Human Rights > Any sub-group's rights

MResponse · 2011-08-23T02:37:16+00:00

Absolutely. Supporting leveling things for everyone at this point is entirely feasible, as groups that formerly faced discrimination in society will suddenly be propped up despite the lack of focus on advancing their rights in particular.

ManThoughts · 2011-08-23T04:02:07+00:00

Emphatically disagree. We have to choose what is most relevant to us, where we see the need, and where we feel we can make the most impact.

Also, I do not want to be in the business of telling all "humanity" how they should run their civilizations. When people start to impose "human rights" on societies not their own "for their own good" it ends up causing tons of unintended consequences. And more often than not, becomes a "we're gonna blow up your fucking country to FREE you, whether you like it or not. Be grateful for our bombs."

memymineown · 2011-08-23T02:16:31+00:00

But when a certain group of people is routinely denied human rights that another group in that same area is given(i.e. men being denied human rights while women are given them) then Men's Rights becomes a valid cause.

DeepFriedChildren · 2011-08-23T04:39:21+00:00

You assume that human rights are a one size fits all subject, but I assure you that outside of your fantasy world there do exist different groups and at the end of the day they each have different needs that must be addressed in a pragmatic and practical way.

This is just a thinly veiled excuse for omitting a certain groups rights from your own list rights that you view as legitimate. This Same excuse has been used over and over against blacks, the LGBT community, and the disabled community. In it's absurd that you would even try to spout this bigotry.

Alanna · 2011-08-23T04:03:08+00:00

THERE ARE ONLY HUMAN RIGHTS.

IF YOU ARE HUMAN YOU HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS, IF YOU ARE A GAY WORKING MOTHER OF 3 WHO IS BLACK JEWISH, THEN YOU HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE.

darkamir · 2011-08-23T04:11:02+00:00

True. We support part of human rights which is routinely ignored.

pcarvious · 2011-08-23T07:00:29+00:00

So, here's the question, when it comes to rights, where do we draw the line as to what is a basic human right?

In this case, I'm going to bring up the right to subsistence. The rights of non-custodial fathers are paired off in competition with the rights of the child. The reason I ask this is, the rights of the child are usually used as a justification to break the rights of the non-custodial parent. This specifically refers to child support and the penalties and inadequacies of the family court system in keeping child support up to date. This has lead to the imprisonment of individuals without protection of a lawyer. It is, in the US considered a civil matter, but it causes people to be arrested.

ignatiusloyola · 2011-08-23T10:28:15+00:00

What a revelation!

The only problem is that your statement is meaningless.

Subgroups aren't fighting for special rights, they are fighting to achieve the same basic human rights that other humans are expecting. Since their group is being treated differently, they fight for those rights as a group.

NickRausch · 2011-08-23T17:37:49+00:00

Only individuals have rights, not groups.

2011-08-24T23:25:19+00:00

You are a hero for saying this. Honestly, feminists get so caught up in the fact that there is a men'srights group that they forget that mens rights, woman's rights, civil right's, it's for EVERYONE. Everyone deserves a spot at the table and equal treatment. That's all we want!

2011-08-23T03:17:04+00:00

Ayn rands ghost!

You don't have to enforce good, just fight the worst evils. IMO.

kronox · 2011-08-23T03:17:27+00:00

Yaye let's all just ignore the injustices we see but could easily fix if we rally together. You know what? Let's not stop there. Let's just stop giving aid to poor countries because the sub-group of people: the poorest African nations, for example, are merely a sub-group of people. Obviously if all human rights are more important than a few this makes sense. So in the 50's and 60's when woman were gettin their equal on, that was a mistake. Much like now where men are trying to get in on that equal action...

ThrustVectoring · 2011-08-23T07:21:53+00:00

Working for a particular sub-group's rights may be the best way to fix the worst abuses of human rights.

"Injustice anywhere is an affront to justice everywhere" - MLK

There are real injustices being done to men, particularly in the West, and to trivialize these by saying "Human rights are more important" is a travesty.

lasercow · 2011-08-23T17:47:25+00:00

Basic human rights should be established for all as a backdrop. We need more rights than just basic human rights. our culture and society provide more rights to American citizens regardless of their sub-group than basic human rights guarantees them. Freedom of speech, the right of habeas corpus, and many other fundamental rights are not guaranteed in the UN definition of human rights. Discrimination and oppression of sub-groups exist even with human rights guaranteed, and some human rights are denied to people in some sub-groups disproportionately.

Human rights do not eliminate the need for individual civil rights movements.

You are totally missing the point.

Title	Human Rights > Any sub-group's rights
Author	Stormy_Fairweather
Upvotes	37
Comments	51
Date	August 23, 2011 2:04 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jr8b1/human_rights_any_subgroups_rights/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/human-rights-any-sub-groups-rights.1035589 https://theredarchive.com/post/1035589

Comments