freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2024 at 6:24pm:


OK, we can see you don't want to debate - indeed don't want to consider - what human rights are, preferring  to regard them as "self-evident."

Hence you don't want to consider WHY the UNUDHR - a compilation of universal human rights - is a "failure".

But the debate on the right to self-defence thread has clarified some of the  issues regarding human rights, for me  at least.

It was posited (in the OP on that thread)  the 'right' to self defence against unlawful attack is a "basic" right, like the right to life and liberty.

Which seems to imply an attack by  an individual on another individual might be lawful, in certain cases...otherwise the OP would not have needed to stipulate  "against unlawful attack". 

But that suggests  the 'right to self defence'  is actually positing an individual's right to exercise  his own self-interest over the same, but competing right which belongs to  other individuals[/b], in a scenario where everyone's rights to life and liberty are "lawful".

....if we rule out cases of "unlawful attack", posited in the OP. 

So now we see the reason why the UNUDHR is a "failure", namely,  the "rights" of self-interested, competing individuals are placed above the "rights" of all individuals to life and liberty, which means a system  of law which elevates individual self interest ( or 50%+1 of individuals in a nation)  above the interest of the entire group  will create conflict, even under a regime claiming adherence to  "rule of law". 

And the self-interest of nations who resort to war to settle disputes, supported by the absurd concept of "legal" war -  which guarantees the destruction of life and liberty in one (or both ) of the disputing nations.

In conclusion, if there is more than one individual in the word, then individual self-interest will need to be tempered by rule of law which considers the best outcomes for all - as posited in the UNUDHR...

I suggest a 'benevolent  authority'  (with the highest authority residing in an ICJ),  to temper self-interest...

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2024 at 8:52pm:


Poor freediver:  lacks the mental competence to discuss  'human rights', after asserting  my concept of human rights is "alien".

Typical Conservative RW mental incompetence, unable to defend his assertions.   

Re the Chinese people; if the CCP increases government spending to support consumption in the low inflation environment in China (as reports from Beijing are suggesting) the people will want to embrace the CCP, not defend themselves against it.

Stay tuned. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 10^th, 2024 at 5:11pm:


Don't you think they should ask the people that?

You are the one who brought up the topic of self defence. 100 million deaths with no repercussions at all, in fact even rewards for those responsible, suggests the Chinese people are totally defenceless against the next idiotic whim to come out of the CCP.

The CCP killed about 100 million Chinese people. Are the Chinese people any more capable of defending themselves from the CCP today? Your eagerness to tell them what they want suggests you don't even understand the question. I am sure Mao and all his goons convinced themselves they were giving the Chinese people exactly what they wanted, even as they were starving to death by the millions.

Nothing has changed. You are telling the same lies the CCP was telling back then.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 3:27pm:



You poor mentally challenged jerk. I am not FD. He often doesn't agree with me.

So once again you are just a serial liar.

lee wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 4:15pm:


Your error: the 2nd quote in  #517 is from Fraudiver;  namely

Human rights are an alien concept to you

.

I accept your apology....hopefully you aren't having short tem memory problems like FD.

And Meister has pointed to FD's penchant for chasing rabbits down his preffered rabbit holes (using lexicaly loose terms open to interpretation). 

Let's look at his latest attempt to prove his assertion that  "human rights are an alien concept" (to me).







     

 

Quote:




Is it because they put the word universal in the name?

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 5:30pm:


So the same same organisation that put Pakistan in charge of the women's rights committee is by definition the final authority on human rights?

I realise the CCP treat's its citizens like gullible morons, but that won't work outside of China, little Mao.

With the CCP involved, I am surprised they even allowed access to food to be mentioned. I supposed they couldn't just leave it blank.

The CCP killed about 100 million Chinese people. Are the Chinese people any more capable of defending themselves from the CCP today?

Rights mean different things in different places.