Predictable response

[Ken Smith]

Like eliminating the opposition in a drive-by? OK, it's extreme, but
isn't that part of the problem with such sweeping statements; there is a
lot of qualifying sub-text.

Yes, "it won't fit on a bumper sticker". The basic rule that I place in
front of all rules about absolute rights is that they do not conflict with
each other. If it appears that absolute rights are in conflict, I assume
that it means that I haven't correctly defined one of the rights under
consideration.

We often find ourselves back at the old saw about outstretching ones arm.
It is a good example of where a right ends along some sort of funny curved
boundary so it is a handy one to refer back to.

The US's founding forepersons, had to keep the text simple and short
enough to have the intended reader still be awake when they got to the
end.

They had to shorten "We the white, male, land owning people" to make it
fit.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

That depends - why are the kids looking for drugs in the first place?

Drugs solve all problems. Don't you watch TV ads?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

International COURT, not International Standard.

What "International Court"? Unless every nation on earth agrees to
it, its just another wanabe hitleresque group.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Keith]

The only good Republican is a dead Republican?

s/Republican/illegal alien/all

 

[Keith]

Do some research. Scrum it is.

I know a bit about that "sport" you call rugby.

I leave all knowledge of scum to you.

What's the matter, you don't like me talking about your sister?

 

[John Larkin]

Like the one we already have, which the US doesn't recognize?

It's a European court. Not 20% of the population of the planet
recognizes its authority.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

It's a European court. Not 20% of the population of the planet
recognizes its authority.

John

More like 1% ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Homer J Simpson]

s/Republican/illegal alien/all

No, the aliens don't lie and steal like the RINOs.

 

[Robert Latest]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:33:58 -0700,

It's a European court. Not 20% of the population of the planet
recognizes its authority.

Do you have a better idea?

robert

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:33:58 -0700,


Do you have a better idea?

robert

Well, there is this organization, the "UN", currently serving as a
clown school, that could some day acquire an interest in enforcing
human rights.

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Well, there is this organization, the "UN", currently serving as a
clown school, that could some day acquire an interest in enforcing
human rights.

John

The UN is as likely to that as a one world government is to ever
work.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Well, there is this organization, the "UN", currently serving as a
clown school, that could some day acquire an interest in enforcing
human rights.

But, to "enforce" person A's "human rights", you have to use force
against person B, whom you deem to be in violation of your concept
of "human rights". So, you go and use force on person B, completely
ignoring the fact that taking up arms against person B violates _HIS_
"human rights."

Oh, I can hear you now: "Oh, but they're killing millions of people!
They don't _deserve_ 'human rights'!"

So, how is that judgement any different from the judgement of person
B, who has decided that person A doesn't have "human rights" by the
same definition you're using?

Maybe the UN folks have considered this, and so they look wimpish
in the eyes of the war addicts.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

But, to "enforce" person A's "human rights", you have to use force
against person B, whom you deem to be in violation of your concept
of "human rights".

So, you go and use force on person B, completely
ignoring the fact that taking up arms against person B violates _HIS_
"human rights."

Wrong. It's fine to apply as much force against B as it takes to make
him stop messing with A.

Oh, I can hear you now: "Oh, but they're killing millions of people!
They don't _deserve_ 'human rights'!"

Exactly. Given two possible courses of action, the only moral course
to select is the one that minimizes human misery.

So, how is that judgement any different from the judgement of person
B, who has decided that person A doesn't have "human rights" by the
same definition you're using?

Maybe the UN folks have considered this, and so they look wimpish
in the eyes of the war addicts.

The "UN folks" are mostly B's.

John

 

[Robert Latest]

Well, there is this organization, the "UN", currently serving as a
clown school, that could some day acquire an interest in enforcing
human rights.

From the website of said court:

"The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial
organ of the United Nations."

So your "European court" is in fact run by the UN, an
organization that is more and more reduced to clown-schoolishness
by what used to be one of their most progessive members. The fact
that the US refuses to accept the UN's authority doesn't do much
to improve the UN's status.

robert

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

From the website of said court:

"The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial
organ of the United Nations."

So your "European court" is in fact run by the UN, an
organization that is more and more reduced to clown-schoolishness
by what used to be one of their most progessive members. The fact
that the US refuses to accept the UN's authority doesn't do much
to improve the UN's status.

robert

Why should we? They don't seem to do anything right, other than
waste shit loads of money and make themselves targets for ridicule, and
weapons. They should replace their prissy helmets with full clown
makeup.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[John Larkin]

From the website of said court:

"The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial
organ of the United Nations."

So your "European court" is in fact run by the UN, an
organization that is more and more reduced to clown-schoolishness
by what used to be one of their most progessive members. The fact
that the US refuses to accept the UN's authority doesn't do much
to improve the UN's status.

robert

The UN runs in clown mode because it is ineffective, immoral, and
corrupt and, like most bureaucracies, exists mostly to serve itself.
Only a couple of its internal organizations actually do much good for
humanity. If the UN had done its job in Iraq, the US wouldn't be there
and maybe we'd all be better off.

John

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The UN runs in clown mode because it is ineffective, immoral, and
corrupt and, like most bureaucracies, exists mostly to serve itself.

It's not that easy to create a world government. Cf the creation of
democracy from Magna Carta.

 

[John Woodgate]

It's not that easy to create a world government. Cf the creation of
democracy from Magna Carta.

Magna Carta established a form of democracy, but in a severely
stratified society, it established it in only the top three strata or
so. Except for the 'weights and measures' think, which was about the
third British Standard, and the first Generic standard. Previous
standards were about anthropometric measures of length and boömetric
measures of area.

 

[John Larkin]

It's not that easy to create a world government. Cf the creation of
democracy from Magna Carta.

It was, interestingly, signed under coertion, and promptly led to
civil war. Dictatators can seldom be sweet-talked out of their
perogatives.

John

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Wrong. It's fine to apply as much force against B as it takes to make
him stop messing with A.

Doesn't A have a responsibility to grow a backbone sometime and
watch out for his own well-being?

"Am I my brother's keeper?"

Thanks,
Rich