Everyone already knows that human rights are not part of our anatomy. This is not the brilliant insight you seem to think.

Perhaps you should stop posting such stupid things if the responses bother you.

It does not follow because there is an absence of a link between one statement and the next.

If your only point is that the UN is concerned with denying that there is a fundamental inalienable human right to make war, then I would say that you are both correct and trivial to the point of being moronic. Which I suppose is probably the point of this thread. Perhaps this sort of thing is news to CCP stooges.

Three great insights into human rights from the resident CCP stooges:

Human rights are not a part of our anatomy, because we are not turtles, even though the UN says housing is a human right.

The UN helped to prevent war by refraining from granting people a fundamental human right to make war.

War violates people's human rights. It is terribly confusing when organisations like the UN use the word war and human rights on the same website.

Anything else?

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2023 at 6:52pm:


Still waiting for YOUR great insights into human rights.....

Quote:


(By-passing the stupidity of comparing a turtle's shell with the 'homes' of other creatures);

So you know that a human right is not part of our anatomy... though obviously we need to retain possession of our anatomy, just as humans in a modern economy need homes to successfully particpate in the modern economy.

[Interestingly, when black primary school children in a remote community were asked: "what would your voice say", one said "we want houses"....]

Still waiting for your description of what a human right is.

Quote:


1. As many people have been killed in wars since 1946, as died in WW2 itself.

2. Morely likely the threat of MAD (in the nuclear age) has prevented another world war since 1946, but lesser wars have been extremely costly in blood and treasure.

3. Your meaning is unclear (as expected from a prize fraud); eg "(refraining from) granting people a fundamental right to make war". 

Do you mean the right to make war is a fundamental human right? If so,  how does that sit alongside the (posited) 'fundamental right to life'? 

The UN itself does NOT refrain from granting the 'right' to make war, see the UN-based Geneva Conventions.   

Quote:


Amazing, we agree - though I don't agree  natural (fundamental) human rights  exist at all.

What you - and I agree -  are actually saying is war is terrible for all who are caught up in war, regardless of mythical "rights". 

Quote:


Now can you begin to understand?

The confusion exists because 'rights' don't exist - as proven by the fact you can't identify them.   

Anything else? [/quote]

Yes: identify the fundamental "human rights" which you claim exist...are "self-evident", even.....

Frank wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 10:43am:


So...priorities?

Freedom of thought eg "I want to make war against a nation which proposes collective wellbeing and common prosperity above individual 'freedom' "?

Is such 'freedom of thought' a self-evident right when it leads to war?

Conscience  : eg,  'fairness' is trumped by self-interest, as Sowell would contend?

But thanks for the attempt.

Fraudiver will never dare to identify these 'natural' (mythical) rights....

And that falls short of 'inherent, inalienable right'.

The right to life for starters trumps anything else.