Victims of Politics

International Law says some things are simply not justifiable many on this forum disagree. This is an extract from a Nuremberg Judges response to an essay by Kissinger.

For over half a century, United Nations committees struggled in vain to reach consensus on a code of international crimes that would be punished in an international court. Cold war politics stymied all U.N. efforts to create an international criminal jurisdiction. Powerful nations remained unwilling to yield their sovereign rights to kill as they alone saw fit. After years of meticulous argumentation at the U.N., a breakthrough finally came in Rome in 1998 where 120 nations voted in favor of an ICC to curb the incessant murders and persecution of millions of innocent people. The U.S. was one of 7 nations that voted No. Mr. Kisssinger now argues that because of "the intimidating passion of its advocates", the judicial procedures designed to punish and deter new crimes against humanity are being "spread with extraordinary speed and has not been subjected to systematic debate". It is not the passion of its advocates that is moving nations toward the rule of law - it is the passion of those who have been victims of politics as usual.

The law sees what politicians cannot.

Gay, Straight, Black, White you should not live in fear. Anywhere in the world that is your basic human right.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
International Law says some things are simply not justifiable many on this forum disagree. This is an extract from a Nuremberg Judges response to an essay by Kissinger.

For over half a century, United Nations committees struggled in vain to reach consensus on a code of international crimes that would be punished in an international court. Cold war politics stymied all U.N. efforts to create an international criminal jurisdiction. Powerful nations remained unwilling to yield their sovereign rights to kill as they alone saw fit. After years of meticulous argumentation at the U.N., a breakthrough finally came in Rome in 1998 where 120 nations voted in favor of an ICC to curb the incessant murders and persecution of millions of innocent people. The U.S. was one of 7 nations that voted No. Mr. Kisssinger now argues that because of "the intimidating passion of its advocates", the judicial procedures designed to punish and deter new crimes against humanity are being "spread with extraordinary speed and has not been subjected to systematic debate". It is not the passion of its advocates that is moving nations toward the rule of law - it is the passion of those who have been victims of politics as usual.

The law sees what politicians cannot.

Gay, Straight, Black, White you should not live in fear. Anywhere in the world that is your basic human right.

You are wrong, they don't state that there are things that are unjustifyable but that they (the UN) agree to Laws that should be agreed by everybody...that doesn't mean they do, but they should.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are wrong, they don't state that there are things that are unjustifyable but that they (the UN) agree to Laws that should be agreed by everybody...that doesn't mean they do, but they should.....

lets examine this shall we 🙂

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
lets examine this shall we 🙂

kissinger is a gay paedo

OK

taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (the briefest acount cause your tired Bardock)

Human rights are international moral and legal norms that aspire to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not to be tortured, and the right to engage in political activity. These rights exist in morality and in law at the national and international levels. They are addressed primarily to governments, requiring compliance and enforcement. The main source of the contemporary conception of human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948b) and the many human rights documents and treaties that have followed in its wake.

The philosophy of human rights addresses questions about the existence, content, nature, universality, and justification of human rights. The strong claims made on behalf of human rights (e.g., that they are universal, or that they exist independently of legal enactment as justified moral norms) often provoke skeptical doubts. Reflection on these doubts and the responses that can be made to them has become a sub-field of political philosophy with a substantial literature.

This makes both positions clear I feel

Well, where are you going with this, Whirly? You either believe such rights are objective or you do not. Bardock does not. That seems to conclude the debate for me because there's really nothing to add to that. As I said elsewhere, this is all purely opinion. No-one can prove it.

Well actually I don't see your position made clear here....why should it be Universal? ....it is accepted throughout a majorrity of people, but it's surely not universal.....alone the name human rights...how can laws for humans be universal whilst there are billions of other species on thios planet that don't seem to have such rules....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well actually I don't see your position made clear here....why should it be Universal? ....it is accepted throughout a majorrity of people, but it's surely not universal.....alone the name human rights...how can laws for humans be universal whilst there are billions of other species on thios planet that don't seem to have such rules....

interesting point - however they generally do not attack each other without reason. However some do attack due to being different etc, we however can intelectualise as to why this is wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, where are you going with this, Whirly? You either believe such rights are objective or you do not. Bardock does not. That seems to conclude the debate for me because there's really nothing to add to that. As I said elsewhere, this is all purely opinion. No-one can prove it.

I am going towards disengagement - the generally accepted reason why some people try and justify evil.

You're not actually going to advance the debate past the point where it already is. Bardock thinks justification is subjective and you do not. That's... pretty much all of it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You're not actually going to advance the debate past the point where it already is. Bardock thinks justification is subjective and you do not. That's... pretty much all of it.

true, but it's so much fun debating.....

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You're not actually going to advance the debate past the point where it already is. Bardock thinks justification is subjective and you do not. That's... pretty much all of it.

true enough but like Bardock says we have fun, most of the time things got a little out of hand this week, but I do not dislike him (most of the time), and I think he feels the smae (Ido find him very right wing)

I can't help thinking it's not going to be debate so much as the two of you ever more elaborately making the exact same point over and over!

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
true enough but like Bardock says we have fun, most of the time things got a little out of hand this week, but I do not dislike him (most of the time), and I think he feels the smae (Ido find him very right wing)

I actually am rather Liberal in the real sense of the word...the british sense......I let people life their lives, I have morals but don'*t force them onto others and I think Capitalism is the best system.......way to describe a liberatarian........

Whirlysplatt makes not only a good point, but does so with more elequince and intellect, therfore he wins. 😛

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I can't help thinking it's not going to be debate so much as the two of you ever more elaborately making the exact same point over and over!

I think in a debate about political and philisophical complexities, Whirlysplat having English as his first language gives him an unfair advantage over Bardock there in the eloquence department.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think in a debate about political and philisophical complexities, Whirlysplat having English as his first language gives him an unfair advantage over Bardock there in the eloquence department.

Yes, but that shouldn't be a problem since the people Whirly and I would like to convince care for what is said, not how....

My dyslexia can be a problem though 🙁

OK this debate is over

thank you spelljammer 🙂