Summations Only

It is where Columbo was born...Duh!!

Yeah! - America should become: Who cares what laws other countries have!First, I want to see America bombing abortion clinics in Great Britain.
Then, I want to see America bombing Germany - because even if socialism isn't actually illegal, we all know it is wrong.News just in: a 17 year old girl just gave birth in the UK. But the British police won't do a damn thing to the father because... wait for it... it's some kind of tradition in the UK and we have to respect and be polite to their 'back-watered' way of life. But only perverts would allow girls to have sex under the age of 18!!

Are you saying that they aren't and how did you come to that decision?
At what age are they mature enough and how did you come to that decision?
(I'll skip over the obvious slippery slope fallacy.) And your response is a perfect demonstration of how you ignore any arguments that you cannot counter.Are you going to invade Ireland to prevent people having sex before 18?
Are you going to invade Great Britain to prevent people having sex before 17?
Are you going to invade Denmark to prevent people having sex before 16?
Are you going to invade Austria to prevent people having sex before 15?
Are you going to invade Spain to prevent people having sex before 14?Who died and made you fucking king?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Well, that doesn't really answer any of my questions.
Perhaps you are just struggling with the hypocrisy you must display to criticise Colombia but not the rest of the world.
Perhaps you are struggling to understand how you can complain about Colombia but not Spain. You don't have a point.
You are simply demanding that countries that disagree with you should be 'corrected'.
And you can't even explain how you came to your 'opinions'. Wrong.
I think that you are incapable of thinking anything beyond your own ridiculous extreme positions, which you have more than clearly demonstrated.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

But you are the person refusing to read what I wrote. Well, that doesn't really answer any of my questions.
Perhaps you are just struggling with the hypocrisy you must display to criticise Colombia but not the rest of the world.
Perhaps you are struggling to understand how you can complain about Colombia but not Spain. Are you not wanting to impose your beliefs on other countries? You don't have a point.
You are simply demanding that countries that disagree with you should be 'corrected'.
And you can't even explain how you came to your 'opinions'. Wrong.
I think that you are incapable of thinking anything beyond your own ridiculous extreme position, which you have more than clearly demonstrated.

Well, if I bought some heroin for my kids from an undercover policeman, first they would take my cocaine from me (loss of property) and then they would imprison me (loss of liberty). Certain countries would then sentence me to death (loss of life).Would that government be prosecuted for breaching my inalienable human rights?
Would the European Court of Human Rights demand I be released?
Would Amnesty International even raise an eyebrow?
Would even you object?

So, my rights are superseded if they conflict with someone else's rights?Perhaps I have misunderstood what inalienable human rights are.
I thought that they couldn't be taken away.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Well, any punishment is a breach of my inalienable human rights.
But you seem to support people's inalienable human rights being removed.
Your statements have people's human rights added and removed at your whim, to suit your own needs.
"You have the right to liberty! But not if you do something that I don't like! Or that someone else doesn't like! Or that a government has deemed wrong!" But inalienable means that they can't be taken away.
So if you say that they can be taken away, then they are not inalienable human rights.They are simply subjective opinions that vary per person/country with no universal consistency or agreement.Your claims that we "ought to" have human rights is as worthless as claiming that god "ought to" exist.
Wishing for things does not make them magically exist.Human rights are no better than religious beliefs; founded on various traditions, habits and cultures with no actual basis in reality other than as a mental construct imagined by humans.
We are not "bound morally, by The Law of Nature" - we are disparate entities that have differing opinions on what people should be able to do.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

A bit off-topic, so I'll keep it brief, but Taq cited drug trafficking as the 'problem' activity and not drug use.
But yes, it is a bit of a circular argument: "illegal drug" trafficking is illegal because "illegal drug trafficking" has bad consequences.
Making the drug legal would break that chain.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Those are crap prophesies since none of them have happened.
Perhaps that alone could be considered proof that your god doesn't exist. Yes, you could.
But that has never made you right.

One word: Dignitas.

No.
But many people do.Your claim (which I quoted) is patently false. That 'argument' is also false.
Premise 1 is false - Not everyone fears death. In fact, many people long for it.
Premise 2 is false - Many people enjoy being scared. People go on helter-skelter rides because they like being scared by death.
Premise 3 is false - Empathy fools you into thinking that other people feel the same way as you do.
Your conclusion: worthless.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I completely agree with your conclusion.
Rights are things that individuals/societies/cultures make up.But that flies in the face of human rights being intrinsic, inalienable or universal - as Taq claims.
Instead they are transitory, conditional and subjective. Sure, we make them up because they benefit our own society.
But different societies make up different rights.
There is no global consensus.Rights seem to simply be an emergent property of having laws.
But different laws produce different rights and "no law" produces "no rights".Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

But since it is not 100% true, it undermines your claims of human rights being intrinsic.
Your claim (which I quoted) is blatantly false.
Perhaps you should try to correct it, rather than use weasel words to wriggle out of being wrong. But there is a fatality rate and people still go on those rides.
Premise 2 is still false regardless of the risk: the hazzard still exists and people still enjoy the fear of death. We can also tell that people don't fear death.
Premise 3 fails to support your conclusion.In summary:
Your conclusion continues to be baseless and worthless.Causing people to be scared of death may or may not be an ok thing to do. It depends.
There is no human right pertinent to deciding which is correct.

You agree it is not 100% therefore it is not intrinsic.
By definition, something is not intrinsic if not everyone has it.
You really need to look up what these words mean before you continue using them. Your reply has not even attempted to support your premise.
Your 2nd premise remains false. Then you seem to agree with me that premise 3 fails to support your conclusion. Because if there was a pertinent human right then you would have stated it and not replied with the impossible demand for me to "prove a negative".
Even you (who continues to assert the existence of human rights) are unable to supply a single human right which isn't situational, conditional and subjective.In summary: you have failed to substantiate any of your claims regarding human rights.