YOU have NO RIGHTS!

BS. In other words, no way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that's entirely ass backwards.

You are born with the RIGHT to do whatever you think you can get away with and deal with the consequences.

It's undeniable... unless I'm really talking about "freedom" and not really defining "right" clearly at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In days gone by people were born into slavery and still today in some cultures, people are born into poverty, servitude, their inheritance is one that denies them the right to work to gain employment to be educated, to ever rise above their inherited status in life, thus yet again, the right to be free does not exist either.

If you are free, be grateful, it is a privilage not a right.

Palestinians are not born free, they require permission to live in any country on the face of this earth. They have not a single place they can live without applying for residency and risking it being denied or withdrawn or expiring.
Many of todays palestinians were not even born in Palestine, but they are denied the freedom to reside in the country of their birth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am glad someone is paying attention, though clearly you are of this view anyway.

I am agog at the immense lack of posters ability here to grasp this simple concept even in the face of the arguments I have put forward in this thread to easily demonstrate this point. To me it demonstrates the massive amount of conditioning Americans in particular seem to have been subjected to, to continue to believe regardless of the abuses of their and other humans alleged 'rights' that they still exist as 'rights' and do not recognise that these are in fact mere privilages.

 

It is so blatantly obvious you have not read this thread as this poor assumption has already been disposed of.

Meanwhile did you know that in 2001:

The European Union were considering replacing the notion of human rights with the rights of persons.

Hmmm I thought human rights were rights? What is this they were (possibly still are) thinking of changing them? to what pray tell?

"The most widely read philosophy book in Sweden today is Singer's Practical Ethics, which published in six editions in German, with the latest in 1994. Let's look at what Singer writes. He repeats the arguments for infanticide and against treating newborns with spina bifida. He also describes one of his favorite concepts: That the notion of human rights should be replaced by the "right of persons." That is, that higher animals, like baboons and chimpanzees, as well as humans above one year of age, should be regarded as persons with the right to life; a right that no newborn baby, and no one with severe handicaps, should have—they, in reality, are "non-persons!"

Human rights under consdieration to be replaced with righs of persons, in other words, your alleged human rights are potentially about to be radically altered, in that MANY humans will now nolonger enjoy the privilages previously awarded to them.

Thus again proving that 'human rights' never existed in the first place. Merely privilages. If they were human rights, they could not be reconsidered with a view to reomving them altogether and once again discriminating against some 'humans'.

 

The Un resolutions held no weight when America decided to ignore them and attack Iraq on the un proven assumption they had weapons of mass destruction.

 

No they don't. Countries regularly veto good resolutions because they go against their interests or the interets of their allies. Countries also ignore resolutions when they have the financial and political backing which makes any punitive measures moot.

The UN resolutions are a joke.

 

The people that allow their governments to flaunt such Veto's and use financial methods to undermine such resolutions are a joke.

Or in otherwords, it's up to you as an individual to tell your government you're not happy when they do something wrong and if they don't listen you should find like minded individuals to protest that point. Protests of course mean placards, demostrations and perhaps the occasional egging of a politicians "car" (not the politician themselves or they would turn certain laws on you.) You could also get people to sign a partition and have the press available when you deliver it to their door, these are all things you can do to make sure that no government wavers your individual rights or the rights of others.

As I keep saying, it's up to us to make our governments realise those rights exist and defend those rights, otherwise our governments will blatently ignore them when we all sit by with apathetic faces.

In the instance of Iraq, there are one hundred and one reasons why that was going to happen, people forget about the gas attacks or the invasion of Kuwait, People also forget that Bush Senior was in power then and walked away from removing Saddam from power. After the terrorism incident, Saddam kept flaunting insults at the US, which obviously cause Bush Senior to call on his son about how it was looking to the rest ofthe world.

As for "Weapons of mass destruction", what intel do you expect from nations that Sell Weaponry to such countries and keep till receipts. It gives all the more reason why weapon sales should be stopped to foreign countries.

 

Too much wrong with this to respond, I will just refer you to the rest of the thread, it's all been said already.

 

Yes, please refer to Theory of Relativity's New Collegiate Dictionary for a definition of rights that is truly correct, despite an "immense lack of posters ability here to grasp this simple concept even in the face of the arguments I have put forward in this thread to easily demonstrate this point."


Just because you tell everyone your cat is a dog, doesn't mean its not a cat.

 

Assuming that the people have an opinion that differs from the government.

 

Ej, I never said the definition of the word was incorrect, I said that while the word and definition exist a true example of that word and definition in practice does not exist. Please note the difference!

 

Ah then I see you're sadly mistaken. Certainly you are correct that people are born into circumstances that seem limiting - but if you'd read and think about what I said you'd see it fits in any scenario.

You are born with the right to do what you think you can get away with and deal with the consequences. Slavery and servitude are basically mind control re-enforced by consequences.

Which is the attitude of a mind-controlled slave or an aristrocrat who thinks they have the right to control slaves. Foolish.

Be grateful you live today, I say.

They could go somewhere illegally (trying to get away with it, could have consequences).

Or just going there and taking a risk.

That doesn't make sense to me. What do you mean? An example please?

 

Palestinians inherit their nationality from their fathers and not the country of birth, thus in absence of Palestine, that creates a problem.

my ex was born in Kuwait, his father (not mother) was born in Palestine, thus he (my ex) was not recognised as any nationality except Palestinian. So he was denied residency in kKwait, had to apply from birth for 5yr visa's which then expire and need to be reapplied for. He moved to Lebanon, again visa's applied for , eventually as they discriminate there against Palestinians he could not get work so he applied as assylum seeker here, had to live here 10yrs with no right to step foot outside Uk before this alleged 'right to remain' was granted. While here he had no 'right' to vote and he never saw his family for 10yrs as a result of not being able to travel. His family were denied visits here as they were palestinian and therefor a 'risk'. Why all this? Because his father was Palestinian.

Had my kids not been born in Uk to myself a British citizen, his kids would be similarly afflicted if born in other Arab countries.

 

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with 'untouchables' Wes and Indias cast system

"The Varna and Jati Systems)

by Terence Callaham and Roxanna Pavich


The Indian caste system has been in use for many years. Still today the values of the caste system are held strongly. It has kept a sense of order, and peace among the people. There are five different levels of the system: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, and Harijans. Within each of these categories are the actual "castes" or jatis within which people are born, marry, and die. They all have their own place among each other and accept that it is the way to keep society from disintegrating to chaos. This system has worked well for Indian people and still has a major role in modern India.


Brahman
priest

Kshatriya
ruler, warrior, landowner

Vaishya
merchants

Harijan
"outside" the caste system
(once known as "untouchables")

http://adaniel.tripod.com/modernindia.htm

 

Just to clarify something. The UN passed resolution 1441, proposed by USA, UK and Northern Ireland, and Spain. Was passed by a Security Council vote with all members finding in favour. The resolution was about Iraq being in material breach of UN charter and previous resolutions (pretty much among other things, they were being too secret about their weapons programs). The US then proposed another resolution calling for a UN force to go in, France, Russia and i think Germany aswell vetoed it. US then went into Iraq with the Coalition of the Willing. There were no UN resolutions condemning the US and her Allies actions, and nothing more done from the council.

The problem is the veto system. Sam you and i had a discussion about it a while back

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. As long as the 5 "most powerful" countries in the world can vote to stop resolutions from happening things will always be unfair. With today's politics and diplomacy, every country has a vested interest whether it be bad or good, in another country. So if Indonesia wanted the UN to invade Australia, US and UK would stop it. If Spain wanted to annex land from France which it hypothetically rightfully owned, France would stop it etc etc... The Solution?

If you think of one just send a private message

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh I see, so since their society tells them what they are, that is what they are?

Again, look at what I said and think about it. They are not untouchables except in the minds of those who think they are.

 

Wes, you are a romantic if you think the poor and undeducated without any support can rise above their given staus with ease, especially when the entire fabric of their culture is designed to keep them down. If it was easy, then they would have ceased to exist long ago. But the fact that in todays enlightened world they do exist then clearly reversing the privilages or lack thereof afforded to them is not an easy thing.

 

Once upon a time, in the olden days people were born into slavery, where were their alleged 'rights' to do as they please? They had no such right, right is a concept created by humans, it is not a thing that exists outside of our human consciousness.

You may call it 'freedom' if you wish, that does not exist either except in the minds of men.

The only time you'd be truely free is if you resided on an island by yourself, with no one watching or dictating how you live.

Every married man knows he ain't free to do as he pleases

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Every married woman knows she can remove certain 'right's and privilages at a whim, and so it goes with all things.

A right is a word and concept, but the reality is we are afforded privilages, nothing more.