KanryDrago

oh yes the united nations will write a weakly worded memo, oh but no it wont because various countries will veto it due to oil interests or something. Big deal

I disagree with the idea of human rights full stop unless they are going to have an international body that enforces them it is just theatre

Human rights make nowhere a better place because they arent enforced....when the states started torturing where was the enforcement? When the iranians started throwing gays off tall buildings where was the enforcement?

No I have my own set of ethics I live by, in that might makes right plays no part.... however I don't have the arrogance some of you have and insist my ethical code should apply universally

Idea's and principles are non existent, in two hundred years from now morals will have shifted and a lot of what you think of an universal human rights will be scoffed at just like they were two hundred years ago

You are failing I think to get the point.....your human rights declarations are just damn words, they are meaningless aphorisms, at the end of the day someone shoots you in the head you are still dead whether you want to debate whether they merely violated your human rights or removed them. Its hot air, its waffle, its meaningless

Oh please the united nations, that band of brothers that freely handed over the muslims for execution by serb militia in srebrenica. Yes well I am so going to pay attention to what a talking shop with no fangs say

Let me be perfectly clear, because I thought I had. There is no such thing as human rights, they are a fiction created by our rulers to make us believe we have more than we have. They exist only in your mind. Yes your analogy is perfect, if you steal my car and I cant get it back off you then you own it and I don't. This stupid fiction you believe in that somehow the car is still mine even though I will never be able to drive it or see it again is just that a fiction. Unless I can enforce ownership of that car and either stop you taking it or getting it back when you do then no I do not own that car for longer than it takes you to steal it

the term "Incapable of being removed" is fairly specific

Well now you see you are wrong your right not to be raped, killed or tortured can definitely be taken away. Where in that definition does it say anything about being justified? Clue it doesnt. To be an inalienable human right it has to be something that is incapable of being removed. The american governement for example regularly kills people, tortures people and prison rape is regarded as merely part of your punishment

And frankly I dont agree with what you claim are moral principals because you are a westerner and I have no doubt you think people of the book morals apply ( think ten commandments) Well sorry I dont subscribe to a lot of those and I am a westerner too. Your moral principles are not necessarily mine so how dare you suggest that there are universal human rights when at least half the globe do not ascribe to your so called moral principles. Western imperialism at its finest

Inalienable This is what it means not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; Now quote all the so called human rights that fall under that definition

Where have I said that? I have made two observations Its not a right if someone can take it away from you arbitrarily and you cant enforce it.....with reference to governments You cannot claim ethics as a basis for human rights because cultures have different ethics. For example being gay in some cultures will get you executed, in others its celebrated. Is it therefore a human right to be openly gay? One cultures ethics says no, anothers say yes. Ethics are a terrible thing to try and base human rights on

I could do with some fuel for my stoves so drop all you want

Not at all as different cultures have very different standards of ethics many of which contradict each other. The human race has never managed to create a universally recognised ethics nor will it ever

You are confusing ethics with human rights

That would be an ideal solution that pleased both sides, however like you I cannot see it happening

devils advocate is the phrase you are looking for

Life has no value except to the possessor Because Scylla wants to fly her plane and you are being mean by not letting her but thats not being entitled in the least

For something to be an inalienable human right scylla it has to be something a government can't take away on a whim Kindly list all rights that qualify for avoidance of doubt inalienable is not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied;

Ah finally she gets it, there is no right or wrong, merely what you can enforce

Precisely my point its only inalienable if a government can't take it from you therefore my statement the only human right you have is the right to die as its the one thing they cant take away from you

Where sl and rl converge is In sl you only have what the lab allow in rl you only have what your government allow There is no difference but you are trying to argue there is

And in rl you don't own anything either because your government can just say "oh that stuff you think you own, not yours anymore" whats the difference?

Who decided these rights scylla....I think its my human right to have a billion dollars If it makes you warm and fuzzy bleat on about your human rights all you like, just please wake up and realise they are fictional