0
Human Rights
This category gathers all the questions about the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled. Questions should include but are not limited to the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.
977 Questions
What is a good topic for social phenomenon?
One good topic for a social phenomenon could be the rise of digital activism and its impact on social movements. This could involve exploring how online platforms have changed the way people engage with activism, spread awareness, and mobilize for causes.
Universalism holds that women all across the world should be treated as equal human beings with access to all public and private institutions without discrimination based on their sex. They should be free to embrace every right and every protection historically granted to them.
Cultural Relativism holds that women of different cultures have been exposed to different beliefs and values and that these beliefs and values should be honored regardless of whether a different society would see them as backwards or discriminatory.
As a result, most Universalist aligned organizations promote women's rights and most Culural Relativist Organizations actively chip away at them. In the case of Nigeria, female genital mutilation, honor killings, gang violence against apostates, and laws against homosexuality come primarily from Cultural Relativists who say that Equal Rights and Protections for women are a Western idea and are not appropriate for Nigerians. Universalist groups advocate that all women should be protected and there are a number of NGOs in Nigera helping women to legally defend themselves against these barbaric customs or harsh laws.
If cannabis were legalized would the crime rates in the US increase?
* It has not been conclusively proven either way whether the legalization of cannabis would increase or decrease crime rates in the US; the debate goes on, with different people putting forward different theories. There is a possibility that crimes related to fund the habit would increase, but it is not likely; people who use the drug are likely to do so regardless of the law, as we see in society today.
If cannabis were legalized, those who would use it more regularly would probably be the type who would use it more socially and less often, paying for it with money earned from work, rather than from crime. The logic behind this is that the current users, the ones breaking the law, are the more regular users who can only afford to fund the habit by committing crimes. This would mean that crime rates would remain more or less the same.
However, you also need to consider that everyone smoking marijuana would no longer be breaking the law when they used it, so crime rates here would go down. The overall effect of this would probably be a reduced crime rate.
Further research would be required by experts before a government decision on the subject, but the outlook does look positive in terms of crime rates. Another factor to consider is that there may be knock-on effects to the legalization of cannabis: Some people claim it can lead to the use of stronger substances, but the evidence goes against this. If those people who started using cannabis went on to using stronger drugs, then the crime rate could be affected adversely, with people commiting crimes to fund addictions to heroin, cocaine or other drugs. It very much depends on the scale of the knock-on effects. Although unlikely (research HAS proven that cannabis usually doesn't lead on to harder drugs) they could possibly occur.
My conclusion, therefore, is that the result of legalizing cannabis would most likely lead to a reduction in US crime rates, but not definitely.
* Adding to what the previous respondent said in the last paragraph, this is recognized by many political parties across the world, usually those that are left of center, which have the legalization of cannabis and other substances written into their manifesto. In some countries, there are parties solely aimed at achieving this; the best example is the Legalise Cannabis Alliance in the U.K. In some countries whose government stance is more liberal in this area, it is already legal, e.g., Belgium and Russia.
As far as violent crime goes, the statistics are inconclusive as to whether legalization would result in a reduction. In Belgium, where the drug is legal, the most recent study of homicides per 100,000 people showed a low rate, just 1.50. Then again, in Russia, where the drug is also legal, the most recent study revealed a 16.5/100,000 homicide rate -- a definite correlation can not be seen between legalized cannabis and reduced murder rates. In places where the drug is illegal the same thing is true; no pattern seems to exist.
What are the three generations of human rights?
First deal with liberty and participation in political life. They protect the individual from excesses of the State.
second are related to equality and came about after WW1.
Third go beyond civil and social as expressed in many documents of international law and are unofficial. More below.
Answer
For as long as capitalism exists crime can not be stopped. I say this not because capitalism is bad, but it does allow room for crime. For as long as no one is on an even playing field financially there will be crime in the world. There are a lot of people who are forced to commit a crime in order to feed themselves or their family. For as long as people know that they can't make it past middle class then there will be crime in the world. There are psychological factors that play into the reason as to why some murder or some commit suicide. For as long as the medications that could help these people are kept from out of reach there will be crime. For as long as bad parenting exists there will be crime. It's a fact of life. Most crimes we could do without such as murder, rape, homicide, suicide etc. Petty things such as theft is tolerable.
Answer
Crime exists in every society, capitalism has nothing to do with it. Greed, hate, revenge, and lust (lust for flesh, for power, for self aggrandizement) are part of human nature they are also the basis of most crime. Social conditions contribute to the ease with which crime proliferates and social conditions, social expectations, and education are the means to keep it to a minimum.
Yes, racism exists. It is a system of discrimination and prejudice based on perceived racial differences that impacts individuals and communities in various aspects of life. Addressing racism requires active efforts and initiatives to promote equality and challenge discriminatory beliefs and practices.
What does national system of education mean?
A national system of education refers to a centralized set of policies and standards established by a government to regulate the education system nationwide. It typically includes curriculum guidelines, teacher certification requirements, and educational infrastructure development to ensure consistency and quality of education across the country.
What motivates people to seek religious freedom?
People seek religious freedom to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution, discrimination, or repression. This freedom allows individuals to worship, express their faith, and live according to their religious values without interference from the government or societal pressures. It is a fundamental human right that enables individuals to find spiritual fulfillment and live authentically according to their beliefs.
Are there any places on earth that are free to live in without money?
There are some intentional communities, ecovillages, and communes around the world where people live without using money. However, even in these communities, there are usually shared responsibilities and resources that need to be contributed to sustain the community. These places often operate on principles of sustainable living, bartering, and communal sharing.
What are the three racial categories?
1. Fabricated
2. Invented
3. Socially constructed.
Race has no legitimate biological basis, and any attempt to arbitrarily categorize people based on perceived skin color, eye shape, or any other factor is bound to fail. There's no such thing as race.
Another answer:
superior to other cultures.
Did Stalin want economic equality like Karl Marx did?
Stalin was one of the Bolsheviks that created the revolution against the provisional government that was set up upon the resignation of the Tsar. For the most part it can be said that Stalin was the closest friend of the Bolshevik leader Lenin. Lenin's early death created a situation whereby Stalin eliminated all rivals for the leadership of the Communist Party. Bolsheviks that pressed Stalin for changes that would be more in line with Marxist Communism were either liquidated ( killed) or sent into exile. Other Marxists and people close to Stalin were part of the purges he employed to remove " traitors of the revolution". Stalin's actions until his death in 1953, proved him to be more interested in controlling all of the USSR, rather than promoting economic equality. Of course in a manner of speaking worker equality did exist. Under Stalin, the people he considered to be loyal were far above the tens of millions of workers and farmers.
Does discrimination still exist today any examples?
Yes, discrimination still exists today in various forms, such as racism, sexism, ageism, and discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. For example, pay inequity between genders, prejudice against certain ethnic groups, and barriers faced by individuals with disabilities are all examples of persistent discrimination in society.
What is a counter argument for no murdering or abuse?
While there are always grey areas under the law in which the crime of murder might, on consideration in a court of law, be found to be a lesser crime, the terms 'murder' or 'abuse' both denote wrongdoing in a legal sense.
The term 'murder', in a moral sense and taken as being committed with ill-intent towards the victim, always denotes wrongdoing.
The term 'abuse' also describes wrondoing, but is subject to a great deal of messing about by those who need, or want to claim, excuses for abusing others. In real-life terms, 'abuse' means deliberately doing something to someone else in order to hurt them, in one way or another, so let's assume that's what we're talking about here.
To argue that nobody should be allowed commit murder or any other form of abuse against another, takes us inevitably to the conclusion that nobody should commit murder or other abuse against others, and that nobody should escape punishment if they commit these offences.
A counterargument, then, cannot exist if we are using the terms 'murder' or 'abuse' in their usual and universal sense. We can't argue logically that we are in favour of the murder or abuse of others, or at least not in those words.
Arguments have been presented for, to give one example, compulsory killing of defective babies, or defective humans of any age, but these arguments don't use the term 'murder' to describe the proposed actions. One term used to describe this practice is 'eugenics'; another is 'cleansing (of the human species, or of individual cultural groups)', or even 'culling'.
Similarly, there are arguments for, as another example, the punishment of children by hitting them or otherwise abusing them in order to improve their learning or general behaviour. These arguments, again, don't use the term 'abuse' to describe the proposed methods of behaviour enhancement; terms used are 'discipline' and 'teaching' and so on. Interestingly, those who are convinced hitting children is a good way to help them learn don't use the term 'hit', but say, instead, 'smack'.
In that reasoning, if an adult hits a child with educational intent, it's a 'smack'. If the child hits back in retaliation, the child should be 'smacked' again to teach it 'hitting' is wrong.
Playing with, or manipulation of, words is perhaps the only way a counterargument could be mounted to an argument against murder or abuse, by calling 'murder' or 'abuse' something else and then explaining why whatever word we use instead of 'murder' or 'abuse' is a good thing.
Otherwise, a reasonable counterargument for either action, given the accepted usage of the terms, might be to suggest murder or abuse is perfectly okay from the perpetrator's point of view, provided the person committing the murder or abuse is sociopathic (psychopathic).
Where was homosexuality first made legal?
There have been many nations throughout history where homosexual conduct was not illegal.
What is the pointers for the exam?
Pointers to Review
1. Multiple Choice
- How will I know your pointers?
2. Matching Type
- Sino ka Ba?
3.Classification?
- Magkaklase ba tayo para sagutin ko tanong mo?
4. computation
- How many questions can you ask and eto pa napili mo?
5. Labeling
- What is Your school?
6. True or False
- Tingin mo maymakakasagot sa tanong mo?
Should Freedom of speech not be in limits?
There should be slight limits on the freedom of speech. One reason for that is because there are those who will use that right (if it had no limits) to promote the abuse or violence against others without being responsible for it. Someone could yell out kill them all and if someone actually did it because that person said it then the one who spoke those words would not be liable. With restrictions in the law that state that if your words directly lead to some violent acts against someone the people are much better protected and justice can be served to both promoter of that violent act and the one who committed the act of violence.
Are laws necessary to govern ethical treatment of employees?
Yes, laws are necessary to establish a minimum standard for ethical treatment of employees. Laws provide a framework to protect employees from exploitation and abuse, ensure fair practices within the workplace, and hold employers accountable for their actions. While laws set the foundation for ethical treatment, organizations should also strive to go above and beyond legal requirements to create a positive and supportive work environment for their employees.
Are male or females more sexually active?
the answer is males they run faster and they speed up to 3 miles fastetr than females.
Why should people not get curel punishiment?
People should not support or engage in cruel punishment because it goes against principles of human rights, dignity, and rehabilitation. It can lead to further harm and trauma instead of fostering personal growth and society's well-being. There are more effective and humane approaches, such as rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice, that can address wrongdoing and promote positive change.
When was Committee on Human Rights in the USSR created?
The Committee on Human Rights in the USSR was created in 1970 by a group of Soviet dissidents, including Andrei Sakharov and Yuri Orlov. The committee aimed to monitor and expose human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, particularly regarding freedom of speech and political repression.
How were civil liberties curtailed?
These acts directly affected the first amendment and took away people's freedom of free speech. These extreme laws would not be tolerated today by the people and it would be hard for the government to control because of the internet and the other many forms of communication.
How would you use utilitarianism in debate?
As Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people I'd put my focus on that. Arguing that surely helping a thousand people is better than helping one or two, or whether the human rights of one person (such as a refugee) outweigh the rights of a country they are seeking to enter (or some other current issue... current issues work well). Remember that you don't have to believe what you are arguing.
Why do some people get human rights and others dont?
The concept of human rights is based on the belief that all individuals are born equal and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. However, in reality, not all governments or societies fully recognize or protect these rights. Factors such as political, social, and economic systems, cultural norms, discrimination, conflicts, and inequalities can contribute to the denial or violation of human rights for some people. Promoting and protecting human rights requires ongoing efforts to address these systemic issues and ensure equal rights for all individuals.
What does pray in public scholls have to do with civil liberties?
One of our civil liberties is the freedom of religion. Prayer in school would be depriving a child of their freedom because it is forcing that child to say a prayer to a god in which they do not believe or pray to. For example, a violation of a civil liberty in school via pray would be forcing someone who reads the Koran to read the Bible. Another example would be making a Jew read the Koran. A public school is an institution that hosts a myriad of different religions and beliefs. Therefore, that institution should steer away from pray because it can't accommodate all of the different prayers without offending or stripping someone else of their civil liberty (freedom of religion)
