The paradox of tolerance exists for a reason. (US) Police are a fascist force in service of the ruling class, and fascists are people who exist outside of society and need to be stopped in any way necessary, including death.
Anyone who wants to participate in society deserves human rights.
It’s possible to respect human rights while not tolerating abuse. Fascists should be sent through the courts to receive consequences according to the rule of law.
That’s perfectly in accordance with human rights, and fascists can still be put away.
What the other user is saying is that if you throw out the concept of human rights when it comes to your enemies, then you’re throwing out the concept of human rights as a universal, and therefore your enemies can do the same thing when it comes to you.
Not a smart move, especially for the underdogs. You’re essentially “becoming the monster you sought to destroy” while your head is still inside the jaws of that monster. You’re not going to scare it into letting go, you’re only going to push it to clamp down harder.
What you describe in your last line is not human rights. That is not how human rights work, every human has human rights and cannot lose them. If human rights are conditional they will never be applied to those who need them, the opponent. Then you can just get rid of them altogether and it makes no difference.
If there is internal conflict and one combatant kills another combatant it might be murder or not (depends on perspective) but it is likely not a crime against humanity. If you first catch them, then rape them, than torture them, to then kill them. It likely is a crime against humanity. Your paradox may work against tolerance but not necessarily against human rights, unless you proclaim that the raping part is necessary to oppose the intolerant
I think you’re framing this wrong. Hitler deserved human rights, as in if captured he didn’t deserve to be tortured to death. However, people who exist outside of society cannot participate in society, so they need to either be jailed for life (or until rehabilitation, which doesn’t exist in the US) or killed if they can’t be captured. US police in the current iteration exist outside society, so they can’t be afforded the mercy that society provides to its citizens.
The paradox of tolerance exists for a reason. (US) Police are a fascist force in service of the ruling class, and fascists are people who exist outside of society and need to be stopped in any way necessary, including death.
Anyone who wants to participate in society deserves human rights.
It’s possible to respect human rights while not tolerating abuse. Fascists should be sent through the courts to receive consequences according to the rule of law.
That’s perfectly in accordance with human rights, and fascists can still be put away.
What the other user is saying is that if you throw out the concept of human rights when it comes to your enemies, then you’re throwing out the concept of human rights as a universal, and therefore your enemies can do the same thing when it comes to you.
Not a smart move, especially for the underdogs. You’re essentially “becoming the monster you sought to destroy” while your head is still inside the jaws of that monster. You’re not going to scare it into letting go, you’re only going to push it to clamp down harder.
What you describe in your last line is not human rights. That is not how human rights work, every human has human rights and cannot lose them. If human rights are conditional they will never be applied to those who need them, the opponent. Then you can just get rid of them altogether and it makes no difference.
If there is internal conflict and one combatant kills another combatant it might be murder or not (depends on perspective) but it is likely not a crime against humanity. If you first catch them, then rape them, than torture them, to then kill them. It likely is a crime against humanity. Your paradox may work against tolerance but not necessarily against human rights, unless you proclaim that the raping part is necessary to oppose the intolerant
I think you’re framing this wrong. Hitler deserved human rights, as in if captured he didn’t deserve to be tortured to death. However, people who exist outside of society cannot participate in society, so they need to either be jailed for life (or until rehabilitation, which doesn’t exist in the US) or killed if they can’t be captured. US police in the current iteration exist outside society, so they can’t be afforded the mercy that society provides to its citizens.