are those given to me by others and although you may feel entitled to them they can disappear in a second, people are inherently selfish, cruel and petty just like nature can be the world is a nasty place and there are very few people who will put you before themselves given a choice.

And I think I may have gone a bit off topic there.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Besides, the human rights act has, indirectly, caused more suffering by its very existance. It's the reason why the UK can't deport terrorists, including those who preach hate, cuz it would violate their human rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4100481.stm

[BlaqueKatt]

It's the reason why the UK can't deport terrorists, including those who preach hate, cuz it would violate their human rights.

that's not what I got from that link

"Any foreign national suspected of links with terrorism can be detained or can opt to be deported.

But those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland"

which would cover for example only: you couldn't deport a Palestinian back to Israel

currently it appears they are being detained without trial-indefinitely, because they are Suspected-not proven-to possibly have links with terrorism, furthermore it appears the house of lords believes the law is discriminatory as it only applies to foreign nationals and not it's own citizens.

I make no bones about the fact that the only "rights" I or anyone else has are those given to me by others and although you may feel entitled to them they can disappear in a second, people are inherently selfish, cruel and petty just like nature can be the world is a nasty place and there are very few people who will put you before themselves given a choice.

If this is truly what you believe about people-I feel very sorry for you-it must be difficult having such a negative outlook on the world all the time, sure I may joke about "my faith in humanity is slipping"-but I see people as genuinely good, even with all I've been through, I still help others-and I still believe people are basically good-there are some bad ones-but every species has that.


p.s. a lot of people in the US preach hate, we just don't listen to them(the KKK, Fred Phelps, the neo-nazis-heck there's a neo-nazi group that has their name on a sign for the "adopt-a-highway" program)

[Lace Neil Singer]

So it's preferable that they remain here and set off bombs in the underground, rather than be sent back to their homeland to receive persecution? Whatever.

Anyway, this is going off topic now; back to the original topic. Did you read the link I provided? It seems that everyone jumped over it in order to answer the DA question. No-one could read this person's experiences and not be moved to tears.

http://www.esquire.com/features/what...4-AUG_SEXSLAVE

[Flyndaran]

...
currently it appears they are being detained without trial-indefinitely, because they are Suspected-not proven-to possibly have links with terrorism, furthermore it appears the house of lords believes the law is discriminatory as it only applies to foreign nationals and not it's own citizens.

So kind of like a mini-U.S. in degree of human rights violations, eh?

[Flyndaran]

So it's preferable that they remain here and set off bombs in the underground, rather than be sent back to their homeland to receive persecution? Whatever.
..

That first issue is not off topic. The point of the thread seems to be one of human dignity not being given up just because of crimes.
Suspected criminals shouldn't be sent "back" to countries that would likely commit atrocities against them.

[BlaqueKatt]

So it's preferable that they remain here and set off bombs in the underground, rather than be sent back to their homeland to receive persecution? Whatever.

Suspected(again not proven to have-merely suspected) of having links to terrorism=/=setting off bombs in the underground, just as in the US we have issues with Muslim=/= terrorist

and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared by the UN in 1948 is not the same thing as the Human Rights Act enacted by parliament in 1998. The UN's declaration is not law nor is it legally binding. From the article you provided the human rights act is actually being suspended for foreign nationals Suspected of having links to terrorism. A Briton would be given a trial, but since they're immigrants, they're not being given a trial to prove their innocence or guilt they're just being held indefinitely on suspicion, it was ruled back in 2002 that it was discriminatroy. President Obama has ordered our practice of this to cease.

"The government opted out of part of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial in order to bring in anti-terrorism legislation in response to the 11 September attacks in the US. " It had nothing to do with the bombings of the underground.

Did you read the link I provided?

remember I think it's a good thing they're being forced to finally address the issue
-and hopefully end it-I wonder how people would feel if they were dismissed the same way he was when he asked for help- "you're a homosexual so it[being raped by men] doesn't matter", that pretty much would equate to "well you're a straight woman so being raped by a man doesn't matter"

[Lace Neil Singer]

That's the impression I got. It's kind of like the opinion that being bullied is part of school life so victims should just suck it up.

[BlaqueKatt]

That's the impression I got. It's kind of like the opinion that being bullied is part of school life so victims should just suck it up.

Sad that the only way for him to get any help was to contact the ACLU-I'm glad they exist though, and have good response-thanks Hellen Keller for that(yes she helped found it in 1920)