Summations Only

That would be tatamount to a government declaring that water is not wet."unalienable - incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another"
Unalienable - definition of unalienable by The Free DictionaryBy definition, unalienable rights can not be taken away. There are two ways to look at this, IMHO. There is what we can do, and what we should do. What we can do comes down to power. What we should do comes down to morality and natural rights. They do not always intersect.

LOLMaybe by definition they cannot be taken away, but reality does not depend on definitions.We CAN force our idea of "natural rights" on others, but only so long as we wish to remain the despot.

I will fully agree that this topic wil forever be debated so I will just leave it here.To swerve this back on topic, the two extreme views may very well be around government sovereignty and the idea of natural rights. Artemis is on record as stating that what goes on in other countries, and other states within the Union for that matter, are not our concern. I hold the other view where human rights are universal (and unalienable ) and should be fought for no matter where those humans may call home.

It really depends on what you mean by "fought for".If it means speak out, argue a position, try to build consensus then I doubt anyone would object.If it means impose YOUR idea of what are "natural rights" on others, then I most certainly would object.

That certainly is the conundrum. If another government is committing genocide can we justify the use of military force to stop the genocide, thereby enforcing our view of "natural rights"? I would think we could justify military force, and we have in the past. One of the unalienable rights is to practice the religion of your choice without facing death at the hands of your government. In the case of Yugoslavia, the US/NATO stepped in to stop the genocide of muslims at the hands of the military which had support from senior government officials. If Milosevic had said, "It is our natural right to ethnically cleanse our country" would we have had no recourse but to stand back and watch? Were we in the wrong for intervening?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Had genocide been the only issue that led to the Yugoslav wars, then yes, I think we might have been in the wrong for intervening.But it wasn't and there wasn't really a functioning government at the time.The US/NATO/UN stepped in because functioning National Government had broken down and there was a real risk of the unrest spreading beyond the national borders of the former Nation of Yugoslavia.It was not a matter of any "Natural Right" or "the right to practice the religion of your choice without facing death at the hands of your government".

Interesting. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Assume much lately?do you have any idea how sustainable the seal population is? Do you have any idea how sustainable the Minke Whale population is?it has nothing to do with your false assumptions, and all to do with bleeding heart pansies, and how they personal feel about hunting.give me a break, only serious inquires please. ORLY?Lets take a look at the difference of human rights in Ciudad Juarez and across the border at El Paso, Texas.It sure seems like the evidence is firmly against your thoughts and position on this one.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : 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.

Um, go back and read what you wrote. I said society shouldn't tolerate impregnating 10 year olds just because it's some tribal tradition. You then asked me if I wanted to invade other countries to impose what I believe. In other words, in your mind one can either believe anything goes OR we invade other countries to impose our beliefs on others.And that's exactly what I've been trying to point out. You seem incapable of thinking beyond those 2 ridiculous extreme positions.

Well, there are two ways of looking at this. One, we can take the opinion that human rights are something that really exists, and we all have universal human rights in all situations. The fact that governments or paramilitaries or whatever contravene those rights doesn't mean people don't possess them, it just means they're not being respected. This is Taq's view, as far as I can see.Another way of looking at it is that human rights are just a legal fiction, created by people upon agreement. This leads to the same answer though. The people in Ciudad Juarez have these rights - they're enshrined in the Mexican Consitution, in statutes and in international law. These legal rights still exist whether or not they're being respected.The third option you seem to be taking, that people don't really have these rights if they can't defend them for any reason, leads to some strange conclusions. It means that, if someone breaks into your house and steals all your possessions, then you don't actually have any right to those possessions, since you obviously don't have them any more.Edited by caffeine, : 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.

And what form should our intolerance take? I don't think it's tolerated because it's "tribal tradition", I think it's tolerated because part of how we and other countries reconciled the fact that our nations were built by stealing land from other people is that we reserved territory for them and promised self-governance, which we enshrined into law.It can only be statutory rape of a ten-year-old if there's actually a statute that applies to these people. Since they're an indigenous people on a legally self-governing reservation - correct me if I'm wrong about that - there doesn't seem to be.

Ooo, Free For All... Its because even thought you're an ex-cop, you're still a pig who thinks he knows best.If it makes sense to you, then you're willing to force it upon everyone. Pathetic.

Ergo, your rights aren't unalienable...Proof: Internment of Japanese Americans - WikipediaMost of them were american citizens.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : your