Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In English the word object is derived from the Latin objectus (p.p. of obicere) with the meaning "to throw, or put before or against", from ob-, "against", and the root jacere, "to throw". [2] Some other related English words include objectify (to reify), objective (a future reference), and objection (an expression of protest).
The root of the words subjectivity and objectivity are subject and object, philosophical terms that mean, respectively, an observer and a thing being observed.The word subjectivity comes from subject in a philosophical sense, meaning an individual who possesses unique conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires, [1] [3] or who (consciously) acts upon or wields ...
The phrase often serves as the first, or one of the first, rights listed in enumerations of rights, as a framing for all subsequent rights. Since Declarations of rights are often applied to all people, as natural human rights, the phrase emphasizes that all rights listed after it apply equally to every person. [48] [49]
Also called humanocentrism. The practice, conscious or otherwise, of regarding the existence and concerns of human beings as the central fact of the universe. This is similar, but not identical, to the practice of relating all that happens in the universe to the human experience. To clarify, the first position concludes that the fact of human existence is the point of universal existence; the ...
An example of a crucifix, the primary element of the case. Lautsi v. Italy was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which, on 18 March 2011, ruled that the requirement in Italian law that crucifixes be displayed in classrooms of schools does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.
That is the question the European Court of Human Rights will for the first time seek to answer in Strasbourg, France, as it rules this week on three separate climate cases. ... to bring similar ...
Human rights lawyers Wayne Jordash and Anna Mykytenko argued that the 4 August report contained "little to none of the military or humanitarian context essential to any reasoned view of what was (or was not) necessary in the prevailing military context" and that the report was "short on facts and analysis and long on intemperate accusation."
This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies.The specific problem is: both sourced and unsourced criticisms of the country's human rights record (major WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE issues; the article should not resemble a database for every possible criticism of the U.S. human rights record found on Google; instead, it should rely on reliable sources, preferably ...