Anything Forums

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51433

scherzo wrote: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Code: Select all

Article 25.

      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

?

The UN DOES like to make sweeping declitations it has no hope of accomplishing doesn't it?

I say if you're going to do somthing about world hunger do somthing and stop declaring your going to do somthing. I honestly don't believe that you can but, more power to keep wasting your time.

Education is the only way out of the problem not throwing money and or food or anything else material at it.

is the UN going to give us a remarkable, efficient ,well thought out plan to make sure EVERYONE on the planet has enough food to sustain life that doesn't cross the boundries of anyone elses rights to Life, Liberty or Property? I can't think of a way and I really don't think that SAYING that everyone has a right to food really accomplishes anything more than lip service to the PC world and self promotion of bloated crippled suck holes like the UN.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51438

Since when did a statement in an organization's platform require a realistic chance at being accomplished in order to be valid? Should law enforcement cease to state its objective to "Protect and Serve" if it can't protect everybody all the time?

Education is not the cure-all to the world's ills. Educated and civilized people are still human, the masses are manipulable, and those things that cause people to go hungry will persist.

Nonetheless, the UN is a largely impotent organization. Its member nations are under no enforcible obligation to live by its declarations, and are often responsible for some of the very problems the UN is supposed to work against. The premise the United Nations was created under is a pipe dream that will probably be never fully realized.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51448

Stasi wrote: Since when did a statement in an organization's platform require a realistic chance at being accomplished in order to be valid?  Should law enforcement cease to state its objective to "Protect and Serve" if it can't protect everybody all the time?

Education is not the cure-all to the world's ills.  Educated and civilized people are still human, the masses are manipulable, and those things that cause people to go hungry will persist.

Nonetheless, the UN is a largely impotent organization.  Its member nations are under no enforcible obligation to live by its declarations, and are often responsible for some of the very problems the UN is supposed to work against.  The premise the United Nations was created under is a pipe dream that will probably be never fully realized.

I'm sorry, I was being absurd in an effort to point out absurdity. I just don't see the point in doing somthing without accomplishing anything. You are correct that they shouldn't remove the moto "Protect and Serve" because that is what they make a concerted effort to do on both large and small scales at all times and if the UN wants their moto to be "To feed the poor and hungry masses" they are welcome to it but, it seems to me that they spend more time talking about the problem than they do doing anything worth a crap.

It also doesn't help that my personal moto is "If we've tried over and over again to help you do nothing but complain that we're not doing enough you can f-ing starve for all I care" but, thats just me.

Education may not be the answer to the whole issue but, I don't think we HAVE an answer to the whole issue I don't think that from where the human race stands right now that we have a chance of fixing this problem because, as you so correctly pointed out that people are still human.
When I say education I don't mean college programs and teachers for thrid world nations, I mean it on more of a broad term, perhaps even evelutionary terms. Even the powers that be in this world do not have the mental tools to solve such a problem without creating a horde of new ones.

I think the Idea of a United Nations is great (as a forum for different nations to work out their problems) and I won't pretend to be an expert on international politics but, It needs to be restructured and re thought out to be at all valid in my mind.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51451

I agree. I can't stand constant talk and no real action.

The idea of having the UN is good, and though the notion that it will prevent future world wars seems like a pipe dream to me, it's certainly not a bad thing to work towards. My dislike for it has more to do with its structure and practice, than the idea itself. Personally, I favor regional alliances, both economic and military, to the unrealistic goal of having a world unity organization. The only way a world unity organization like the UN can really work is if its leader states are willing and able to enforce, promote, and act upon its declarations.

Thanks for clarifying your notion of education. I find it agreeable.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51458

Stasi wrote: Since when did a statement in an organization's platform require a realistic chance at being accomplished in order to be valid?  Should law enforcement cease to state its objective to "Protect and Serve" if it can't protect everybody all the time?

WoW - a great observation!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51467

FloodG8-9595 wrote:
?

you are right to add the '?' I didn't have enough time to finish my reply, however I have seen the topic going into a seperate direction


I believe I was addressing

-> Can they truly provide this right[/quote wrote: Everyone is making the assumption this right is for idle people or becoming a welfare state. It is not, the right is for everyone including yourself, Yes we do eat and yes we do work, However things change like the depression. If perhaps another depression hit wouldn't you find comfort in knowing you still have the right to food?

<!--QuoteBegin-FloodG8-9595]

I say if you're going to do somthing about world hunger do somthing and stop declaring your going to do somthing. I honestly don't believe that you can but, more power to keep wasting your time.

Perhaps it is a waste of time and energy, but I really like to view it as priorities. it is interesting to note the U.N. Charter was drafted
10 December 1948 however our Canadian Charter wasn't made until 1982

The U.N. charter was drafter close to the depression, However the Canadian Charter was made during a huge economy boom.





Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51468

I do understand what your saying, It's a right overall for everyone but, what good does saying that do? Regardless of the people who, by there very nature, would use this as an excuse not to work to feed themselves. Lets put that away as a detail, if a rather large one.

Give me the governing specifics to upholding the right to food and the consiquenses that you feel that it would have on society.
What good is a right if you can't protect it? Tell me how we could?



Saying to myself "I have a right to food" while I'm lying there starving, whatever the circumstances may be, isn't going to help me. We HAVE to look at how we provide that right and protect it and even IF it is necissary. (which is oddly kind of what we're debating)

I've gotta cut this short work calls







Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51506

You are right - the process of establishing a right to food is not easy

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

jfk

the consiquenses I believe would greatly benefit society rather than hurt it. Women's rights, the abolishment of slavery, universal health care were all opposed

governing specifics would change current social welfare system's - yes. the system would be taken advantage of - yes.

Can you honestly say you work to feed yourself? many reasons for career directions, wants, needs, ambitions, likes, dislikes. these things will not change.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51508

Can you honestly say you work to feed yourself?

Yes, If I didn't work it wouldn't take me too long to run out of food. (the fact that I'd never do this not withstanding) so, all the things you listed have somthing to do with why one might choose a career but, the number one question on everyones mind is "will I be able to support myself?" The answer with almost any job is yes if you work it right.

Thats a great quote from jfk by the way. I agree with it wholeheartedly however, doing somthing HARD is one thing doing somthing that is in my own view virtualy impossible is quite another. I'v never been a fan of governmental intervention.

You mentioned the abolishment of slavery and womens rights two things that in my mind went against the rights we already had in place but, was ignored because thats the way people wanted to live we just convienly said that blacks wern't people so they don't have the same rights. We said women arn't men so they can't have the same rights. I'm not saying anyone can't have food who's willing to work for it. and I as a human being would never watch someone starve when I could personaly help them.

btw I am still opposed to universal healthcare. thats another story altogether.

I DO believe that there is a solution to everything... I ALSO believe that the solution almost always lies in people not in government.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51509

Actually that is very well put.

"will I be able to support myself?" The answer with almost any job is yes if you work it right

I do agree, it is very basic and support includes more than food, housing, heat.

ALSO believe that the solution almost always lies in people not in government.

I somewhat agree/disagree with this, if another great depression were to set in, and the solution of the people was a 'mob' mentality, It would 'gap' the whole in the debate for the right to food. If say perhaps, that someone during a depression though to himself, I will steal some bread to feed himself, is this person entitled to the food?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51524

scherzo wrote: If say perhaps, that someone during a depression though to himself, I will steal some bread to feed himself, is this person entitled to the food?

Of course not. Suppose he steals it from a family that is trying to feed three small children. Why would the robber be more entitled to that family's food than the family who struggled to find it for their own children?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51534

Bookworm wrote:

scherzo wrote: If say perhaps, that someone during a depression though to himself, I will steal some bread to feed himself, is this person entitled to the food?

Of course not. Suppose he steals it from a family that is trying to feed three small children. Why would the robber be more entitled to that family's food than the family who struggled to find it for their own children?

sure, and now that the family with 3 children have eaten their food and have run out, are they now entitled to steal?

btw the topic of Leviticus 23:22 and II Thess 3:10 have been left hanging. However given the translation in Leviticus there was a provision and perhaps a right "You must leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God"

which brings us to 'stealing' again, which you (as far as I know) concider stealing to be 'working'?

If modern day interpretations of the bible of counting the hairs on a babies head while it was still in the womb is equal to anti-abortion how would someone then intrepret leviticus?

during biblical times there was no medical procedure for abortion to deal with the issue directly, however so is the same with many modern living, fuel, public transit, libraries, schools, coporations. The role of the landlord during biblical times have their modern day equivelant, just as the #'s of hair on a baby's head has its modern day equivenlant.

Also concider the gross domestic product value of what they were leaving behind. There wasn't a whole lot to concider currency during this time so I would assume that food was a very large percentage of this. And the fields were smaller, no tractors, so leaving 4 corners to a field would be a lot different than today


http://encarta.msn.com/media_461520374_174...ted_States.html

the gdp of 2000 measured in 9,039,000,000,000.00 using 10% as a guide of an amount left on the field gives us

90,390,000,000.00 in money's intrepreted by Leviticus for the poor and foreigner.
of course this is entirly a biblical argument concerning the right to food.

It is not practical for someone who is poor to go out to the field to pick the fruit off the land. Highways, infrastructure, cultivation, fertilizers - all play a role on redifining what exactly Leviticus says to us today.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51561

While the way you word things is a bit difficult to sort out, I think I am seeing the point you are making. If a society which has God as their King also has God-given provisions for the poor to find enough to eat, then that must say something about God's desire for people to have enough to eat. God made provisions in His law for them, and so I'll have to agree to inch slightly toward your perspective as you worded it in your last post that it's "perhaps a right."




Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51572

And I will inch slightly to your percpective as we are not a 'God based' society.

I had wished to post my thoughts earlier when I had given the unfair argument of babies not having food. I removed it as it really had nothing to do with the argument.

I view many of modern social arguments as actually being the same, They are denial and acceptance. when I had started the process in my head I had broken down the argument to these fundamental basics. 'denial' was easy, and I had only used 'acceptance' to fill the void.

for example, pro/life vs. pro/choice. - there are really only two choices and broken down they were really the same.

the mother can 'deny' the baby, and pro/choice can 'deny' the law. when i say 'deny' the law it means use the 'notwithstanding' clause.

the state of denial for both are absolute and victorious. The mother realizes she has the baby but denies the baby, while the prolife realizes the mother has a choice but denies the choice

Acceptance for both the mother and the pro/lifers is the only arena where the two can meat, In order for pro/lifers to understand they must accept the mother has a choice, And the mother must accept she has a baby - a 'life'. But the acceptance comes at a cost, and that cost is a responsiblity from both parties.

That is it in it's simplist terms. those are the choices.

1. denial - of baby and of law
2. acceptance - of baby and of law

it may seem unclear, that is because the choices are the 'stage' for the debate, or argument as it stands now. the fact is a woman has the right to choose, this is based on charter rights, it is very unlikely this will ever change and the only way it will change is to use the 'notwithstanding' clause. This is a concience choice to deny the law, as is the mothers choice to deny the baby, there may seem to be 2 different outcomes to this, but there isn't both outcomes come from the state of deniel. One may win, but whoever wins is still a 'denial'



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51576