thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 12:45pm:


The UN is not a person. It represents a lot of countries that are outright hostile to human rights. Like China.

Quote:




So you still think they are part of the human anatomy?

Quote:




Have you checked your small intestine? Is that where all this is coming from?

chimera wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 2:36pm:


Just because you are discussing human rights with a bunch of foreign dictators does not imply any kind of collective understanding of human rights.

You are remarkably persistent at at revelling in complete ignorance of human rights. You have grudgingly gone from using your own ignorance as evidence that rights do not exist, to the absence of an anatomical feature that you can link to human rights, to the failure of dictators and sycophants to simplify the issue enough for you to understand it.

Why did you pose it as a question if all you want to do is run away from the answers?

There is merit in discussing economics with both communists and economists, but you should not get the two confused.

chimera wrote on Sep 28^th, 2023 at 8:52am:


Yes chimera. One is a right, the other is a description. Would you like to make a point?

freediver wrote on Sep 27^th, 2023 at 2:08pm:


1. Indeed the UN is not "a person": nevertheles,  the UN was created to "save mankind from the scourge of war".

Hence a significant  issue confronted at the UN is ..... ...what are 'rights'.

Question: Is making war "inherent" in human nature?
ie,  is waging war a "right", even in the age of MAD? 

2. A China confident in its own development model is promoting the concept of sustainable development for all UN member states, and is winning friends at the UN. The days of US hegemony are coming to an end, as developing countries see that China (the world's biggest and most successful developing country)  has much more to offer them,  than the US which is unable to even look after many of its own citizens - the reason for the democracy-destroying hyperpartisanship in the US.

[And the IMF - the US stooge left over from the post war Brettton Woods agreement days, following the US's ascension to global hegemony after WW2,  is useless for engendering development in poor countries, since it only enforces debt benefitting  greedy financiers.


So... back to your postulated  "human rights" - which (according to you) "China and others are hostile to".

Can you spell out some 'human rights' for us - or even one  such 'right'?

Note: Ozpolitics is not a forum for ASPI goons; you will need to defend your fake "freedom values" ideology, with reasoned argument, in this forum.

Btw, re the difference between 'legal' versus 'inhernet' rights: the former are real under rule of law, whereas the latter are myths of Classical Liberalism.

 

See post #48.