MAGAThread XVI: Raising the Barr

[Farnhamia]

"That's not a car, it's a sedan!"

A sedan? We call that a saloon. It must be super different.

Sounds like an argument from the gun control thread.

[Tarsonis]

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There's a pretty big difference.

"That's not a car, it's a sedan!"

I think more like the sedan vs suv

[The Rich Port]

They would be increabaly bad and would most likly face invation as a human right campain from other nations.

Anyway, stop being hypothical and get back to realty.

Selling guns to Saudi Arabia, a nation that has horendes human rights compared to our human rights, is a bad thing.

You refuse to sell weapons to a nation because you disagree with what it defines as a human right? Fair enough.

But what if I say I agree with what it defines as human rights?

There's no objective determination of what should properly be considered a human right, and apparently universal human rights don't exist, so we can't work off that.

And they say creeping Shariah law is the fault of the liberals.

[Tarsonis]

You refuse to sell weapons to a nation because you disagree with what it defines as a human right? Fair enough.

But what if I say I agree with what it defines as human rights?

There's no objective determination of what should properly be considered a human right, and apparently universal human rights don't exist, so we can't work off that.

And they say creeping Shariah law is the fault of the liberals.

Right wingers don’t hate theocracy, they hate their theocracy

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Selling guns to ISIS is ethical?

Maybe the US should just sell North Korea and Iran some nukes.

Unironically this.

This is actually advocating for treason...

[Telconi]

Unironically this.

This is actually advocating for treason...

It's not, but once more the word gets overused.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

This is actually advocating for treason...

It's not, but once more the word gets overused.

TIL that advocating for the aiding and abetting of the enemies of the United States is not advocating for treason.

[Telconi]

It's not, but once more the word gets overused.

TIL that advocating for the aiding and abetting of the enemies of the United States is not advocating for treason.

They wouldn't be enemies any more would they?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Then we would put it to a vote, and who ever has the most votes wins.

Atleast, that's how it works in a democracy. And in such a system of government we are in.

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There's a pretty big difference.

Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive terms in the slightest, democracy in its simplest terms just means where citizens vote to exercise power, which is 100% true in America since Americans vote for many things to exercise their power, including their representatives, their local laws, etc. The United States is both a representative democracy and a republic.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

TIL that advocating for the aiding and abetting of the enemies of the United States is not advocating for treason.

They wouldn't be enemies any more would they?

Nah, because the USSR having nuclear weapons made them so willing to cooperate...

Then we would put it to a vote, and who ever has the most votes wins.

Atleast, that's how it works in a democracy. And in such a system of government we are in.

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There's a pretty big difference.

Hnnnnggggg

Those two aren’t exclusive.

There is an objective component, though. The goal of human rights is the protection of the individual against arbitrary government action, to ensure a fair, democratic and open society. From that goal you can start to see what rights are necessary to achieve that goal. We can look at the rights held in the American, African and European charters, the universal declaration and the ICCPR to see what rights are universally deemed necessary. There are quite a lot of those, and Saudi Arabia fails on most fronts.

You said there was an objective component, and then proceed to launch into a bunch of subjective assertions or just plain objectively wrong assertions.

Which ones are wrong, then?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

This is actually advocating for treason...

It's not, but once more the word gets overused.

I know you probably don’t care but treason has a definition in the United States and selling weapons to ISIS, North Korea, etc would absolutely be treason.

Article III of the United States Constitution

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Literally treason, by definition laid out by the constitution, and like I said, you probably don’t care but there it is.

TIL that advocating for the aiding and abetting of the enemies of the United States is not advocating for treason.

They wouldn't be enemies any more would they?

Yep, they still would be. You don’t seem to like America so it’s not too much of a surprise that you’d probably be okay with the arming of its enemies.

You said there was an objective component, and then proceed to launch into a bunch of subjective assertions or just plain objectively wrong assertions.

Says you.

[Vassenor]

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There's a pretty big difference.

Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive terms in the slightest, democracy in its simplest terms just means where citizens vote to exercise power, which is 100% true in America since Americans vote for many things to exercise their power, including their representatives, their local laws, etc. The United States is both a representative democracy and a republic.

People like to pretend they're mutually exclusive because it lets them defend the use of blatantly anti-democratic processes and methods to keep their in-group in power at the expense of their out-group.

[Telconi]

It's not, but once more the word gets overused.

I know you probably don’t care but treason has a definition in the United States and selling weapons to ISIS, North Korea, etc would absolutely be treason.

Article III of the United States Constitution

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Literally treason, by definition laid out by the constitution, and like I said, you probably don’t care but there it is.

They wouldn't be enemies any more would they?

Yep, they still would be. You don’t seem to like America so it’s not too much of a surprise that you’d probably be okay with the arming of its enemies.

You said there was an objective component, and then proceed to launch into a bunch of subjective assertions or just plain objectively wrong assertions.

Says you.

So what makes North Korea an enemy, and why would they continue to be so after we made peace and began assisting them?

[Telconi]

They wouldn't be enemies any more would they?

Nah, because the USSR having nuclear weapons made them so willing to cooperate...

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There's a pretty big difference.

Hnnnnggggg

Those two aren’t exclusive.

You said there was an objective component, and then proceed to launch into a bunch of subjective assertions or just plain objectively wrong assertions.

Which ones are wrong, then?

His stated 'goals of human rights' are subjective. His assertion that any of the references documents communicate human rights that are "universally deemed necessary" is incorrect.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Nah, because the USSR having nuclear weapons made them so willing to cooperate...



Hnnnnggggg

Those two aren’t exclusive.


Which ones are wrong, then?

His stated 'goals of human rights' are subjective. His assertion that any of the references documents communicate human rights that are "universally deemed necessary" is incorrect.

There are rights contained in all those documents that correspond to the other documents, thus earning the name 'universal'.

Those stated goals are mentioned in the preambles of the treaties and the jurispridence of the human right courts.

[Nakena]

His stated 'goals of human rights' are subjective. His assertion that any of the references documents communicate human rights that are "universally deemed necessary" is incorrect.

There are rights contained in all those documents that correspond to the other documents, thus earning the name 'universal'.

Those stated goals are mentioned in the preambles of the treaties and the jurispridence of the human right courts.

Most signatory nations never cared much about any of that mumbo jumbo, despite all good intentions.

Might makes still all too often right.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

There are rights contained in all those documents that correspond to the other documents, thus earning the name 'universal'.

Those stated goals are mentioned in the preambles of the treaties and the jurispridence of the human right courts.

Most signatory nations never cared much about any of that mumbo jumbo, despite all good intentions.

Might makes still all too often right.

Which totally misses the effective enforcement of the European Convention of Human Rights, but such facts are easily swept aside if our world view depends on it.

[Telconi]

His stated 'goals of human rights' are subjective. His assertion that any of the references documents communicate human rights that are "universally deemed necessary" is incorrect.

There are rights contained in all those documents that correspond to the other documents, thus earning the name 'universal'.

Those stated goals are mentioned in the preambles of the treaties and the jurispridence of the human right courts.

And all those documents are supported by all of humanity in their entirety? No, they're not.

So that would make them guiding principles of those courts, not of "human rights" as a concept.

[Gormwood]

Unironically this.

This is actually advocating for treason...

Don't worry, Telconi will scream that it's treason the moment a Democratic President does it.

[Telconi]

This is actually advocating for treason...

Don't worry, Telconi will scream that it's treason the moment a Democratic President does it.

Your strawmen get worse with each passing week Gauth, come up with something that at least remotely resembles an argument next time.

[Zurkerx]

Breaking: DOJ will not prosecute Comey for leaking memos after IG referral

Well now, this is bound to get the ire of Trump.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

There are rights contained in all those documents that correspond to the other documents, thus earning the name 'universal'.

Those stated goals are mentioned in the preambles of the treaties and the jurispridence of the human right courts.

And all those documents are supported by all of humanity in their entirety? No, they're not.

So that would make them guiding principles of those courts, not of "human rights" as a concept.

Human rights are a legal principle.

[Nakena]

Most signatory nations never cared much about any of that mumbo jumbo, despite all good intentions.

Might makes still all too often right.

Which totally misses the effective enforcement of the European Convention of Human Rights, but such facts are easily swept aside if our world view depends on it.

I am just saying how things tend to run. I am not telling you that the ECHR is trash or so, just that a lot of people (Putin? Belarussia?) tend to ignore it because they have the power to do so.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Which totally misses the effective enforcement of the European Convention of Human Rights, but such facts are easily swept aside if our world view depends on it.

I am just saying how things tend to run. I am not telling you that the ECHR is trash or so, just that a lot of people (Putin? Belarussia?) tend to ignore it because they have the power to do so.

Belarus is not a an ECHR, and while Russia does not improve its laws, it does release individuals who win ECtHR cases and it always pays its fines. It’s far from perfect, but also far from lawless.

[Telconi]

And all those documents are supported by all of humanity in their entirety? No, they're not.

So that would make them guiding principles of those courts, not of "human rights" as a concept.

Human rights are a legal principle.

Human rights are a moral principle, like all legal principles are at first.