Uganda to reinstate death penalty for Homosexuality

[Kowani]

I say good for them. The people of Uganda have the right to govern their nation any way they see fit. And I must support that right irregardless of if I agree with how they use it.

There is no right to Sovereignty.

[Loben The 2nd]

I say good for them. The people of Uganda have the right to govern their nation any way they see fit. And I must support that right irregardless of if I agree with how they use it.

There is no right to Sovereignty.

tbh that is a right guaranteed by willingness to defend yourself.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I say good for them. The people of Uganda have the right to govern their nation any way they see fit. And I must support that right irregardless of if I agree with how they use it.

There is no right to Sovereignty.

The existence of countries disproves that.

[Kowani]

There is no right to Sovereignty.

tbh that is a right guaranteed by willingness to defend yourself.

Then it’s a privilege, not a right.

[Liriena]

So…NSG, where do we go from here?

Christian missionaries from the United States, like Scott Lively, are one of the causes for this. They should be held accountable.

[Kowani]

There is no right to Sovereignty.

The existence of countries disproves that.

No it doesn’t.

[Liriena]

I say good for them. The people of Uganda have the right to govern their nation any way they see fit. And I must support that right irregardless of if I agree with how they use it.

The Nuremberg trials made it quite clear that that's not a winning argument if you're trying to excuse genocide.

[Greed and Death]

If they are going to parrot or exploit it then President Jed Barlett of the West Wing has a few questions for them

"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?"

Religion entails cherry-picking. Probably why it should be done away with.

Exodus 21:7 doesn't condone slavery(also its closer to indenture with the 6 year time limit) it just says if a woman is bought she is not freed in 6 years. The reason being is community required welfare of women either by their parents, husbands, or masters and free her would be a great way to remove that liability and force her into a life of poverty as most of the well paying jobs were reserved for men.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The existence of countries disproves that.

No it doesn’t.

Yes, actually, it does. You have much to learn about international politics, little neo-realist Kowani.

The idea that sovereignty is entirely arbitrary is not informed by the actual status quo of the international system. We live in a more ordered and legalistic system than we give ourselves credit for.

[Kowani]

No it doesn’t.

Yes, actually, it does. You have much to learn about international politics, little neo-realist Kowani.

The existence of countries proves the privilege of sovereignty, not the right.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, actually, it does. You have much to learn about international politics, little neo-realist Kowani.

The existence of countries proves the privilege of sovereignty, not the right.

Nation-states, by being recognized, have sovereignty, which cannot be revoked. It may be toppled, but even this requires a great deal of international justification. We don't live in the 19th century anymore.

[Kowani]

The existence of countries proves the privilege of sovereignty, not the right.

Nation-states, by being recognized, have sovereignty, which cannot be revoked. It may be toppled, but even this requires a great deal of international justification. We don't live in the 19th century anymore.

Really, now? Interesting assertion, seeing as Taiwan saw a withdrawal of recognition just this year.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Nation-states, by being recognized, have sovereignty, which cannot be revoked. It may be toppled, but even this requires a great deal of international justification. We don't live in the 19th century anymore.

Really, now? Interesting assertion, seeing as Taiwan saw a withdrawal of recognition just this year.

I don't mean recognition of individual nations, but recognition of the existence of states. Taiwan was never recognized. Its government was recognized as the government of China, and the Solomon Islands decided that the ROC is no longer the legitimate government of China. That is very different.

[Kowani]

Really, now? Interesting assertion, seeing as Taiwan saw a withdrawal of recognition just this year.

I don't mean recognition of individual nations, but recognition of the existence of states. Taiwan was never recognized. Its government was recognized as the government of China, and the Solomon Islands decided that the ROC is no longer the legitimate government of China. That is very different.

Meanwhile, South Ossetia, which did not claim anything but Statehood, was recognized and then had said recognition withdrawn.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't mean recognition of individual nations, but recognition of the existence of states. Taiwan was never recognized. Its government was recognized as the government of China, and the Solomon Islands decided that the ROC is no longer the legitimate government of China. That is very different.

Meanwhile, South Ossetia, which did not claim anything but Statehood, was recognized and then had said recognition withdrawn.

Recognition by individual states is irrelevant in modern politics. It's recognition by the UN and recognition by international common law that is important.

[Kowani]

Meanwhile, South Ossetia, which did not claim anything but Statehood, was recognized and then had said recognition withdrawn.

Recognition by individual states is irrelevant in modern politics. It's recognition by the UN and recognition by international common law that is important.

I see those goalposts flying away. But regardless, the UN doesn’t actually recognize states: “AAccording to the UN: “the acknowledgement of new State or a new government is an act that only the other States and governments can do. The UN, being neither a State nor a government, is not entitled to acknowledge a State or government”.”

[United Muscovite Nations]

Recognition by individual states is irrelevant in modern politics. It's recognition by the UN and recognition by international common law that is important.

I see those goalposts flying away. But regardless, the UN doesn’t actually recognize states: “AAccording to the UN: “the acknowledgement of new State or a new government is an act that only the other States and governments can do. The UN, being neither a State nor a government, is not entitled to acknowledge a State or government”.”

It's not moving goalposts, it's explaining definitions to someone who doesn't have any background in the area.

Recognition by a majority of UN members through legal vote entitles states to a seat there, and, by extension, to a position in the international order. States without these benefits are not really states at all because they have no ability to participate in international dialogue except through proxies. That is why the only states which are not UN members are unrecognized states.

[Greed and Death]

I see those goalposts flying away. But regardless, the UN doesn’t actually recognize states: “AAccording to the UN: “the acknowledgement of new State or a new government is an act that only the other States and governments can do. The UN, being neither a State nor a government, is not entitled to acknowledge a State or government”.”

It's not moving goalposts, it's explaining definitions to someone who doesn't have any background in the area.

Recognition by a majority of UN members through legal vote entitles states to a seat there, and, by extension, to a position in the international order. States without these benefits are not really states at all because they have no ability to participate in international dialogue except through proxies. That is why the only states which are not UN members are unrecognized states.

They can still negotiate treaties. All being a UN member seems to get you is the ability to trade your vote in the general assembly to a large power for aid.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I say good for them. The people of Uganda have the right to govern their nation any way they see fit. And I must support that right irregardless of if I agree with how they use it.

Replace "the people" with "the dictator." Also, there is no "right" to absolutely legislate without intervention.

[Kowani]

I see those goalposts flying away. But regardless, the UN doesn’t actually recognize states: “AAccording to the UN: “the acknowledgement of new State or a new government is an act that only the other States and governments can do. The UN, being neither a State nor a government, is not entitled to acknowledge a State or government”.”

It's not moving goalposts, it's explaining definitions to someone who doesn't have any background in the area.

Recognition by a majority of UN members through legal vote entitles states to a seat there, and, by extension, to a position in the international order. States without these benefits are not really states at all because they have no ability to participate in international dialogue except through proxies. That is why the only states which are not UN members are unrecognized states.

The Holy See is unrecognized now?

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not moving goalposts, it's explaining definitions to someone who doesn't have any background in the area.

Recognition by a majority of UN members through legal vote entitles states to a seat there, and, by extension, to a position in the international order. States without these benefits are not really states at all because they have no ability to participate in international dialogue except through proxies. That is why the only states which are not UN members are unrecognized states.

The Holy See is unrecognized now?

It's an observer member, but yes, its sovereignty is arbitrated through treaty with Italy. That is to say, it is a protectorate.

[Kowani]

The Holy See is unrecognized now?

It's an observer member, but yes, its sovereignty is arbitrated through treaty with Italy. That is to say, it is a protectorate.

So Sovereignty is dependent on other states to recognize said Sovereignty. Thus, I repeat my original claim: That there is no right to Sovereignty.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's an observer member, but yes, its sovereignty is arbitrated through treaty with Italy. That is to say, it is a protectorate.

So Sovereignty is dependent on other states to recognize said Sovereignty. Thus, I repeat my original claim: That there is no right to Sovereignty.

Which states don't recognize Uganda, again?

Also, depending on your political theory, popular sovereignty (i.e. internal sovereignty) is also important.

[Salus Maior]

Lots of people have pretty good arguments that these were taken out of context, though many Christians just parrot this and screech that it is a crime. Dictators in Africa can exploit this as well.

If they are going to parrot or exploit it then President Jed Barlett of the West Wing has a few questions for them

"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?"

We're not required to follow the laws of Moses. Nor have we ever been required to follow the law of Moses.

[Salus Maior]

I can assure you Jesus wants nothing of the sort.

Again:assure THEM instead of some random person on an internet forum.
Assure your fellow christians that murdering people for being gay is bad.

Because they believe it is Gods will.

I would if I knew any Christians that believe that.

I do not.