ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

Boem, he's talking about the world view of what human rights are, not the laws defined by the country that is violating them.

"

deathflower wrote:

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

Neither do I believe human rights are unlimited without restrictions, or consequences. It is naive to think people wouldn't be imprisoned, arrested or forcefully suppressed for staging a failed coup.

Sure, but I don't think anyone claimed that?

Most vocal advocates of Human rights seem to imply they are universal, inalienable and indivisible. It seem important to emphatically proclaim that is highly contentious.

"

deathflower wrote:

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

Neither do I believe human rights are unlimited without restrictions, or consequences. It is naive to think people wouldn't be imprisoned, arrested or forcefully suppressed for staging a failed coup.

Sure, but I don't think anyone claimed that?

Most vocal advocates of Human rights seem to imply they are universal, inalienable and indivisible. It seem important to emphatically proclaim that is highly contentious.

"

Boem wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

All irrelevant to the FACT that human rights is a real thing even in Turkey. The fact is that right to life exists in Turkey as one human right for example. You yourself admitted this fact when you stated that Erdogan has violated this right. Since it makes no sense to say that something that doesn't exist has been violated. You even imply that fact with your irrelevant points that these human rights are violated all too often.

Ok let me go about this in a different way then.

How many violations does it take before a piece of paper is proven to be worthless to the people of a nation?

Or differently, how many state sanctioned murders need to occur to the kurdish people before you would say "well ok, the kurdish people don't have the same right to live as the other ethnic groups".

Or could they murder all the kurdish residents in turkey and still claim no human rights violation or no constitutional breach has occured because the paper stating otherwise exist's?

In the absence of "law"(equall enforcement of juristiction to all citizens) regulations have zero value to the inhabitants of a nation since the state is not holding people and itself accountable for infringements.

And we have various terms for such a failing construction.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

All irrelevant to the FACT that human rights is a real thing even in Turkey. The fact is that right to life exists in Turkey as one human right for example. You yourself admitted this fact when you stated that Erdogan has violated this right. Since it makes no sense to say that something that doesn't exist has been violated. You even imply that fact with your irrelevant points that these human rights are violated all too often.

Ok let me go about this in a different way then.

How many violations does it take before a piece of paper is proven to be worthless to the people of a nation?

Or differently, how many state sanctioned murders need to occur to the kurdish people before you would say "well ok, the kurdish people don't have the same right to live as the other ethnic groups".

Or could they murder all the kurdish residents in turkey and still claim no human rights violation or no constitutional breach has occured because the paper stating otherwise exist's?

In the absence of "law"(equall enforcement of juristiction to all citizens) regulations have zero value to the inhabitants of a nation since the state is not holding people and itself accountable for infringements.

And we have various terms for such a failing construction.

Peace,

-Boem-

I don't think a number of violations would define a point where human rights no longer applies. I think it has more to do with the feeling that people have within the population. For example, if a tyrant murders someone publicly and the population generally says to themselves, "Too bad for that guy". Instead of saying something like, "That shouldn't be happening" to themselves. Then human rights wouldn't apply within that population.

Another example, maybe North Korea is a place where human rights do not apply? The leader apparently murders people at will. So from our perspective North Korea is a place that violates human rights. But, from within North Korea people are generally more fatalistic about the situation and don't recognize they have any human rights and so they don't.

If people believe they have human rights then it is pressure to move the government in the right direction. If we say to ourselves that such a human right doesn't exist then the chance of it getting worse is greater and the chance of it getting better goes down.

"

Boem wrote:

I already pointed out that the sentiment of the human rights charter is a value commonly shared, but not law.
Your position was that it was written down in the constitution and therefore it was "fact".

I asked the question, at how many violations of that law without repercusions for the infringing party's does that paper stop being relevant to what is written down in it.

And now i get a "well it's not really about law but about the sentiment of the populus" argument.

Your moving the argument from a position i already defended and agreed with.
(though i should mention again, the sentiment even if recognized on a global scale is not enforced and it cannot be)

I don't see the consistency in moving your argumentation away from "well it's written in the law/constitution" when asked to define that statement in light of reality.

I asked on the previous post, not sure if you read it, but are you pro-life or pro-choice?
It's an interesting question in relation to "the right to live" both constitutionally and on a sentiments level.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

I asked the question, at how many violations of that law without repercusions for the infringing party's does that paper stop being relevant to what is written down in it.

And now i get a "well it's not really about law but about the sentiment of the populus" argument.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Good point, it shouldn't be considered a human right to think that one can go into one's embassy and be safe. I have no idea what came over me? One should expect to be murdered and cut into pieces when you go into a government building! You've really hit on a great improvement to our society.

What a kind and empathetic soul you are. No wonder you're a Big fan of Trump.

It shouldn't be considered a human right, because it is not.

It's a treaty between nations that any one nation can break if they so desire and which happens all the time in corrupt country's and within nations at war.

That's not to say human life shouldn't be valued but don't project that human life is valued equally all over the world. It's not.

Not to mention his post was clearly not aimed at that given he didn't respond to that part.
Good finishing touch with the sarcasm and bulls-eye painting, seems to me both pro and anti trump supporters all fail at basics of communication.

and maybe i just fail across the board without being pro or anti.

Peace,

-Boem-

Sorry Boem, in your zeal to try to be fair, you have said something so stupid, it is almost unbelievable. Life is a basic human right in most all places. It is a human right where I live, the USA. It is most likely recognized as such by the country you live in as well as the United Nations.

Here's some but not all Human rights as defined by the UN.

"

1. We Are All Born Free & Equal. We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas. We should all be treated in the same way.

2. Don’t Discriminate. These rights belong to everybody, whatever our differences.

3. The Right to Life. We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.

4. No Slavery. Nobody has any right to make us a slave. We cannot make anyone our slave.

5. No Torture. Nobody has any right to hurt us or to torture us.

6. You Have Rights No Matter Where You Go. I am a person just like you!

7. We’re All Equal Before the Law. The law is the same for everyone. It must treat us all fairly.

8. Your Human Rights Are Protected by Law. We can all ask for the law to help us when we are not treated fairly.

9. No Unfair Detainment. Nobody has the right to put us in prison without good reason and keep us there, or to send us away from our country.

10. The Right to Trial. If we are put on trial this should be in public. The people who try us should not let anyone tell them what to do.

11. We’re Always Innocent Till Proven Guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true.

12. The Right to Privacy. Nobody should try to harm our good name. Nobody has the right to come into our home, open our letters, or bother us or our family without a good reason.

13. Freedom to Move. We all have the right to go where we want in our own country and to travel as we wish.

14. The Right to Seek a Safe Place to Live. If we are frightened of being badly treated in our own country, we all have the right to run away to another country to be safe.

15. Right to a Nationality. We all have the right to belong to a country.

https://www.youthforhumanrights.org/what-are-human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/articles-1-15.html

Fuck the UN? What does the USA constitution say?

"

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Trump is a silly President that does not seem to believe in such rights, not unless you're the leader of a country or very rich.

"

EpicGoesXerxis wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

I asked the question, at how many violations of that law without repercusions for the infringing party's does that paper stop being relevant to what is written down in it.

And now i get a "well it's not really about law but about the sentiment of the populus" argument.

Actually, this is a dangerous proposition, as it gives "democracy" a chance to arbitrarily apply said human rights to some groups and not others. Worse, it's the status quo at this point in time.

Human rights apply to all, or they apply to none.