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

Explanation: Humanity IS politically defined very narrowly by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

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.

[Note: This legal document is not up for debate and nor are its individual articles ok. You will accept it and them at face value or please leave this thread immediately. Thank you! ]

And so I ask ... "Do you meet the definition of Article 1?"

What tests would be applicable to determine whether someone was actually POLICALLY considered human or not?

What consequences should be enforced upon those to be found, via accurate testing, to not be polically human?

Should politically non-humans be able to partake in human society and politics?

Personal Disclosure: Yes it is a very confronting thread! DEAL WITH IT OK!

reply to post by OmegaLogos

Ok, I admit it, I don't understand.

•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.

Where's the test? What does a "political human" mean? Do you think that if I don't act in a "spirit of brotherhood" I am not human? That's just a goal, a "should."

I need help with this.

reply to post by charles1952


You and me both mate.... I am not sure what the OP is driving at.

"Politically a human"? The UDHR has nothing to do with politics - it really is quite simple to determine if someone is human and it has sod all to do with politics.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Anything you get from the UN has to be read - and re-read - to understand the fine print.

Agenda 21 sounds just great - until you start understanding the fine print.

In your article - who considers what is "free"? Devoid of world wide taxes free? Can work and own land free?

That's just the beginning - I'm sure there's a lot less free about being "free" in the UN world.

NRE, No Regrets Ever, wrote a very interesting thread a while back about Black's Law Dictionary. I highly recommend searching what this tome describes "human" as truly being......

reply to post by charles1952


Explanation: Ok let me break this semantically down for you ok!

.They are endowed with reason and conscience ...

Endowed with explicitly means they directly and testably possess these two traits.

Hence anybody who does not possess these traits ... can NOT be human ... as defined globally and polictically by this UN legal document.

This is not up for discussion. It already EXISTS! Humanity is already politically defined 'narrowly' and has nothing to do with looks and or even genetics.

What is up for discussion is ...

"Do you meet the definition of Article 1?"

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

What tests would be applicable to determine whether someone was actually POLICALLY considered human or not?

(note: I am asking you what tests you would think are valid and applicable to determine these two traits and whether the person tested posseses them both. Pls note also that I provide no answers to my own question.)

What consequences should be enforced upon those to be found, via accurate testing, to not be polically human?

(note: Do they come under the laws for human or should the have their own set of laws etc. or would they already be covered by animal rights laws etc?)

Should politically non-humans be able to partake in human society and politics?

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

Personal Disclosure: I hope this helps !

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Who determines and what is acting in a "spirit of brotherhood"?

Do babies that live through abortions considered "human beings" ? I bet not.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


"endowed with reason and conscience" Children? Retarded persons? Alzhiemers patients? The mentally ill?

Who determines what this means?

reply to post by OmegaLogos

The first sentence means "They are born free in principle, so if they are not free in fact it's because someobody has taken their freedom away".
The second sentence means "Everybody is born with freedom and conscience, but they don't all choose to use them".
The article is meant to apply to every human born;it isn't given as a limiting definition.

PS Yes, I do meet the definition, because I have been born.

reply to post by Happy1


Explanation: I shall now answer my own questions ok.

"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.

What tests would be applicable to determine whether someone was actually POLICALLY considered human or not?

(note: I am asking you what tests you would think are valid and applicable to determine these two traits and whether the person tested posseses them both. Pls note also that I provide no answers to my own question.)

Reason can be tested for using logic and having a conscience can be tested for by testing if people care about others in real world scenerios.

What consequences should be enforced upon those to be found, via accurate testing, to not be polically human?

(note: Do they come under the laws for human or should the have their own set of laws etc. or would they already be covered by animal rights laws etc?)

IMO they should be considered monsters and come directly under the animal rights laws.

Should politically non-humans be able to partake in human society and politics?

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

No!

Personal Disclosure: Now to answer your questions posed to me ...

Who determines and what is acting in a "spirit of brotherhood"?

It doesnt matter who ... what matters is the process to determine that. Anybody, human or monster, should be able to ask another to prove their humanity to them. There are no exceptions to this.

Do babies that live through abortions considered "human beings" ? I bet not.

Only if they are tested and fail to meet the definitions in Article 1 ok.

Personal Disclosure: I hope this helps!

edit on 4-5-2013 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix wrong bbcode for bold placement.

edit on 4-5-2013 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix spelling.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Ok, I think I see where you coming from on this and I can say your starting point is way off, which makes the rest of your assertions pointless. I think, judging from your writing style and grammar, English is not your first language.. If it is, I am sorry...

Article one starts off with the line "All Human beings"... This sets up the qualifier for the rest of the statement. It doesn't attempt to describe what a Human being is, rather the basic rights all Human beings are born with.

Also, when it says "endowed with" - that doesn't mean it has to be testable. Endowed is simply another word for "possesses".. What Article 1 is trying to convey is that all Human beings are born with the same basic rights - at no point is it trying to define what a Human being is.

Also, if I may, don't try to dictate what can and cannot be discussed, especially in such a narrow definition.

reply to post by Happy1


Of course they are.. Anything that survives birth is then considered a living, breathing Human being.

reply to post by Happy1



Don't be so daft. The Article does not, in any way, attempt to define what a Human being is. It simply states that we're all born with the same, basic rights.

reply to post by stumason


Explanation: Then please provide an independant standard that completely and narrowly defines what humans are so that we can start testing for monster and aliens ok.

Perosnal Disclosure: Because if there is no independant standard to assess with then I can simply say a rock or a stream or even the wind is human.

Without a narrow set of definitions ... humans can be anything and anything can be human. :shk:

And all I am asking is which is the real deal politically, legally and globally.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


I would like to ask , though, or point out, that I do not see that this defines from the start what we will consider "human" to be, to begin with. Only that once we have determined we are dealing with a group of "humans," this is how rights amongst that group qualifying should be disseminated.

Ever read the Dune series? Frank Herbert, author. The trilogy starts with an interplanetary war within a galaxy, where computers developed sentience and made war upon the human population in the galaxy of planets. Once "humans" defeat the AI, there is a female priesthood that develops, called the Bene Gesseret that is primarily in charge of determining and testing for what is "human," and what is "other."

reply to post by Happy1


I love how you said "retarded persons" rather than just good old "retards", as if adding "persons" at the end somehow stopped it being all crass and grimy. I think you just stepped outside of the definition in the OP... Please submit yourself to your nearest reprocessing plant immediately

Obvs its the definition is a blather of words to show best intentions and how cool and right-on they are ,man - 'cos they love us and stuff. If anyone really wanted to accurately define humanity it would be a matter of genetics surely, rather than subjective qualities.

If I was being all conspiratorial, the definition is very open to debate and potential abuse in the right (wrong) hands..

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Explanation: Then please provide an independant standard that completely and narrowly defines what humans are so that we can start testing for monster and aliens ok.

See, now you're just being odd! It's pretty bloody obvious what a Human being is! But, in case you are confused about your or anyone else's species, a simple genetic test will suffice.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Perosnal Disclosure: Because if there is no independant standard to assess with then I can simply say a rock or a stream or even the wind is human.

Again, you're just being silly. You could say those things, but no one will believe you and will widely deride you as a crackpot.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Without a narrow set of definitions ... humans can be anything and anything can be human. :shk:

No, they can't. I really cannot believe actually that we're having a discussion about what a Human is.......

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
And all I am asking is which is the real deal politically, legally and globally.

You've started off at the wrong point, made wrong assumptions and then used those to ask the wrong questions.

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

Hi Omega

I do enjoy reading your posts here, but I think you are misinterpreting the intention of UDHR A1... I'll try to explain in a couple of points.

UDHR is an international treaty, not domestic legislation; Its intention is not to be a binding law, but a framework for nations to use in creating domestic legislation.

Article 1 is to be taken as an assumption, not a set of criteria. If this assumption is applied universally by lawmakers, the intended result is to have laws that do not discriminate. So no laws are created so people are not born into serfdom (free), or that their cultural values are not marginalised by conflicting cultural understandings (with reason).

On another note:

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

I disagree--you have enough reason to read and interpret that document (tho in my opinion incorrectly) so you are therefore not "unreasonable".

EDIT: Ok, so I thought I would consult Acts Interpratation Act 1901 (Cth) to see how "persons" was defined in it (as this would be the legislation defining "persons" within Australia):

References to persons
(1) In any Act, expressions used to denote persons generally (such as "person", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no-one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual.

(2) Express references in an Act to companies, corporations or bodies corporate do not imply that expressions in that Act, of the kind mentioned in subsection (1), do not include companies, corporations or bodies corporate.

Source: Austlii
I really hope no soverin citizen folk read that

reply to post by tetra50


Explanation: This is exactly the issue ...

Only that once we have determined we are dealing with a group of "humans," this is how rights amongst that group qualifying should be disseminated.

HOW do we determine who is and is not human ... from a politcal perspective ONLY?

Personal Disclosure: Yes I have been exposed to the Dune series of books.

reply to post by stumason


Explanation: If it was obvious then you would be able to define those traits [all of them] quite simply ok.

Personal Disclosure: Please do so.