ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes, I'm an American. Where are you?

Are you still arguing that there is no such thing as a human right to life? If not what are you arguing?

At this point establishing the amount of knowledge you base your "judgement" on.

Also that post was not directed at you.

As for the human rights thing, there is no such thing, there is just a wish for that.
Thats what a morality doctrine like the human rights charter is, or the ten comandments or what have you not basic guide-line for human moral behavior.

It's a well written chart(though i argued two basic principles in it don't actually make sense with my father when he gave it to me at a young age) and lays a very solid basis to attempt to disolve conflict on a global scale.

A wish doesn't make it a reality.

Or are you firmly of the believe nations dont infringe on the basic human right to live without repercussions?

The humans rights charter is like a goal one aims for and directs his morality towards, which doesn't imply we actually hit the goal.

Humans are rarely that perfect.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : i wonder if you fail to realize that if a right is given to people and then arbitrarely enforced it erodes that right.

Just did some research on the european court of human rights, over 10.000 verdicts since it was established in 1959 have not been enforced by nations infringing on them.

What's also interesting is that some nations have made constitutional changes so the verdicts don't apply to them, so they can bassicaly act and ignore the charter as they see fit.

"

Boem wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes, I'm an American. Where are you?

Are you still arguing that there is no such thing as a human right to life? If not what are you arguing?

At this point establishing the amount of knowledge you base your "judgement" on.

Also that post was not directed at you.

As for the human rights thing, there is no such thing, there is just a wish for that.
Thats what a morality doctrine like the human rights charter is, or the ten comandments or what have you not basic guide-line for human moral behavior.

It's a well written chart(though i argued two basic principles in it don't actually make sense with my father when he gave it to me at a young age) and lays a very solid basis to attempt to disolve conflict on a global scale.

A wish doesn't make it a reality.

Or are you firmly of the believe nations dont infringe on the basic human right to live without repercussions?

The humans rights charter is like a goal one aims for and directs his morality towards, which doesn't imply we actually hit the goal.

Humans are rarely that perfect.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : i wonder if you fail to realize that if a right is given to people and then arbitrarely enforced it erodes that right.

Just did some research on the european court of human rights, over 10.000 verdicts since it was established in 1959 have not been enforced by nations infringing on them.

What's also interesting is that some nations have made constitutional changes so the verdicts don't apply to them, so they can bassicaly act and ignore the charter as they see fit.

NoSorry, you are just flat out wrong. I proved that the human right to life is a real thing, by pointing at references that proved it. You have done ZERO NOTHING to prove otherwise. If it is in the constitution then it is there. Just because the right is sometimes violated does not mean that it doesn't exist. That is really a completely ridiculous argument. All rights are violated at sometime or another. That does not mean that there is no such thing as any right.

Point at a reference to support your position that there is no such thing as human rights.

^The only thing you've done so far is proven that those rights are written down.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Just because the right is sometimes violated does not mean that it doesn't exist.

That's exactly what it means.

If a rule is arbitrarely invoked then it is not a fundamental right but a pragmatical guide line ignored under the right conditions.

For example when a nation turns away from democracy.

You need to start understanding that the world doesn't work with absolutes.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Point at a reference to support your position that there is no such thing as human rights.

How about war?

Should i direct you to the constitution of america/iran/iraq and syria?

If all party's involved constitutionally protect human life(and they do btw) then tell me why an invasion of those country's was necesery.

And why civilians are also being targeted by all nations involved.(including america)

They have the right to live don't they? Whats up with that weird stuff, why isn't the paper protecting those people?

Also i did already make references.(turkey's history, court of human rights)

You simply don't comprehend that the right to live is not absolute.

And every infringement on it "isn't enough to convince you it doesn't exist".

I look at reality to see if things are "true" or "right". I don't look at a paper and go "well because it's written down it must be true".
Like i said, it's a goal to collective aim for. A good aim, but not one we achieve.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : i wonder if the sentence

"not all life is equal" offends you?

It seems like we're disagreeing about the definition of what a human right is, so it's time to quote the dictionary!

From The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition:

"

Culture definitions for human rights

human rights

Freedom from arbitrary interference or restriction by governments. The term encompasses largely the same rights called civil liberties or civil rights but often suggests rights that have not been recognized.

Note
Political leaders in the United States often use the expression when speaking of rights violated by other nations.

The bottom line is that when people use the term human rights, often the above is what they mean. It doesn't matter if you disagree with that definition, that's just what people mean when they use the term. I don't think there's much to gain by further discussing this.

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

It seems like we're disagreeing about the definition of what a human right is, so it's time to quote the dictionary!

From The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition:

"

Culture definitions for human rights

human rights

Freedom from arbitrary interference or restriction by governments. The term encompasses largely the same rights called civil liberties or civil rights but often suggests rights that have not been recognized.

Note
Political leaders in the United States often use the expression when speaking of rights violated by other nations.

The bottom line is that when people use the term human rights, often the above is what they mean. It doesn't matter if you disagree with that definition, that's just what people mean when they use the term. I don't think there's much to gain by further discussing this.

Bolted the relevant part.

Also it was turtle that brought up the constitutions and human rights charter.

To give an example, it would be entirely plausible to pull america in front of the court for human rights for their interference in the middle east over the past 50 years.(excluding the involvement in 1985 because that was requested by the saudi arabia goverment itself)

The fact this does not happen is "arbitrary" because no nation in their right mind will take the hit (politically,economically) to pull something like that off in the full knowledge there will be no impact if a verdict is reached. but the backlash of such an action would be tangible both from the us and its allies.

It's also quite funny that the note explicitly states "the us often us the expression when speaking of other nations" which makes me go "uh, yes, exactly".

Demonstrating exactly how "arbitrarely" it is used and enforced as a political tool when convenient.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : don't get me wrong, i think the human rights charter etc are beautifull text's.

And i personally believe life in all it's forms is of the highest vallue.

But i will still teach the people around me they have to individually protect that life and not wave around a paper when that life is put in danger.

That's the difference between human rights as a concept to "uphold" morally and the reality we live in.(where upholding that concept fails)

Human rights aren't absolutes and the larger presences in the world are fully capable of discarding those human rights of other nations when it provides them political and economical benefits.(america and russia being the two biggest and most prominent entities that come to mind in past 20 years)

Looks like the Mueller's / Russian investigation is officially over after two years. And some of the report will be available this weekend.

Early word, seems like the Republicans were right, and it was a complete waste of time.

Hey guys, I'm back. Have a portrait of your favorite President.

Hey, and here I was thinking you got banned. What happened to you anyway?

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Hey, and here I was thinking you got banned. What happened to you anyway?

Got a one month ban for a handful of infractions (the "pedo" one being the cherry on top) and since I've already used a get out of jail free card twice I couldn't talk myself out of it.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Looks like the Mueller's / Russian investigation is officially over after two years. And some of the report will be available this weekend.

Early word, seems like the Republicans were right, and it was a complete waste of time.

It's called gaslighting and it's what the G stands for in GOP.