|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.124.36.102
In Reply to: What planet are you on?? posted by andy evans on May 4, 2007 at 17:19:26:
WTF does this have to do with Darfur, passports or human rights? The man bought a product, had a problem, then couldn't get even a simple response from the manufacturer. It's entirely reasonable to expect better than this from companies that sell products, even if they're kits or add-ons. By the way, this product does carry a warranty of merchantability, at least in the U.S. c-J is exactly correct - the purchaser has a legal and ethical right to expect the manufacturer to provide resolution of product defects.
Follow Ups:
.
Since neither of you seem prepared to either back up your arguments with any solid theoretical thought or to entertain a broader view of what has always been a contentious debate, I suggest you stick to your soldering irons.
I can't really blame you for thinking that all kinds of people have "human rights" but it's one of delusions we like to maintain - Darfur is a clear illustration that there aren't human "rights" that you can maintain in any way. You're born without any "rights" as such. What you do have is GUARANTEES, as said, which come with citizenship of various countries and which vary with what the countries guarantee.
The situation is unclear because in many cases these guarantees are referred to as "rights" e.g. the legal right of the consumer to which you refer. But these "rights" are offered by the state legislature, and changed whenever the legislature changes, so they are offered to the individual and not implicit in the individual.
Reading through some more of the posts it seems Curcio did make guarantees to be on the end of a telephone, and this being the case he should stand by such a guarantee.
What gets me is people bleating on about human "rights" without bothering to do a bit of deeper thinking about how the world really works.
You can look up some of this in Wiki under "human rights". I'm basically referring to negative and positive rights, but even here I disagree with parts of the text - for instance, the USA (whose rights we are talking about) "takes action to remove" the right to life, does not offer "equality before the law and due process under the rule of law" to those held in Guantamo Bay, and sees gun ownership as a right - something that Europe differs completely on. So even the Western world can't agree on what are rights and what are not - Russia, for instance tried to lever the USA into signing the right to welfare for all citizens, which they wouldn't. So much for human rights (see following text)WIKI - Human rights are sometimes divided into negative and positive rights. "Negative" human rights, which follow mainly from the Anglo-American legal tradition, are rights that a government and/or private entities may not take action to remove. For example, right to life and security of person; freedom from slavery; equality before the law and due process under the rule of law; freedom of movement; freedoms of speech, religion, assembly; the right to bear arms.
Now we come to something more to my taste (being European)
WIKI - "Positive" human rights mainly follow from the Rousseauian Continental European legal tradition and denote entitlements that the state is obliged to protect and provide. Examples of such rights include: the rights to education, to health care, to a livelihood.Wiki uses the word "entitlement" where I was using the word "guarantee" but essentially they are the same, and are what I'm referring to. I hope this makes it clearer. Andy
123
OK - "a belief in rights is on a par with belief in witches and unicorns" MacIntyre, Alasdair (1981):After Virtue, pp. 69-70, London, Duckworth
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: