GZ, you're right, you shouldn't be pedantic.

Torture as it pertains to human rights is reasonably well defined as a deliberate act (as is slavery and persecution). Conflating the issue with what appears to be a random event, is a logical fallacy.
In fact, you do have the right to not get hit by a bus when crossing the road, especially if the bus driver was deliberately targeting pedestrians, in that case they would most definitely be charged and the case would certainly go further than 'rights to safety'. There is no "logical fallacy" here, if anything I may guilty of a rhetorical or grammatical error ( using 'freedom from' instead of 'not to be'), but I don't think even this is the case in this instance.

philo, what's your point?

It is not possible to explicitly spell out rights in the following manner:
"A right to not get hit by a bus"
"A right to not get hit by a car"
"A right to not get hit by a truck"
Attempts to do so mean someone hit by a bicycle may miss out on compensation because the list does not include a bicylcle.
It is better to reduce the list to say "A right to not get hit".
Even that is problematic.
Better still to reduce it to say "A right to safety", a catch-all that covers everything.

Actually, I am only interested in logical parts of any argument. A bit hard to resist that.

Yeah, what you are talking about there GZ is set theory as it pertains to legislation, not a logical fallacy.

The third article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts off with “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”, and while that would cover most of what we are talking about, it’s a very general statement, most documents go on to include specifics as to let the reader know what sorts of activities these statements apply to and what the framers had in mind when drafting such a declaration. The rights to freedom from slavery, torture etc., are covered by this blanket original statement, but can yet be defined further as the argument progresses. It is not a logical fallacy to use such statements, as they are subsets of article 3, it is merely a rhetorical device used to engender the spirit of the document (although they may be perceived as redundant by illustrious intellects).

Being only concerned with the logical parts of an argument is one thing. Being unconcerned with the spirit of an argument is another.

Dear CJ.. *GOTCHA* :) yes Indeedy I did. I know exactly what I said.. I said 'SENTENCED' :) I did not say "Jailed" this time. I was waiting for you to pounce and had my response at the ready. (*blows smoke away from gunbarrel and reholsters it*)

BUGSY... now.. on the other thread (Islamophobia) where I made a complete dill of myself with my first post :) yes.. "I WAS WRONG" and I did not fail the comprhension test by a small margin..I was king hit into oblivion... I admit it..and will underline that fact in my next post 9 hours away... I confess..I read his "If you this that or the other thing.. you might be suffering a mental disorder" and bingggggg it was like a trigger... by the end of my second post.. where I found strong support from Haslam in being very critical of Pericles and CJ in particular.. with you running a close 3rd there..(maybe neck and neck with Bushbasher) and you mob's constant reference to some of us as being Islamophobic...I'd clicked 'post' and it was too late.

BUT...having said that.. you also seem to have missed (yet again/still) the difference between Islam and Christianity, and the important issues which make political action/policy change most neccessary to limit the growing power of the Muslim community.

What you continue to miss, is the clear and unmistakable mein kampf-ish content of the Quran and Hadith, and how this would translate into real world behavior under a totalitarian Muslim regime.

You only have to look at how Arab countries regard Jews and Israel to know this. Of COURSE you are not going to see widespread OPEN condemnation of Jews or Christians in demographic minority Muslim groups.. no..you see it in POWERFUL ones..where they have the power and clout.
Only THERE will you see why I continue to harp on the 9th surah of the Quran.

Porkycrap: << *GOTCHA* :) yes Indeedy I did. I know exactly what I said.. I said 'SENTENCED' :) I did not say "Jailed" this time. I was waiting for you to pounce and had my response at the ready. (*blows smoke away from gunbarrel and reholsters it*) >>

So you quite deliberately told only half the truth - omitting the bit that his sentence was quashed on appeal, by reference to the European Court of Human Rights, no less? So that anybody who wasn't familiar with the story would get the impression that the poor old homophobic pastor was jailed for his hate speech?

That's called lying, Porky. Over the holidays, do try and reflect on why it is that you need to be dishonest. You might end up smelling better for it.

And have a hate-free Saturnalia.

Polycarp, UK tabloid-style claim of 'GOTCHA!' is a twisted self-defence of the indefensible.

"I know exactly what I said.. I said 'SENTENCED' :) I did not say "Jailed" this time."

But what he REALLY said was: "...convicted and sentenced to Jail..." EXACTLY.

Moreover, several posters had already pointed out to him what Polycarp conveniently omitted: Pastor Green was finally acquitted on a human rights argument. Poly didn't want the whole truth to get in the way of his fixed view opposing human rights because the Green case demonstrated the very opposite of what Polycarp was so clumsily trying to prove.

It's more than smoke Polycarp is blowing, and it's not coming from his gun barrel.

CJ Morgan has well and truly nailed him: "That's called lying, Porky."

I join with CJ in suggesting that Polycarp use his holidays to reflect on why he feels it necessary to be dishonest. If your argument is solid, surely you have no need to lie.