- Joined
- Nov 7, 2015
- Messages
- 12,125
- Reaction score
- 9,655
Let's just start will no genocide. Such a radical idea right?Which rights exactly do you think are inalienable, in all countries?
Let's just start will no genocide. Such a radical idea right?Which rights exactly do you think are inalienable, in all countries?
At what point will you actually comment on the subject with any substance? Do you have anything of value to add to the conversation?
While I don't agree with certain things that are happening to innocent minority (white) South Africans who legally purchased land & took no part in appartied....The whole story is that the racial majorities resources were stolen and exploited. The indigenous people are now using the same means and mechanisms to claw it back. Should it be as indiscriminate and widesweeping as the news makes it seem??? IMO NO. Its the same kind of violation. Its still racism. People are more ok with your example because they witnessed the orignal appartied and exploitation in their lifetime. Unfortunately its not going to be as nuanced as only going after the evil actors. That's how systemic hate and discrimination works.Think about it like this- people often also hold racial discrimination as a violation of rights (above democratic choice). They do the same for property (ie, you can't vote to just take my money). But many of these African nations forcibly expelled their racial minorities upon independence, and confiscated their property. I see few people upset that the whites and Indians did not get their assets back. Why? IMO they implicitly understand it is about national self-determination.
Let's just start will no genocide. Such a radical idea right?
Its a complete thought for those who actually know the definition of genocide. What are you even saying?The right to not be killed? "No genocide" isn't really a complete thought
Its a complete thought for those who actually know the definition of genocide. What are you even saying?
Sorry I let trolling get the best of me. My apologies to the thread as well...The right to no genocide is inalienable? Thats what we were talking about. Rights that go across borders.
Write in sentences. It helps alot.
Update:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/02/uganda-parliament-passes-anti-lgbtq-bill
Uganda’s parliament has passed a mostly unchanged version of one of the world’s strictest anti-LGBTQ+ bills after President Yoweri Museveni asked that certain provisions from the original legislation be toned down.
President Museveni
Despite four amendments, the bill retains most of the harshest measures of the legislation adopted in March. Those include the death penalty for certain same-sex acts and a 20-year sentence for “promoting” homosexuality, which activists say could criminalise any advocacy for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer citizens.
A measure that obliged people to report homosexual activity was amended to only require reporting when a child is involved. Failure to do so is subject to five years in jail or a fine of 10 million Ugandan shillings (£2,150).
Anyone who “knowingly allow their premises to be used for acts of homosexuality” faces seven years in jail.
Museveni returned the bill to parliament last month, asking lawmakers to remove the duty to report and to introduce a provision to facilitate the “rehabilitation” of gay people. No such provision has been included in the amended bill.
The Ugandan Parliament
Today, [the 2nd of May] 371 MPs voted for the amended bill. One MP from the ruling party, Fox Odoi-Oywelowo, voted against, saying it contravened the constitution. The presence of 170 MPs is required to vote on a bill.
Museveni has 30 days to either sign the legislation into law, return it to parliament for another revision, or veto it and inform the parliamentary speaker. The bill will, however, pass into law without the president’s assent if he returns it to parliament for a second time.
Asked & answered 100x in this thread. Your logic is if a country finds something innocuous a deadly crime they should be allowed to do whatever they want.
That is a fallacy. Your logic is so bad you refuse to apply it to America or Germany. If your logic made sense you would stand on it . Its just more proof that it's not your real justification.
While I don't agree with certain things that are happening to innocent minority (white) South Africans who legally purchased land & took no part in appartied....The whole story is that the racial majorities resources were stolen and exploited. The indigenous people are now using the same means and mechanisms to claw it back. Should it be as indiscriminate and widesweeping as the news makes it seem??? IMO NO. Its the same kind of violation. Its still racism. People are more ok with your example because they witnessed the orignal appartied and exploitation in their lifetime. Unfortunately its not going to be as nuanced as only going after the evil actors. That's how systemic hate and discrimination works.
Universal human rights says it is.You think it is innocuous. They do not.
You should use your own argument here. "Its their country, your opinion on rights & outcomes in it doesn't matter."They ended up cutting off their nose to spite their face in some cases. Zimbabwe confescated all farms owned by whites. Most left the country. A few years later they were reduced to begging those same farmers to return and offering them compensation to run the farms again. As the people who took over had no idea how to farm efficiently.
You should use your own argument here. "Its their country, your opinion on rights & outcomes in it doesn't matter."