North Korean Labor Camps
The Founder of VICE travels for 15 hours by train to finally arrive in Siberia and investigate logging camps that are using North Korean slave labor. Filmed in December 2011, it is shocking to see that this sort of thing still happens in Russia long after Communism has fallen. The documentary paints a stark picture of the relationship between Kim Jon Il and modern day Russia: their partnership has outlasted Communism in Russia. In part 1 of the documentary, we meet Russian alcoholics on a train on our way to Siberia.
Once arriving in Siberia, the next goal is to locate the labor camps. Kim Jon Il has set up labor camps in Russia to help fuel money back to the impoverished nation. To find the camps, our hosts make friends with the local mafia known as “The Fish.” Although these are labor camps with sub standard working conditions, the workers admit that life was harder in North Korea and that the country is impoverished. This is incredibly honest information from people who used to live in a country that controls all access with the media. When Siberia Labor Camps are viewed as an improvement, you know that things are bad back home.
They find out that many workers are being stationed in the camps for up to 10 years but the conversation halts when the managers or the logging camp arrive.
The FSB (Russian secret police), North Korean secret police and the local militia all decide to find out what the documentary crew has been up to – so the crew and cameras make a run for the border and to safety, hoping that their equipment will not be confiscated and their story will be told.
Loading...
hahahaha nice thumbnail!
This was both interesting and amusing!
That was truly gripping and really entertaining – shame about the all too predictable moral-ideological angle. We are far too narrow minded and self righteous in our liberalism in the west. North Korea is a country with radically different traditions and values, and we are deeply intolerant of that. North Korea reveals how prejudiced and bigoted WE are. Are we less indoctrinated? Have’nt WE absorbed our values from OUR conditioning? Should’nt our smugness about other cultures embarass us? Get some historical perspective – modern liberal “democracy” is just one way among thousands.
Of course we are also bias, we are socially constructed also in the West… but we should be careful about cultural relativism like this: you can not relativize human dignity…
the North Koreans used practically as slave labour have no choice, the fact that they are prisoners in they own country is inexcusable… the famines among the North Korean people (we are talking of millions of people that died as a direct consequence of this) while the army is even developing nuclear weapons…
So you tell me, liberal democracy is one among many… it is not the panacea for all, but is the best that we can now…
Well, “human dignity” is one of the concepts that form part of the liberal “democratic” conceptual structure, so in using it you are failing to stand back and get perspective. If you insist on never applying any but liberal “democratic” categories, of course other cultures will always appear to fall short.
But it’s absurd – you’re committed to rejecting as morally inferior every contemporary non-liberal, and every pre-liberal culture – that’s most of the cultures that have ever existed! Come on – we must in the end accept that what humans do is human – even if the humans concerned have not absorbed western conditioning.
I’m also bothered by the phrase “be careful” with cultural relativism. If by that you mean be wary of it because it’s morally discomforting, irrespective of whether it is true or false, I can’t agree that we should “be careful”. I want to face reality even if it is discomforting.
Watch your family starve half to death, then tell me how badly you want to “face reality even if its discomforting”
If someone I love died I would be sad. But what do you think that proves? Are my petty little feelings suddenly the omniscient arbiters of what is true and false? Are you suggesting that my feelings can make what is false true and what is true false? If my sadness distorted my perception of reality, I may become an object of pity – but I would still be WRONG!
i see you’re trying to be unattached and open, which is commendable but you will find as well that there are reasons that these emotions DO exist and to scoff ANY of them as insignificant shows you do not understand the working of the human mind either. no, a feeling doesnt make one thing true and another false but aside form true and false there are many other angles to why things happen like they do and human emotion is a direct result to these things. they are evidence of things.
the reason why many Americans are bothered by what we see from North Korea is although we know those who we trust to run our country can be very flawed. we know we not only have the right to lash back but it’s ingrained in our history and how an American should act. what we see in North Korean is a culture that is designed to embrace it’s dictator no matter if that dictator may be harming it’s people or not. you disregard concern as sad, but what you’re actually doing is ignoring basic anthropology in order to uphold some stoic attitude. i hope it doesnt become to strained for you to maintain . and dont mistake what i say, my point here isnt to make you feel bad for Korea or not. that’s your business and what you feel is a result of your own ideologies. but my point is that concern for what other’s go through isnt necessarily a hindering thing but part of the human experience.
Yes, i agree: there are psychological truths and not ethical truths. So long as we are not conflating the two, I am satisfied. Feelings are psychological objects. That x has feeling F is simply a psychological fact. In which case, it is true that x has F, but he is neither right nor wrong to have F, any more than he would be right or wrong to have any other psychological property; a pain in his toe, say. You just either have F, or you do not.
Then you talk about cultural traditions. If you say that it is “ingrained in your history” to react so and so, then you are recognising that your particular conditioning has imbued you with certain prejudices, dispositions to react emotionally when confronted with certain stimuli, (e.g. the words “dictator” “freedom” and so forth.) Again, you are neither right nor wrong to react like that: the fact that you underwent that conditioning rather than any other is contingent and accidental.
So I certainly do not ignore “basic anthropology”, if by that you mean individual psychological dispositions, and collective cultural traditions. What I want to say is that while there ARE psychological and sociological (cultural) facts, there are NOT ethical facts.
Filmed in December 2011?? But I thought Shane said it was summer (and the heat guage on the train was turned all the way up regardless of this fact)
Maybe they meant the footage was compiled then. I’ve never been to Russia but from what I’ve seen through media, their winters have lots of snow and cold warranting wearing more than a tanktop.
I watched this and was thinking that the whole time when I read “Filmed in December”. Vladivostok is a FREEZING region during that time. I have been in Russia during winter on band tours…there are times that if you can get from your hotels front door to your car and not freeze, you are VERY lucky! In summer, you literally can boil your living hiney off! So many people do not realize how hot Siberia/Russia gets.
As for the doc, I did enjoy it. I am not into a lot of “Vice” stuff, especially after seeing how they TRY to review music…in the totally wrong way most of the time…but since I am interested in N. Korea (find it quite fascinating) this brought out a whole new “side” that I have never heard of nor seen. May explain some of the things I saw out of the train window!
I hate how in VICE documentaries the presenters always swear. I swear all the time in real life, but I think they do it to make a point about how edgy and cool they are. Also, the constant references to being drunk got very, very boring.
I think this documentary was a missed opportunity, because it’s a really interesting topic that I wasn’t aware of before – but the useless presenter just made it all about himself. He clearly had no interest in the North Koreans at all. There was no background to it because it seems he had done essentially no research whatsoever.
Thanks for posting it though because it brought it to my attention. I’m going to read up on it now!
i totally agree Elliot. Whilst the documentary did bring the Siberian situation to my attention, the documentary itself was fairly poor, mainy due to the useless presenters.. Half of the documentary is spent watching the presenters getting drunk on trains to Siberia, then the rest seemed to be them getting politically correct answers to their questions, and getting told that they weren’t allowed to film anything.
Far better was a book I just read called “Nothing to Envy” by Barbara Demick. It is a bit repetitive in parts, but it is far more accurate as to what lives are actually like for ordinary people in North Korea. There are also better documentaries available on YouTube which have been taken secretly and smugled out of NK.
Did we just see those NK work camp representatives play the national victim card as an excuse to act rude, intimidating, and inhospitable to the foreigners? Acting the paranoid and fearful victims certainly won’t help the NK public relations cause. Dignity and human rights, regardless of culture or political ideology, are extremely valuable – worth celebrating, as the manifestations of an innate respect for the sacredness of life and well being of our neighbours. Wish all the actors, and film crew success. Great adventure and we done!
The phrase “dignity and human rights regardless of culture or political ideology” makes no sense. How could you imagine concepts like that existing outside of a cultural and political nexus? And “human rights” is certainly a specifically western and liberal concept..
Wasn’t implying that behaviors were mutually exclusive of culture or politics. No. An inherently free individual with identity and value (beyond that which can be temporarily or superficially imposed as a privilege by any regime, religion, group, or government) is not confined only to western individuals it has no border. Given the myriad of cultures and ideologies having varying track records when addressing the subject of dignity and human rights throughout history – it’s does make sense, in context, to say, “dignity and human rights regardless of culture or political ideology”.
“Innate respect for the sacredness of life”; “Inherent freedom”; “identity and value”; “dignity and human rights” – these phrases are obviously ethico-ideological, and therefore cannot denote properties that human beings just have. They are not like baldness or tallness or fatness or having a skeleton. Those properties simply do not exist, they are pseudo-properties that we conjure with to comfort ourselves. There is nothing wrong with that; but just on a factual level – they aint there. If you were to make a list of all the properties that exist in the world, you would mention A’s baldness, but you would leave his “dignity” and his “sacredness” to the ideologues.
Recognizing that a belief affects a personally attributive behavior (relative to human interaction), is as valid as recognizing the attributive nature of a diet to one’s physical properties. Framing a belief as a pseudo-property is pointless, much like arguing over semantics with someone who agrees to disagree.
Recognizing that a belief affects a personally attributive behavior (relative to human interaction), is as valid as recognizing the attributive nature of a diet to one’s physical properties. Framing a belief as a pseudo-property is pointless, much like arguing over semantics with someone who agrees to disagree.
Recognizing that a belief affects a personally attributive behavior (relative to human interaction), is as valid as recognizing the attributive nature of a diet to one’s physical properties. Framing a belief as a pseudo-property is pointless, much like arguing over semantics with someone who agrees to disagree.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
Your argument was that – FACTUALLY – individuals are INHERENTLY endowed with dignity, sacredness, freedom and value. So at a level below the merely cultural these are properties that belong to every human being. That is just obviously wrong; these are cultural concepts, and they do not even have universality at THAT level. As for the argument that fictional entities influence people’s behaviour, well, that is clearly true – the conduct of ancient Greeks, for instance, was influenced by the belief that Zeus and Aphrodite existed. They were factually wrong, however, and so are you.
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical knickers in a torsion. Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group, entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will propagate denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression). Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity? Do tell.
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical knickers in a torsion.
Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from
the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s
dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all
cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or
it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the
validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group,
entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses
to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will propagate
denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and
suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression).
Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of
Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal
human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the
absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of
sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom
to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity? Do tell.
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical knickers in a torsion.
Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from
the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s
dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all
cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or
it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the
validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group,
entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses
to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will propagate
denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and
suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression).
Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of
Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal
human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the
absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of
sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom
to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity? Do tell.
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical
knickers in a torsion.
Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from
the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s
dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all
cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or
it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the
validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group,
entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses
to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will
propagate
denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and
suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression).
Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of
Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal
human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the
absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of
sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom
to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence
of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity?
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical
knickers in a torsion.
Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from
the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s
dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all
cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or
it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the
validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group,
entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses
to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will
propagate
denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and
suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression).
Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of
Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal
human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the
absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of
sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom
to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence
of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity?
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical
knickers in a torsion.
Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from
the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s
dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all
cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or
it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the
validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group,
entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses
to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will
propagate
denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and
suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression).
Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of
Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal
human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the
absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of
sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom
to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence
of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity?
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical
knickers in a torsion.
Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from
the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s
dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all
cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or
it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the
validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group,
entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses
to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will
propagate
denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and
suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression).
Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of
Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal
human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the
absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of
sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom
to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence
of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity?
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical
knickers in a torsion.
Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from
the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s
dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all
cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or
it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the
validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group,
entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses
to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will
propagate
denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and
suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression).
Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of
Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal
human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the
absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of
sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom
to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence
of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity?
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical
knickers in a torsion.
Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from
the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s
dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all
cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or
it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the
validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group,
entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses
to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will
propagate
denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and
suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression).
Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of
Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal
human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the
absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of
sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom
to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence
of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity?
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical
knickers in a torsion.
Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from
the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s
dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all
cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or
it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the
validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group,
entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses
to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will
propagate
denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and
suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression).
Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of
Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal
human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the
absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of
sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom
to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence
of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity?
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical
knickers in a torsion.
Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from
the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s
dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all
cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or
it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the
validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group,
entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses
to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will
propagate
denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and
suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression).
Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of
Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal
human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the
absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of
sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom
to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence
of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity?
No, that wasn’t my argument, re-read before you get your hypothetical
knickers in a torsion.
Clearly all human life has potential, and hence an inherent value, from
the day of conception. To deny a life that value is to strip it’s
dignity in the most primitive manner. And it’s obvious that not all
cultures have the same values, or lingual representations or life or
it’s value. Sadly history is clear witness enough to underline the
validity of this proposition; ANY (universal concept) culture, group,
entity, country, faction, individual, religion, whatever – that refuses
to recognize and protect value of life (implicitly or explicitly), will
propagate
denial of dignity at some level and the results are increased death and
suffering (non-fictional or fictional influences are a digression).
Recent history is enough to support that claim too e.g. victims of
Saloth Sar, Hitler, Saddam, etc. What value did they place on universal
human rights? Darkness results from the absence of light, cold from the
absence of heat, evil from the absence of good, silence the absence of
sound, death from the absence of life, slavery is the absence of freedom
to reach potential. So where is the benefit from assuming the absence
of a universal and inalienable human rights, and dignity?
You are obviously contradicting yourself. You start by asserting that it was not your argument that human lives have inherent value; and then in the next sentence you assert that human lives have inherent value – exactly what I understood you to intend before.
Also, you say that “human life has potential; therefore human life has inherent value”, but this inference is confused, flawed and invalid. Whatever it may mean to say that human life has potential, there is no way it would follow that therefore it has value. Value does not inhere in things; it only exists in culture and language.
The rest of what you said set a new standard for bilge and I despair.
But I will add that I do not “assume” the absence of inherent value. Rather, I interpret the logic of the concept of value as meaning that value is the type of thing that exists in language rather than in the world of physical things. So whether or not there is “benefit” in its absence is irrelevant; It’s just not there.
No I wasn’t contradicting myself. I stand by my comments, in context, not by your twisted and confused paraphrases which are quite out of context. The reader might appreciate this quaint glossary of terms too;
Potential: a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed.
Dignity: To be worthy, having adequate or great merit, character, or value.
Value: the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
Human rights: fundamental rights, especially those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, work, etc.
Inherent: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute.
The word “assume”, I actually used a connotation which differs from Steven’s interpretation above.
You see, potential, it can exist latent. But I’ll leave it at that, because it’s became a semantic, degenerative circular argument of subjective nature. Have a splendid day, or night, where ever you are, oh valuable person that you are!
he deserves a medal to have sung “anarchy in the U.K” in North korea.
First democratic polls on NK leaders ;)
http://pollator.com/polls/who-is-your-favourite-north-korean-leader
Fuck off Steven
you pity
why?
love the fish
HEY STEVEN YOU’RE A FUCKING NERD STFU FAGGOT