RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty

RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 12:54:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic yes...that its non binding doesnt seem to matter to the poopy pants tho..they arent fond of agreeing to anything the UN suggests, binding or not. After all they stillhavent ratified several human rights declaration have they. Lucy, a Declaration of Human Rights is a very noble idea, but the things within the UN's aren't all rights, nor should all of them be guaranteed. And, as such, the Declaration shouldn't be agreed to. I didnt think you would say any different....your opinion, is your opinion:) Its what I was talking about. and actually Im wrong, they did ratify it, they just dont follow it...as its non binding .... who woulda thunk it! non binding, and non enforceable is the favourite get out of treaties card Actually, binding or not, I don't agree that all the "rights" spelled out in the UN's Declaration are actually rights. And, it has nothing to do with the UN passing it or not. When someone (or some people) in the Federal Government make noise about some "right" and I don't agree that it's a right[/], shock of all shocks, I disagree with that person or those people. And, it doesn't matter which side it originates. If any noble thing is labeled a right, then the implication of that word loses all its meaning and strength.

Focus50 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 1:47:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I cant see it unless there is a full global agreement. Noble but meaningless, much like the land mine treaty. Well yeah, "noble but meaningless" is pretty much the legacy of the world's most dysfunctional group of do-gooders. But bein' as how the Russians and Chinese in particular (the veto twins) have built their economies on keeping 3rd World countries heavily armed and destabilised, it'll be "business as usual" one way or the other.... Focus.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 1:54:25 PM)
I would agree with everything you said (a first [;)]), if the UN actually did much good and was worthy of the term do-gooder[:D]lol

JeffBC -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 2:43:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Noble but meaningless, much like the land mine treaty. I don't find much "noble" about the UN. It's just another power structure seeking to control shit for the benefit of those in power and to the detriment of everyone But bein' as how the Russians and Chinese in particular (the veto twins) have built their economies on keeping 3rd World countries heavily armed and destabilised, it'll be "business as usual" one way or the other.... My immediate sense told me the US had to be the largest weapons exporter in the world. That sense was readily confirmed. If you squint a bit it's the US and Russia neck & neck with everyone else barely rating an "also ran".

DomKen -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 2:49:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic yes...that its non binding doesnt seem to matter to the poopy pants tho..they arent fond of agreeing to anything the UN suggests, binding or not. After all they stillhavent ratified several human rights declaration have they. Lucy, a Declaration of Human Rights is a very noble idea, but the things within the UN's aren't all rights, nor should all of them be guaranteed. And, as such, the Declaration shouldn't be agreed to. I didnt think you would say any different....your opinion, is your opinion:) Its what I was talking about. and actually Im wrong, they did ratify it, they just dont follow it...as its non binding .... who woulda thunk it! non binding, and non enforceable is the favourite get out of treaties card Actually, binding or not, I don't agree that all the "rights" spelled out in the UN's Declaration are actually rights. And, it has nothing to do with the UN passing it or not. When someone (or some people) in the Federal Government make noise about some "right" and I don't agree that it's a right[/], shock of all shocks, I disagree with that person or those people. And, it doesn't matter which side it originates. If any noble thing is labeled a right, then the implication of that word loses all its meaning and strength. Could you actually name one of the rights in the human rights declaration you don't accept?

Focus50 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 2:51:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 I would agree with everything you said (a first [;)]), if the UN actually did much good and was worthy of the term do-gooder[:D]lol Lol, I'll stand by "do-gooder" as the term seems more about perception than actually making the tough decisions and backing them up. And that'll never happen while the same two serial hand-sitters decide everything by veto. Life in general sure would be easy if everything could be resolved unanimously, as the UN is framed. Just like a dictatorship, but with notions and ideals - and unicorns, too.... Focus.

Focus50 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 3:08:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Noble but meaningless, much like the land mine treaty. I don't find much "noble" about the UN. It's just another power structure seeking to control shit for the benefit of those in power and to the detriment of everyone But bein' as how the Russians and Chinese in particular (the veto twins) have built their economies on keeping 3rd World countries heavily armed and destabilised, it'll be "business as usual" one way or the other.... My immediate sense told me the US had to be the largest weapons exporter in the world. That sense was readily confirmed. If you squint a bit it's the US and Russia neck & neck with everyone else barely rating an "also ran". In dollar terms, you're probably right. But a lot of those dollars (for the US) comes from major weapons platforms such as sophisticated combat aircraft and their customers being mostly stable, western nations. When I think of the world's trouble spots, especially those being ravaged from within, the first two weapons you notice on the 6pm News is the AK-47 and the RPG-7. Wonder how many of those it takes to match a typically multi billion dollar aircraft export contract. And, btw, the "Original" of your quote is not mine. Focus.

DesideriScuri -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 6:33:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Could you actually name one of the rights in the human rights declaration you don't accept? UN Declaration of Human Rights (abbr.) quote: Article 1 Right to Equality Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security Article 4 Freedom from Slavery Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment What is the definitions used for "discrimination", "slavery" and "degrading treatment?" quote: Article 6 Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law Article 7 Right to Equality before the Law Article 8 Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution Article 15 Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change It Article 16 Right to Marriage and Family Article 17 Right to Own Property Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information Article 20 Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association Article 21 Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights Could have some of those merged to reduce the numbers, but agree with these. I'm sure you noticed I missed some. And, that isn't correct. I didn't miss any. These last 8 aren't rights. quote: Article 22 Right to Social Security Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard Article 26 Right to Education Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development Good enough for you, or are you just waiting for me to post these so you can attempt to twist my words and meaning?

DomKen -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 8:24:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Could you actually name one of the rights in the human rights declaration you don't accept? UN Declaration of Human Rights (abbr.) quote: Article 1 Right to Equality Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security Article 4 Freedom from Slavery Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment What is the definitions used for "discrimination", "slavery" and "degrading treatment?" From the actual text of the Declaration discrimination quote: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. slavery quote: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms degrading treatment is not further elaborated on. quote: I'm sure you noticed I missed some. And, that isn't correct. I didn't miss any. These last 8 aren't rights. quote: Article 22 Right to Social Security Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard Article 26 Right to Education Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development Good enough for you, or are you just waiting for me to post these so you can attempt to twist my words and meaning? Article 22 quote: Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. how is that not a basic human right? Article 23 quote: (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Again how is that not a human right? Article 24 quote: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. People fought and died for this in the US within the last 125 years. Are you saying you would deny this right paid for in the blood of your fellow Americans? The rest are also basic human rights if you read the actual text rather than a series of titles not actually found in the document. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

subrob1967 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 8:51:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Had you ever chosen to study history or civics you would know that the u.s. has signed a treaty that says we will abide by the rues of the u.n.. So unless you are planning on leaving the country you,an alleged copper, would be required to enforce those rules unless you are one of those coppers who "protects and defends" when it is convenient. Perhaps maybe it's you who should read a history book... The fucking Constitution of the U.S. trumps any treaty signed illegally by our congress.

tweakabelle -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 10:03:37 PM)
quote: In dollar terms, you're probably right. But a lot of those dollars (for the US) comes from major weapons platforms such as sophisticated combat aircraft and their customers being mostly stable, western nations. When I think of the world's trouble spots, especially those being ravaged from within, the first two weapons you notice on the 6pm News is the AK-47 and the RPG-7. Wonder how many of those it takes to match a typically multi billion dollar aircraft export contract. This is so inaccurate it's hard to know where to begin correcting it. The US uses it veto far more often than others at the UN, usually to protect its rogue proxy Israel. Most of the weapons Israel uses to attack the indigenous population of the region are US-supplied and funded. Recently the US vetoed an attempt to censure Israel for its blatant breach of international law - colonising the West bank - so it is simply wrong to put all the blame on others for making the UN ineffective. The US accounts for almost half the world's arms exports, with a huge proportion of those sales to Middle Eastern countries. From memory the US has signed arms deals with ME countries worth in excess of $100 billion in the last year or so - hardly "stable, western nations.". IIRC, on the list of international arms traffickers, the US arms trade is worth more than the next 4 or 5 countries combined. So, if the US points the finger towards others as responsible for the world arms trade, or crippling UN effectiveness by using their vetoes, it is the height of hypocrisy.

DomKen -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/3/2013 10:16:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Had you ever chosen to study history or civics you would know that the u.s. has signed a treaty that says we will abide by the rues of the u.n.. So unless you are planning on leaving the country you,an alleged copper, would be required to enforce those rules unless you are one of those coppers who "protects and defends" when it is convenient. Perhaps maybe it's you who should read a history book... The fucking Constitution of the U.S. trumps any treaty signed illegally by our congress. Wrong the Constitution specifically makes all treaties ratified by the Senate, as the UN charter was, the law just like any other. Article 4 section 6 of the Constitution quote: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Since ther is nothing even remotely unconstitutional about the requirements placed on the US by the charter it is completely legal and constitutional.

Focus50 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/4/2013 3:16:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: In dollar terms, you're probably right. But a lot of those dollars (for the US) comes from major weapons platforms such as sophisticated combat aircraft and their customers being mostly stable, western nations. When I think of the world's trouble spots, especially those being ravaged from within, the first two weapons you notice on the 6pm News is the AK-47 and the RPG-7. Wonder how many of those it takes to match a typically multi billion dollar aircraft export contract. This is so inaccurate it's hard to know where to begin correcting it. The US uses it veto far more often than others at the UN, usually to protect its rogue proxy Israel. Most of the weapons Israel uses to attack the indigenous population of the region are US-supplied and funded. Recently the US vetoed an attempt to censure Israel for its blatant breach of international law - colonising the West bank - so it is simply wrong to put all the blame on others for making the UN ineffective. The US accounts for almost half the world's arms exports, with a huge proportion of those sales to Middle Eastern countries. From memory the US has signed arms deals with ME countries worth in excess of $100 billion in the last year or so - hardly "stable, western nations.". IIRC, on the list of international arms traffickers, the US arms trade is worth more than the next 4 or 5 countries combined. So, if the US points the finger towards others as responsible for the world arms trade, or crippling UN effectiveness by using their vetoes, it is the height of hypocrisy. Not sure what qualifies you to be correcting anyone on political opinion as that notion alone raises an eyebrow.... Clearly we have different hobbies. If this is what you spend your time researching then I'll concede your greater knowledge to my peripheral glances of the evening News and reading the Daily Telegraph. Still allowed to have an opinion but.... But I still wouldn't include Israel (rogue proxy, eh?) as one of my aforementioned destabilised 3rd World countries haemorrhaging from within. Focus.

tweakabelle -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/4/2013 7:00:41 AM)
quote: DesideriScuri These last 8 aren't rights. quote: Article 22 Right to Social Security Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard Article 26 Right to Education Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development I'm astounded that any one might question a person's Right to Education, and the other rights listed above in this day and age. However it is off topic so can I invite you to start a thread on the issue? It will be interesting to see how popular this opinion is and the grounds advanced for denying, for example, education as the right of every child - in fact the right of every person.

DesideriScuri -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/4/2013 7:01:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Could you actually name one of the rights in the human rights declaration you don't accept? UN Declaration of Human Rights (abbr.) quote: Article 1 Right to Equality Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security Article 4 Freedom from Slavery Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment What is the definitions used for "discrimination", "slavery" and "degrading treatment?" From the actual text of the Declaration discrimination quote: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. slavery quote: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms degrading treatment is not further elaborated on. So, these are, essentially, all stating pretty much the same things. Did you notice I didn't disagree with their being rights? My biggest concern is with the "degrading treatment" idea as that can be incredibly subjective. If someone calls me a poopyhead, is that infringing on my internationally recognized rights to not be subject to degrading treatment? Or, is this the abuses that were exposed in Abu Graib? Where is the line drawn? quote: quote: I'm sure you noticed I missed some. And, that isn't correct. I didn't miss any. These last 8 aren't rights. quote: Article 22 Right to Social Security Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard Article 26 Right to Education Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development Good enough for you, or are you just waiting for me to post these so you can attempt to twist my words and meaning? Article 22 quote: Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. how is that not a basic human right? If a person doesn't do the work necessary (and has the ability to do so) to provide for him/herself, it's up to national/international bodies to organize the resources to take care of that person for his dignity (subjective term) and the free development (subjective phrase) of his personality? I could say that I won't be able to live with dignity or to freely develop my personality without a Corvette, a McMansion, and a harem of hot babes that do my every bidding, could I not? quote: Article 23 quote: (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Again how is that not a human right? What is the "right to work?" In non-"right to work" States, free choice of employment is limited by Section 4 of Article 23. Most of the time, Article 4 sets up a system where Article 2 is blown out of the water. Article 3 isn't a right because it is reliant on other factors, like expenditures. If you and I both worked at the same place, for the same amount of time and I saved more of my money while you spent like money grew on trees, what makes you worthy of more supplementation than I? quote: Article 24 quote: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. People fought and died for this in the US within the last 125 years. Are you saying you would deny this right paid for in the blood of your fellow Americans? They fought and died for the right to rest and leisure? Horseshit. Rest and leisure are up to you to gain for yourself. Are you going to supplement a business owners income the first 5 years of the business so he/she can rest and have leisure as opposed to putting in the hours and hours to build the business? Didn't think so. quote: The rest are also basic human rights if you read the actual text rather than a series of titles not actually found in the document. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Didn't want to post the full text. I have written posts that were nearly novellas before and didn't want to post a lengthy document and address it point by point. Most people wouldn't want to read that, either. Plus, I've already addressed this in the past year. Was probably arguing with tazzy about it, but certainly could have been lucy, tweak, or kali, too. How do you define a right, and how is it different from a privilege? Tell me in your own words, please.

DesideriScuri -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/4/2013 7:13:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: DesideriScuri These last 8 aren't rights. quote: Article 22 Right to Social Security Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard Article 26 Right to Education Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development I'm astounded that any one might question a person's Right to Education, and the other rights listed above in this day and age. However it is off topic so can I invite you to start a thread on the issue? It will be interesting to see how popular this opinion is and the grounds advanced for denying, for example, education as the right of every child - in fact the right of every person. Perhaps you missed it, but another poster brought up the the Declaration of Human Rights, equating it with this Arms Treaty. I responded to that post and was questioned by yet another person to give an example of one of the "Human Rights" in the document that I didn't agree with. As such, I did. A right to education is non-existent. It is desirable and well worth the cost to get one, but guaranteeing every person has a right to an education isn't possible. What is education, and who is responsible for providing it? Where does the right end? If I have a right to education, who pays for it? Do I have a right to a doctorate? Do I have a right to a particular level of university education?

tweakabelle -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/4/2013 7:33:26 AM)
Another thread has been started on this issue DS. I look forward to your (and everyone's) contributions. http://www.collarchat.com/m_4417384/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4417384

DomKen -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/4/2013 12:34:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If a person doesn't do the work necessary (and has the ability to do so) to provide for him/herself, it's up to national/international bodies to organize the resources to take care of that person for his dignity (subjective term) and the free development (subjective phrase) of his personality? I could say that I won't be able to live with dignity or to freely develop my personality without a Corvette, a McMansion, and a harem of hot babes that do my every bidding, could I not? does the article say anything like that? No. It says people should have the "economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality." quote: What is the "right to work?" In non-"right to work" States, free choice of employment is limited by Section 4 of Article 23. Most of the time, Article 4 sets up a system where Article 2 is blown out of the water. Article 3 isn't a right because it is reliant on other factors, like expenditures. If you and I both worked at the same place, for the same amount of time and I saved more of my money while you spent like money grew on trees, what makes you worthy of more supplementation than I? WTF? Try that again and try to us english. quote: They fought and died for the right to rest and leisure? Horseshit. Rest and leisure are up to you to gain for yourself. Are you going to supplement a business owners income the first 5 years of the business so he/she can rest and have leisure as opposed to putting in the hours and hours to build the business? Didn't think so. Yes they did. May Day is celebrated because of some of those people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers%27_Day quote: The rest are also basic human rights if you read the actual text rather than a series of titles not actually found in the document. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Didn't want to post the full text. I have written posts that were nearly novellas before and didn't want to post a lengthy document and address it point by point. Most people wouldn't want to read that, either. Plus, I've already addressed this in the past year. Was probably arguing with tazzy about it, but certainly could have been lucy, tweak, or kali, too. How do you define a right, and how is it different from a privilege? Tell me in your own words, please. A right is something every person needs to be a fully free person. A privilege is something given to someone for some reason.

DesideriScuri -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/4/2013 4:56:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If a person doesn't do the work necessary (and has the ability to do so) to provide for him/herself, it's up to national/international bodies to organize the resources to take care of that person for his dignity (subjective term) and the free development (subjective phrase) of his personality? I could say that I won't be able to live with dignity or to freely develop my personality without a Corvette, a McMansion, and a harem of hot babes that do my every bidding, could I not? does the article say anything like that? No. It says people should have the "economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality." Subjective definitions can certainly end up saying that, can't it? I mean, Interstate is no longer between states, but anything that crosses state lines. quote: quote: What is the "right to work?" In non-"right to work" States, free choice of employment is limited by Section 4 of Article 23. Most of the time, Article 4 sets up a system where Article 2 is blown out of the water. Article 3 isn't a right because it is reliant on other factors, like expenditures. If you and I both worked at the same place, for the same amount of time and I saved more of my money while you spent like money grew on trees, what makes you worthy of more supplementation than I? WTF? Try that again and try to us english. Try reading. It's one of those new fangled things. quote: quote: They fought and died for the right to rest and leisure? Horseshit. Rest and leisure are up to you to gain for yourself. Are you going to supplement a business owners income the first 5 years of the business so he/she can rest and have leisure as opposed to putting in the hours and hours to build the business? Didn't think so. Yes they did. May Day is celebrated because of some of those people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers%27_Day Thank God. It's a great thing that business owners don't have to put in long hours and make family sacrifices any more. [8\|] And, how many of those protesting were business owners? quote: quote: The rest are also basic human rights if you read the actual text rather than a series of titles not actually found in the document. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Didn't want to post the full text. I have written posts that were nearly novellas before and didn't want to post a lengthy document and address it point by point. Most people wouldn't want to read that, either. Plus, I've already addressed this in the past year. Was probably arguing with tazzy about it, but certainly could have been lucy, tweak, or kali, too. How do you define a right, and how is it different from a privilege? Tell me in your own words, please. A right is something every person needs to be a fully free person. A privilege is something given to someone for some reason. "Fully free" --> quite subjective there, eh? And, who, exactly, are the "fully free?" Something given to someone for some reason. Being human is a reason, isn't it? By that definition, anything that is currently called a right is actually a privilege, no? The Right to bear arms must only be a privilege because it isn't allowed everywhere. So, the reason must be that you are a Citizen of, or living in, a country that allows it.

DomKen -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/4/2013 5:17:44 PM)
interstate means crossing state lines. What else could it mean? Business owners can choose to work less hours if they need rest. Workers died to get that same right. The rest? nonsense of the worst sort. If you want to play samantics games go bother someone who likes that sort of passive aggressive bullshit.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625