Summations Only

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.

We are waiting for you to elaborate, Taz.

this reminds me of the seal hunt in Canada every year, and the people who want to somehow stop the Canadians from doing what they want with their own resources, to me its silly. If Canadians want to hunt seal? let. If Fishing in Japan means whales? let em.If people get married in Colombia at 10 years old? so what? sure it's weird (in a sort of Mormon way), but we can't go there and make them do things our way, so what is the point of sitting here and wasting any time on it?

Independent sovereign countries can do what they want provided it does not cause a strategic threat to our country or it's allies or does not violate any existing treaties.There are many nations that take part in atrocious human rights violations. Dalfur was one instance I think more could of been done even though sanctions and a hybrid peace keeping force was dispatched, it was much to little much to late imo.I'm sure human rights violations in other countries, although regrettable will continue. In the information age it makes it hard not to get upset. Taz, your heart is in the right place I think.Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

So you see no positive benefit of keeping species from going extinct? Also, japanese whalers are whaling in international waters, not in Japan. Humans rights do not stop at the US border.

Human Rights only exist by consensus of Governments.

I kind of like the idea some guys back in the 1770's had. They thought that human rights were inalienable.

Actually, if you read all of that in context, the say "We hold these truths to be...", and then listed several specific rights. Also the "WE" referred to a particular place, government and society. It did not say "And you should too".

Unalienable rights are natural rights that no government can take away from a citizen. That is what they were speaking of.Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia

There are no such things as "natural rights". At most, there are what we deem to be natural rights. But different peoples at different times may disagree about such deeming.

The same logic could be applied to legal rights. At the end of the day, what people consider natural human rights do not stop at the US border, which is the point I was trying to make.

Extreme. So, just because I don't condone impregnating a 5 or 10 year old then I must want to invade the country and make them have sex at 18. Yeah, again, perfect demo as to how you think in the extreme.I'll give you a hint. I think people are completely capable of having sex long before 18. Unlike you, I don't think in terms of extremes. Again, you're demonstrating my point exactly. Either I don't have an opinion on these things at all or I am king of the universe. 2 extreme positions.How ironic that you guys are demoing exactly what I'm saying about holding extreme positions at the cost of common sense.I'll start talking to you for real once you get out of this mind set of either one extreme or the other.Edit.I might also add that it's people like you (incapable of thinking anything except the extreme of anything) is why we have scary candidates like santorum, gingrich, and romney. People can't seem to think beyond the extremes of anything anymore. Either we all pray in school or we wage war on religion. Either we completely unregulate business practices or we turn everybody into communist. You seem to think that I'm also incapable of thinking anything beyond the ridiculous extreme positions that you can understand.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I think what you really meant was that they felt that THEY had such rights.They certainly believed that the government could take those rights away from other people. For example women and blacks certainly had no natural rights.There are no "Natural Rights" that cannot be taken away by a government.

No, they are unalienable, at least according to this school of thought. If a government violates the natural rights of a person then the government is in the wrong. This was used as a justification for the split between America and the British monarchy. Their natural rights were being violated, so they declared the British government dissolved and established their independence. Hypocrisy was certainly one of their flaws.What I am ultimately responding to is the idea that we can tell other countries what they should do with respect to human rights. Natural laws is the justification, or at least the proposed justification.From wiki, "Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss."

The wiki then is factually wrong since there are nations that can and do dismiss just about any so called "natural right" you care to mention.Rights in reality evolve and change over time as a matter of consensus. Certainly we are free to tell any other country that they are wrong, and of course, they are free to say "Nah, nah nah, it's YOU who are wrong!"Also the justification for an illegal act (the US Revolution as one example) is far too often simply sloganism while the real causes are most often just power, wealth, pride.