GO! INSULATION BANISHMENT

 SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

It is now time to define social interaction. As previously discussed, behavior comes in many forms--blinking, eating, reading, dancing, shooting, rioting, and warring. What then distinguishes social behavior? Behavior that is peculiarly social is oriented towards other selves. Such behavior apprehends another as a perceiving, thinking, Moral, intentional, and behaving person; considers the intentional or rational meaning of the other's field of expression; involves expectations about the other's acts and actions; and manifests an intention to invoke in another self certain experiences and intentions. What differentiates social from nonsocial behavior, then, is whether another self is taken into account in one's acts, actions, or practices.

For example, dodging and weaving through a crowd is not social behavior, usually. Others are considered as mere physical objects, as human barriers with certain reflexes. Neither is keeping in step in a parade social behavior. Other marchers are physical objects with which to coordinate one's movements. Neither is a surgical operation social behavior. The patient is only a biophysical object with certain associated potentialities and dispositions. However, let the actor become involved with another's self, as a person pushing through a crowd recognizing a friend, a marcher believing another is trying to get him out of step, or a surgeon operating on his son, and the whole meaning of the situation changes.

With this understanding of social, let me now define social acts, actions, and practices. A social act is any intention, aim, plan, purpose, and so on which encompasses another self. These may be affecting another's emotions, intentions, or beliefs; or anticipating another's acts, actions, or practices.1 Examples of social acts would be courtship, helping another run for a political office, teaching, buying a gift, or trying to embarrass an enemy.

Social actions then are directed towards accomplishing a social act. So long as their purpose is a social act, actions are social whether involving other selves or not, whether anticipating another's acts, actions, or practices. The actions of an adolescent running away from home and living in a commune for a year to prove his independence to his parents and those of a physicist working in an isolated laboratory for years on a secret weapon for U.S. defense are both social. And no less social are the actions of a girl combing her hair to look attractive for her date.

But there are nonsocial acts, such as aiming for a college degree, trying to enhance one's self-esteem, planning to go fishing, intending to do scientific research on the brain, and so on. No other self is involved in these acts, but may be involved in the associated actions. Are such actions social if the act is not? Of course. Regardless of the act, associated actions are still social if oriented to another's feelings, beliefs, or intentions, or if they anticipate another's acts, actions, or practices. For example, in trying to achieve a college degree, usually a nonsocial act, we may have to consider a professor's perspective in answering an exam, or an adviser's personality before selecting him.

Finally, there are social practices. These are rules, norms, custom, habits, and the like that encompass or anticipate another person's emotions, thoughts, or intentions. Shaking hands, refusing to lie to others, or passing another on the right are examples. Not all practice, however, is social. Drinking and smoking habits can be manifest while alone, and many norms can be practiced without thought to others, such as using the proper utensils when dining alone.

The lies heared that we don′t like the "Muslim", it′s simply a manner of play with " Brain"

pushing the society in"bad habits"

We thus can discriminate social acts, actions, and practices. What then is social interaction?

Social interactions are the acts, actions, or practices of two or more people mutually oriented towards each other's selves, that is, any behavior that tries to affect or take account of each other's subjective experiences or intentions. This means that the parties to the social interaction must be aware of each other--have each other's self in mind. This does not mean being in sight of or directly behaving towards each other. Friends writing letters are socially interacting, as are enemy generals preparing opposing war plans. Social interaction is not defined by type of physical relation or behavior, or by physical distance. It is a matter of a mutual subjective orientation towards each other. Thus even when no physical behavior is involved, as with two rivals deliberately ignoring each other's professional work, there is social interaction.

Moreover, social interaction requires a mutual orientation. The spying of one on another is not social interaction if the other is unaware. Nor do the behaviors of rapist and victim constitute social interaction if the victim is treated as a physical object; nor behavior between guard and prisoner, torturer and tortured, machine gunner and enemy soldier. Indeed, wherever people treat each other as object, things, or animals, or consider each other as reflex machines or only cause-effect phenomena, there is not social interaction. Such interaction may comprise a system; it may be organized, controlled, or regimented. It is not, however, social as I am using the term.

Note that my definition of social is close to that of Weber (1947). For him behavior was social be virtue of the meaning the actor attaches to it. It takes account of the behavior of others and is therefore oriented in its course. Thus, to use Weber's example, two cyclists bumping into each other is not social interaction; the resulting argument will be. However, what Weber meant by orientation and behavior is left ambiguous, as noted by Alfred Schutz (1967). I have tried to clarify this ambiguity here by considering the constituents of behavior (agents, vehicles, and meaning), kinds of behavior (reflex, action, act, and practice), and what is distinctively social about social behavior.

That due a person or claim a person has by virtue of being a human being. The term human rights is relatively recent. It was first used by U. S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a 1941 message to the United States' Congress in which he propounded four freedoms- - -freedoms of speech and religion, and freedoms from want and fear. The idea of human rights is an elaboration of what used to be called natural rights or the rights of man.

These are a particularly Western idea that grew out of the medieval concern for the rights of specific groups, such as lords, barons, churchmen, kings, guilds, or towns. With the Enlightenment, philosophers began to consider whether people in general had any rights. John Locke in particular argued in his influential second Treatise of Government (1690) that all people have a natural right to freedom, equality, and property. He directly influenced the American Declaration of Independence, which almost a century later (1776) declared that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." During the French Revolution the French National Assembly approved the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), which proclaimed that the goal of political association is the preservation of the natural and inalienable rights of man, of liberty, private property, personal security, and resistance to oppression.

Such rights were further defined in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, among them the freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. These and other rights have been included in many other constitutions and now are part of an International Bill of Rights. This comprises the 1945 United Nations Charter (Articles 1 and 55), the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the UN General Assembly, and the two international covenants passed by the General Assembly in 1966, one on Civil and Political Rights (CPR) and the other on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ESCR). There is now a UN Human Rights Commission that can investigate alleged violations of human rights and also receive and consider individual complaints, a momentous advance for human rights in the state-centered international system. And there is the Helsinki process that began with the Helsinki Accord of 1975, with its Basket Three on human rights and periodic meetings to assess the progress of human rights among the signatories.

In addition, human rights have been pursued in several regions. To mention just some of this activity, the Council of Europe adopted the European Convention on Human Rights and Europe now has the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission on Human Rights. The Organization of American States also adopted the American Declaration on Human Rights, and further the American states have created the Inter-American Convention and Court on Human Rights. And due to the Organization for African Unity there is now the African Charter of Human and People's Rights. Moreover, there have been numerous formal conferences among states and interested international government organizations on human rights, such as the World Conference on Human Rights among 183 nations in Vienna during June 1993.

Human rights have also been the concern of numerous private organizations that have sought to further define and extend human rights (such as to a clean environment), observe their implementation among governments, publicize violations by governments (as of the right against torture and summary execution), or pressure governments to cease their violations. Some of the many such organizations include the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Anti-Slavery Society, Amnesty International, the International League for Human Rights, and the International Commission of Jurists.

In sum, human rights now are very much a part of international relations and law. They define fundamental moral canons for criticizing international and national conditions and behavior. As such they are imbedded in the practice of nations and treaty prescriptions. Many states now even include human rights monitors or representatives within their foreign ministries. For example, the United States Department of State has a Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs run by an assistant secretary.

States have even generally agreed to moderate their warfare to preserve certain human rights, as precisely defined in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols. And under international law there is now a fundamental core of human rights, for which there is universal jurisdiction, that no state can violate without risking mandated sanctions by the UN Security Council. Such is piracy, slavery, and genocide, for example.

Along with all this activity on human rights the number of such rights has multiplied in the last half-century. There are at least forty human rights listed in the basic UDHR, CPR, and ESCR international documents on human rights, and even these have been further extended, as for the right to development that was declared "an inalienable human right" by the UN General Assembly in 1982.

All these rights may be divided into those that concern individuals and those regarding collectivities. The former, which comprise the vast majority of rights, may be further divided into those rights of the individual against the state, usually the traditional Western rights, and those rights that make claims on the state. We can list an internationally recognized core of rights against the state from those listed in the UDHR. These include the rights

• to life, liberty, security of the person, recognition as a person before the law, equal protection of the law, remedy for violation of rights, fair and public trial, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty if charged with a penal offense, leave any country and return, seek asylum from persecution, nationality, marriage, property, the secret ballot and periodic elections, freely chosen representatives, form and join trade unions, equal access to public service, and participation in cultural life;
• to freedom of movement and residence, thought, conscience and religion, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, and of parents to choose their children's education;
• and to freedom from slavery or servitude, torture, degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest or detention or exile, arbitrary interference with privacy or family or home or correspondence, deprivation of nationality, arbitrary deprivation of property, and being compelled to join an association.

Those that are claims on the state mainly comprise the right

• to social security; work and free choice of employment; just and favorable conditions of work; protection against unemployment; equal pay for equal work; just and favorable remuneration (and that is supplemented if necessary); rest and leisure including periodic holidays with pay; adequate standard of living; special care and assistance for motherhood and childhood; education (including free education in elementary and fundamental stages); protection of the family, protection of one's scientific, literary or artistic production; protection from attacks on one's honor or reputation; and the assurance of an individual and their family an existence worthy of human dignity.

In addition there are collective rights not mentioned in the UDHR that include the right to economic development and the right to self-determination of a people. Nor does it explicitly include those rights whose violation we call war-crimes or crimes against humanity.

In its original meaning, a natural right was one that commended itself to reason. It was one that reasonable people for good reasons could agree on as a right of all people. For example, the right to life and equal freedom were two of the original natural rights that presumably fit this definition. But reasonable people often disagree on fundamentals and there consequently has been various attempts to find less apparently subjective grounds for natural or human rights. Such is the appeal to utility- - -people have certain rights as they assure the happiness of the greatest number. This in fact may be the underlying justification for the acceptance of many of the rights listed above.

Another justification is that there is one core natural right that is self-evident, which is that of each individual to equal freedom, and that any other right must be a derivation or specialization of this right, as are the freedoms of religion, assembly, and speech. Otherwise what is alleged to be a natural or human right is only a human want or need, and other justification must be found to satisfy it.

" HE MAKES BELIEVE IN A PART OF HIS ORGANIZATION" THAT COVER HIS OWN CRIMES TO THE VICTIM TO THE ENTIRE HUMANITY!. NOBODY CAN APPLY LAW AND SANTIONS TO SPAIN OR U.S BEING INSIDE OF NATION UNION. ONU PROVIDE TITLES OF HUMANITY THE " KING" .

SHARE WHAT′S U.S PUT OVER THE TABLE IN THE CHAIRS. I GIVE FAR AWAY "LA SHEIKHA "DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,PLAY ON..IS A FORM TO PLAY ON

AND SEEK SUSPECTS OF HIS OWN HOMICIDES! THIS IS YOUR U.S CIA.PSYCHO OF ARABS MIDDLE EAST TO MAKE ACTIVIST IN THEIR ENQUIRIES TO THE GOVERNMENT OR PARLIEMENT! STATES. SHIAS OR SUNNIES,

"LA HIA", I AM NOT ONES". HE SAID I WANT TO BE YOUR FRIEND.