|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States42008 Posts
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat.
|
700 pages of encrypted messages is enormous. Cohen seems super screwed.
Suuuuuuper screwed. I knew Cohen would end up as another manafort.
|
On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. I mean... its Trump. 5 year old playground tactics is what he does and has been doing the entire time.
The people that didn't care the last 20 times won't care now and everyone else already knows who he is and aren't surprised.
|
On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat.
how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned?
is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive? and if so, at what margin would you consider it excessive?
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 16 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned? is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive?
No.
The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement.
|
On June 16 2018 07:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned? is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive? No. The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement.
that doesn't establish your point though; if there IS heavily selective enforcement, then there's a reasonable case that it's unfair imho.
Sure, an ideal solution would be consistent universal enforcement; but that's not the available option, nor the question under consideration.
Let me ask this:
Marijuana arrest by race shows considerable racial disparity
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a0b8418ece1
is it unfair to blacks?
if the available options were: blacks get punished frequently and whites almost never do; or nobody gets punished at all, which is fairer?
|
On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat.
I won't defend Trump pulling out of the UNHRC. I believe it's better to stay in and improve an organization rather than abandon it. Or if you do abandon it, create a replacement that is better run.
However, I will be the Israel defender again. What if it's the teacher who is doing the pushing? Then when a child pushes, the child gets in trouble. Shouldn't the child say, "F this system"? Right now, it seems like the HRC seems to like targeting Israel while letting others off the hook. Some of those others literally want to destroy Israel and commit genocide on its people. When the people doling out the punishment literally want you to die, you might not care for the system they control.
So you may say, "Yeah, but Israel is still violating human rights, so they should still be punished."
However, by selectively enforcing laws, they can make laws extremely tight and then only enforce them on countries they dislike. It'd be like making the speed limit 5 miles per hour on every street with possible jail time for offenders, but only enforcing it against black people and essentially making it impossible for black people to drive. You'd see a problem with that, right?
Selective enforcement can be used extremely abusively. If the HRC is going to use selective enforcement while also being run in part by countries that want to destroy another country, don't be shocked when people tell the HRC to fuck off.
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 16 2018 07:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned? is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive? No. The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement. that doesn't establish your point though; if there IS heavily selective enforcement, then there's a reasonable case that it's unfair imho. Sure, an ideal solution would be consistent universal enforcement; but that's not the available option, nor the question under consideration. Let me ask this: Marijuana arrest by race shows considerable racial disparity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a0b8418ece1is it unfair to blacks? if the available options were: blacks get punished frequently and whites almost never do; or nobody gets punished at all, which is fairer?
It is unfair to blacks, but that doesn't mean that the black guys who are punished for smoking weed didn't smoke weed.
Smoking weed is a loaded question though because I don't think that anybody should be punished for smoking weed, unlike crimes against humanity. By changing it from something that nobody should be doing and that should never be tolerated (human rights abuses) to smoking weed you've set yourself up to get the answer you want. That's not a cool way of arguing, don't do that.
So let's make it a little more comparable by comparing something bad with something bad. Let's say that black people are punished far more harshly for rape than white people and my options are to keep punishing black rapists while letting white rapists walk free, or letting all rapists walk free. Well, I'm gonna pick option A, while working on expanding it to punishing white rapists.
So assuming you agree that human rights violations are more like something that should be universally condemned, for example rape, than something that should be universally permissible, like smoking weed, we're good.
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 16 2018 07:53 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. I won't defend Trump pulling out of the UNHRC. I believe it's better to stay in and improve an organization rather than abandon it. Or if you do abandon it, create a replacement that is better run. However, I will be the Israel defender again. What if it's the teacher who is doing the pushing? Then when a child pushes, the child gets in trouble. Shouldn't the child say, "F this system"? Right now, it seems like the HRC seems to like targeting Israel while letting others off the hook. Some of those others literally want to destroy Israel and commit genocide on its people. When the people doling out the punishment literally want you to die, you might not care for the system they control. So you may say, "Yeah, but Israel is still violating human rights, so they should still be punished." However, by selectively enforcing laws, they can make laws extremely tight and then only enforce them on countries they dislike. It'd be like making the speed limit 5 miles per hour on every street with possible jail time for offenders, but only enforcing it against black people and essentially making it impossible for black people to drive. You'd see a problem with that, right? Selective enforcement can be used extremely abusively. If the HRC is going to use selective enforcement while also being run in part by countries that want to destroy another country, don't be shocked when people tell the HRC to fuck off.
Except this isn't people going 6mph in a 5mph zone, it's human rights abuses.
Selectively condemning something that should be universally condemned is still, and always, and indisputably better than not condemning it at all.
You don't get to change it to selectively condemning something that should be universally allowed unless you first want to explain to us all why human rights abuses are a good thing.
|
On June 16 2018 03:20 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 03:16 iamthedave wrote:On June 16 2018 02:42 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2018 02:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 16 2018 02:01 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2018 00:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
I kind of wonder if this is a "hey we are kicking you out" -> "you can't kick me out, I'm leaving!" scenario.
I'm trying to understand any rationale for leaving the UN Human Rights Council, coming up with nothing. The article does cite the underlying reasons. I suggest review. I personally agree with them. I think Bush also did the right thing back when he made a similar choice. Right after some stupidity in talks/interviews in the wake of the North Korean summit, and ill-conceived tariffs, Trump mixes in something great I can support. I can see your point. Why would you want to belong to an organization that points out when you are behaving illegally? Well, from your view it’s hatred for exposing America’s illegality, and from mine, you’d rather take your human rights cues from the likes of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and China if it works to spite America. That’s something you’ll have to come to terms with for yourself. I don’t actually support their human rights record or ability to speak on others, so being a part of some intergovernmental organization on human rights with them as members is a disgrace. But you do you on human rights bedfellows. Truthfully, having the US on the council - the country that ran (still runs?) Gitmo - is a bit of an embarrassment so it's probably for the best that they leave. considering who else is in the council, I don't think that matters so much.
Well it was meant sarcastically. Not like we don't have some black marks to our name.
The organisation in and of itself is worthwhile, and at least tries to push people in the right direction. I don't see Trump suggesting that he's going to build the super yuge greatest ever international human rights council in retaliation (in which case I'd be at least interested to see where it goes).
Seems like yet another move with no upside and potential downsides to me.
On June 16 2018 07:53 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. I won't defend Trump pulling out of the UNHRC. I believe it's better to stay in and improve an organization rather than abandon it. Or if you do abandon it, create a replacement that is better run. However, I will be the Israel defender again. What if it's the teacher who is doing the pushing? Then when a child pushes, the child gets in trouble. Shouldn't the child say, "F this system"? Right now, it seems like the HRC seems to like targeting Israel while letting others off the hook. Some of those others literally want to destroy Israel and commit genocide on its people. When the people doling out the punishment literally want you to die, you might not care for the system they control. So you may say, "Yeah, but Israel is still violating human rights, so they should still be punished." However, by selectively enforcing laws, they can make laws extremely tight and then only enforce them on countries they dislike. It'd be like making the speed limit 5 miles per hour on every street with possible jail time for offenders, but only enforcing it against black people and essentially making it impossible for black people to drive. You'd see a problem with that, right? Selective enforcement can be used extremely abusively. If the HRC is going to use selective enforcement while also being run in part by countries that want to destroy another country, don't be shocked when people tell the HRC to fuck off.
Some people consider the state in the Gaza Strip to be so bad that it verges on ethnic cleansing. And/or genocide, the words seem to turn up variously depending on who is writing.
I may be crazy, but that sounds like grounds for a valid accusation of human rights abuses. Given things have been bad over there for my entire time on this earth, that strikes me as a fair while to rack up a decent number of human rights abuses.
If the council has under-accused other deserving states, that's one thing, but trying to make an argument that Israel doesn't deserve it? That ain't gonna fly.
I wonder how many accusations NK and Burma have on the records?
|
Black people aren't the only minority. Sure we get a lot of shit in this country. but damn...just fucked up we're perceived to be the worst of the worst and that we should be used as a basis for all hypotheticals.
|
On June 16 2018 07:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 07:46 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned? is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive? No. The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement. that doesn't establish your point though; if there IS heavily selective enforcement, then there's a reasonable case that it's unfair imho. Sure, an ideal solution would be consistent universal enforcement; but that's not the available option, nor the question under consideration. Let me ask this: Marijuana arrest by race shows considerable racial disparity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a0b8418ece1is it unfair to blacks? if the available options were: blacks get punished frequently and whites almost never do; or nobody gets punished at all, which is fairer? It is unfair to blacks, but that doesn't mean that the black guys who are punished for smoking weed didn't smoke weed. Smoking weed is a loaded question though because I don't think that anybody should be punished for smoking weed, unlike crimes against humanity. By changing it from something that nobody should be doing and that should never be tolerated (human rights abuses) to smoking weed you've set yourself up to get the answer you want. That's not a cool way of arguing, don't do that. So let's make it a little more comparable by comparing something bad with something bad. Let's say that black people are punished far more harshly for rape than white people and my options are to keep punishing black rapists while letting white rapists walk free, or letting all rapists walk free. Well, I'm gonna pick option A, while working on expanding it to punishing white rapists. So assuming you agree that human rights violations are more like something that should be universally condemned, for example rape, than something that should be universally permissible, like smoking weed, we're good.
I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here; since you already conceded the argument to me in the opening line. Since the parallel is clear here; and thus the UNHRC is indeed being unfair to Israel. (which thus is a reversal from your prior stance of :
[I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"]) Since you agree it's unfair, and thus it would be reasonable for someone to point out that it's unfair.
That was the issue under contention; whether or not it's unfair.
It's also rude and unjustifiable of you to insult my perfectly reasonable method of arguing. Just because you can come up with a better example doesn't mean it's unreasonable of me to pick what I did to demonstrate my point.
And to further your parallel; in some of the cases against Israel, it may be like a case of "The black man looked at the white woman funny, lynch him!"
Given the amount of animosity against Israel, it's very plausible that some cases are just a pretext.
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 16 2018 08:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 07:54 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:46 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned? is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive? No. The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement. that doesn't establish your point though; if there IS heavily selective enforcement, then there's a reasonable case that it's unfair imho. Sure, an ideal solution would be consistent universal enforcement; but that's not the available option, nor the question under consideration. Let me ask this: Marijuana arrest by race shows considerable racial disparity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a0b8418ece1is it unfair to blacks? if the available options were: blacks get punished frequently and whites almost never do; or nobody gets punished at all, which is fairer? It is unfair to blacks, but that doesn't mean that the black guys who are punished for smoking weed didn't smoke weed. Smoking weed is a loaded question though because I don't think that anybody should be punished for smoking weed, unlike crimes against humanity. By changing it from something that nobody should be doing and that should never be tolerated (human rights abuses) to smoking weed you've set yourself up to get the answer you want. That's not a cool way of arguing, don't do that. So let's make it a little more comparable by comparing something bad with something bad. Let's say that black people are punished far more harshly for rape than white people and my options are to keep punishing black rapists while letting white rapists walk free, or letting all rapists walk free. Well, I'm gonna pick option A, while working on expanding it to punishing white rapists. So assuming you agree that human rights violations are more like something that should be universally condemned, for example rape, than something that should be universally permissible, like smoking weed, we're good. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here; since you already conceded the argument to me in the opening line. Since the parallel is clear here; and thus the UNHRC is indeed being unfair to Israel. (which thus is a reversal from your prior stance of : [I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"]) Since you agree it's unfair, and thus it would be reasonable for someone to point out that it's unfair. That was the issue under contention; whether or not it's unfair. It's also rude and unjustifiable of you to insult my perfectly reasonable method of arguing. Just because you can come up with a better example doesn't mean it's unreasonable of me to pick what I did to demonstrate my point. And to further your parallel; in some of the cases against Israel, it may be like a case of "The black man looked at the white woman funny, lynch him!" Given the amount of animosity against Israel, it's very plausible that some cases are just a pretext.
You have completely failed to understand my point. I'm not sure how but I'll make it very clear.
1) Human rights abuses are something that are always worthy of condemnatiion
2) Israel committed human rights abuses
3) Israel was condemned for the human rights abuses
This is all as it should be.
There is no
4) Unless other countries also committed human rights abuses and nobody condemned them, in which case they should get a pass
Fairness is simply not a component of this. It's just not. Israel cannot lay the blame for the condemnation they receive on unfair enforcement, they are condemned because they did the deed.
I was never arguing that it wasn't unfair, I was arguing that unfair enforcement doesn't excuse doing the deed. Congrats, you defeated your own strawman.
I am however quite confused that you think that it was my argument given that, as you say, I conceded it in the opening line. Generally if someone has conceded something already it's probably not their argument. Their argument is probably the bit they haven't conceded.
|
On June 16 2018 08:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 08:18 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:54 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:46 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned? is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive? No. The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement. that doesn't establish your point though; if there IS heavily selective enforcement, then there's a reasonable case that it's unfair imho. Sure, an ideal solution would be consistent universal enforcement; but that's not the available option, nor the question under consideration. Let me ask this: Marijuana arrest by race shows considerable racial disparity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a0b8418ece1is it unfair to blacks? if the available options were: blacks get punished frequently and whites almost never do; or nobody gets punished at all, which is fairer? It is unfair to blacks, but that doesn't mean that the black guys who are punished for smoking weed didn't smoke weed. Smoking weed is a loaded question though because I don't think that anybody should be punished for smoking weed, unlike crimes against humanity. By changing it from something that nobody should be doing and that should never be tolerated (human rights abuses) to smoking weed you've set yourself up to get the answer you want. That's not a cool way of arguing, don't do that. So let's make it a little more comparable by comparing something bad with something bad. Let's say that black people are punished far more harshly for rape than white people and my options are to keep punishing black rapists while letting white rapists walk free, or letting all rapists walk free. Well, I'm gonna pick option A, while working on expanding it to punishing white rapists. So assuming you agree that human rights violations are more like something that should be universally condemned, for example rape, than something that should be universally permissible, like smoking weed, we're good. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here; since you already conceded the argument to me in the opening line. Since the parallel is clear here; and thus the UNHRC is indeed being unfair to Israel. (which thus is a reversal from your prior stance of : [I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"]) Since you agree it's unfair, and thus it would be reasonable for someone to point out that it's unfair. That was the issue under contention; whether or not it's unfair. It's also rude and unjustifiable of you to insult my perfectly reasonable method of arguing. Just because you can come up with a better example doesn't mean it's unreasonable of me to pick what I did to demonstrate my point. And to further your parallel; in some of the cases against Israel, it may be like a case of "The black man looked at the white woman funny, lynch him!" Given the amount of animosity against Israel, it's very plausible that some cases are just a pretext. You have completely failed to understand my point. I'm not sure how but I'll make it very clear. 1) Human rights abuses are something that are always worthy of condemnatiion 2) Israel committed human rights abuses 3) Israel was condemned for the human rights abuses This is all as it should be. There is no 4) Unless other countries also committed human rights abuses and nobody condemned them, in which case they should get a pass Fairness is simply not a component of this. It's just not.
I didn't fail to understand your point; you failed to understand mine.
YOURE the one who brought fairness into the conversation first. I'm free to thus explore and contest your statements on it. You can't object to my discussing the fairness issue, as you're the one who brought it up.
and as usual, please don't add large edits to your post after it's done. I reserve the right to ignore them.
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 16 2018 08:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 08:22 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 08:18 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:54 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:46 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned? is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive? No. The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement. that doesn't establish your point though; if there IS heavily selective enforcement, then there's a reasonable case that it's unfair imho. Sure, an ideal solution would be consistent universal enforcement; but that's not the available option, nor the question under consideration. Let me ask this: Marijuana arrest by race shows considerable racial disparity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a0b8418ece1is it unfair to blacks? if the available options were: blacks get punished frequently and whites almost never do; or nobody gets punished at all, which is fairer? It is unfair to blacks, but that doesn't mean that the black guys who are punished for smoking weed didn't smoke weed. Smoking weed is a loaded question though because I don't think that anybody should be punished for smoking weed, unlike crimes against humanity. By changing it from something that nobody should be doing and that should never be tolerated (human rights abuses) to smoking weed you've set yourself up to get the answer you want. That's not a cool way of arguing, don't do that. So let's make it a little more comparable by comparing something bad with something bad. Let's say that black people are punished far more harshly for rape than white people and my options are to keep punishing black rapists while letting white rapists walk free, or letting all rapists walk free. Well, I'm gonna pick option A, while working on expanding it to punishing white rapists. So assuming you agree that human rights violations are more like something that should be universally condemned, for example rape, than something that should be universally permissible, like smoking weed, we're good. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here; since you already conceded the argument to me in the opening line. Since the parallel is clear here; and thus the UNHRC is indeed being unfair to Israel. (which thus is a reversal from your prior stance of : [I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"]) Since you agree it's unfair, and thus it would be reasonable for someone to point out that it's unfair. That was the issue under contention; whether or not it's unfair. It's also rude and unjustifiable of you to insult my perfectly reasonable method of arguing. Just because you can come up with a better example doesn't mean it's unreasonable of me to pick what I did to demonstrate my point. And to further your parallel; in some of the cases against Israel, it may be like a case of "The black man looked at the white woman funny, lynch him!" Given the amount of animosity against Israel, it's very plausible that some cases are just a pretext. You have completely failed to understand my point. I'm not sure how but I'll make it very clear. 1) Human rights abuses are something that are always worthy of condemnatiion 2) Israel committed human rights abuses 3) Israel was condemned for the human rights abuses This is all as it should be. There is no 4) Unless other countries also committed human rights abuses and nobody condemned them, in which case they should get a pass Fairness is simply not a component of this. It's just not. I didn't fail to understand your point; you failed to understand mine. YOURE the one who brought fairness into the conversation first. I'm free to thus explore and contest your statements on it. You can't object to my discussing the fairness issue, as you're the one who brought it up.
I brought it up by saying that their complaint about fairness isn't relevant. That was my starting point. It's still my point. My point is that fairness isn't relevant. It's not relevant. They objected about it because they think it's unfair. I think their objection is dumb because fairness isn't relevant. It's just not. Relevant that is.
|
On June 16 2018 08:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 08:27 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 08:22 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 08:18 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:54 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:46 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned? is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive? No. The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement. that doesn't establish your point though; if there IS heavily selective enforcement, then there's a reasonable case that it's unfair imho. Sure, an ideal solution would be consistent universal enforcement; but that's not the available option, nor the question under consideration. Let me ask this: Marijuana arrest by race shows considerable racial disparity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a0b8418ece1is it unfair to blacks? if the available options were: blacks get punished frequently and whites almost never do; or nobody gets punished at all, which is fairer? It is unfair to blacks, but that doesn't mean that the black guys who are punished for smoking weed didn't smoke weed. Smoking weed is a loaded question though because I don't think that anybody should be punished for smoking weed, unlike crimes against humanity. By changing it from something that nobody should be doing and that should never be tolerated (human rights abuses) to smoking weed you've set yourself up to get the answer you want. That's not a cool way of arguing, don't do that. So let's make it a little more comparable by comparing something bad with something bad. Let's say that black people are punished far more harshly for rape than white people and my options are to keep punishing black rapists while letting white rapists walk free, or letting all rapists walk free. Well, I'm gonna pick option A, while working on expanding it to punishing white rapists. So assuming you agree that human rights violations are more like something that should be universally condemned, for example rape, than something that should be universally permissible, like smoking weed, we're good. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here; since you already conceded the argument to me in the opening line. Since the parallel is clear here; and thus the UNHRC is indeed being unfair to Israel. (which thus is a reversal from your prior stance of : [I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"]) Since you agree it's unfair, and thus it would be reasonable for someone to point out that it's unfair. That was the issue under contention; whether or not it's unfair. It's also rude and unjustifiable of you to insult my perfectly reasonable method of arguing. Just because you can come up with a better example doesn't mean it's unreasonable of me to pick what I did to demonstrate my point. And to further your parallel; in some of the cases against Israel, it may be like a case of "The black man looked at the white woman funny, lynch him!" Given the amount of animosity against Israel, it's very plausible that some cases are just a pretext. You have completely failed to understand my point. I'm not sure how but I'll make it very clear. 1) Human rights abuses are something that are always worthy of condemnatiion 2) Israel committed human rights abuses 3) Israel was condemned for the human rights abuses This is all as it should be. There is no 4) Unless other countries also committed human rights abuses and nobody condemned them, in which case they should get a pass Fairness is simply not a component of this. It's just not. I didn't fail to understand your point; you failed to understand mine. YOURE the one who brought fairness into the conversation first. I'm free to thus explore and contest your statements on it. You can't object to my discussing the fairness issue, as you're the one who brought it up. I brought it up by saying that their complaint about fairness isn't relevant. That was my starting point. It's still my point. My point is that fairness isn't relevant. It's not relevant. They objected about it because they think it's unfair. I think their objection is dumb because fairness isn't relevant. It's just not. Relevant that is.
noted; and I disagree.
I think fairness is relevant. And I think it would be similarly reasonable for a politician to complain that black people are being treated worse for the same crime (regardless of what that crime is)
|
On June 16 2018 08:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 08:29 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 08:27 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 08:22 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 08:18 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:54 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:46 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned? is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive? No. The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement. that doesn't establish your point though; if there IS heavily selective enforcement, then there's a reasonable case that it's unfair imho. Sure, an ideal solution would be consistent universal enforcement; but that's not the available option, nor the question under consideration. Let me ask this: Marijuana arrest by race shows considerable racial disparity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a0b8418ece1is it unfair to blacks? if the available options were: blacks get punished frequently and whites almost never do; or nobody gets punished at all, which is fairer? It is unfair to blacks, but that doesn't mean that the black guys who are punished for smoking weed didn't smoke weed. Smoking weed is a loaded question though because I don't think that anybody should be punished for smoking weed, unlike crimes against humanity. By changing it from something that nobody should be doing and that should never be tolerated (human rights abuses) to smoking weed you've set yourself up to get the answer you want. That's not a cool way of arguing, don't do that. So let's make it a little more comparable by comparing something bad with something bad. Let's say that black people are punished far more harshly for rape than white people and my options are to keep punishing black rapists while letting white rapists walk free, or letting all rapists walk free. Well, I'm gonna pick option A, while working on expanding it to punishing white rapists. So assuming you agree that human rights violations are more like something that should be universally condemned, for example rape, than something that should be universally permissible, like smoking weed, we're good. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here; since you already conceded the argument to me in the opening line. Since the parallel is clear here; and thus the UNHRC is indeed being unfair to Israel. (which thus is a reversal from your prior stance of : [I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"]) Since you agree it's unfair, and thus it would be reasonable for someone to point out that it's unfair. That was the issue under contention; whether or not it's unfair. It's also rude and unjustifiable of you to insult my perfectly reasonable method of arguing. Just because you can come up with a better example doesn't mean it's unreasonable of me to pick what I did to demonstrate my point. And to further your parallel; in some of the cases against Israel, it may be like a case of "The black man looked at the white woman funny, lynch him!" Given the amount of animosity against Israel, it's very plausible that some cases are just a pretext. You have completely failed to understand my point. I'm not sure how but I'll make it very clear. 1) Human rights abuses are something that are always worthy of condemnatiion 2) Israel committed human rights abuses 3) Israel was condemned for the human rights abuses This is all as it should be. There is no 4) Unless other countries also committed human rights abuses and nobody condemned them, in which case they should get a pass Fairness is simply not a component of this. It's just not. I didn't fail to understand your point; you failed to understand mine. YOURE the one who brought fairness into the conversation first. I'm free to thus explore and contest your statements on it. You can't object to my discussing the fairness issue, as you're the one who brought it up. I brought it up by saying that their complaint about fairness isn't relevant. That was my starting point. It's still my point. My point is that fairness isn't relevant. It's not relevant. They objected about it because they think it's unfair. I think their objection is dumb because fairness isn't relevant. It's just not. Relevant that is. noted; and I disagree. I think fairness is relevant. And I think it would be similarly reasonable for a politician to complain that black people are being treated worse for the same crime (regardless of what that crime is)
In which case, everbody else should be elevated or lowered in punishment for their act. In the case of human rights abuses, everybody should be getting punished. In the case of smoking pot, black people should be punished(where applicable) as less harshly as everybody else is.
Smoking pot and human rights violations aren't equivalent acts.
|
United States42008 Posts
On June 16 2018 08:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 08:29 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 08:27 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 08:22 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 08:18 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:54 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:46 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 06:43 KwarK wrote:
What annoys me is their claim that they are leaving because the UNHRC is persecuting Israel by passing resolutions against Israel whenever Israel commits human rights abuses. They're not denying that Israel committed the human rights abuses, nor that the resolutions were deserved, they're saying it's unfair that Israel gets resolutions when other countries don't.
While I certainly would prefer that all countries which commit human rights abuses get called out for it I don't see why it's so upsetting that some countries which commit human rights abuses get called out. I'd certainly rather some countries get called out than none at all. They're not contesting whether or not Israel did it, they're instead trying to reverse the entire thing on the UNHRC by insisting that the UNHRC is being unfair.
This is playground logic, surely. Can anyone not see that? It's a five year old who gets put in time out for shoving insisting that they don't deserve to be put in time out, even though they knew about the no shoving rule and even though they did shove another kid, because there was this other kid and he shoved someone too and why won't anyone talk about that.
I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"
If Israel doesn't want to get so many resolutions for human rights abuses a good place to start would be to respect human rights a little more, just as the five year old in time out should consider not shoving other kids if they don't want to be in time out. Worrying about other kids getting away with it and wondering why people don't let them get away with it is missing the point somewhat. how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned? is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive? No. The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement. that doesn't establish your point though; if there IS heavily selective enforcement, then there's a reasonable case that it's unfair imho. Sure, an ideal solution would be consistent universal enforcement; but that's not the available option, nor the question under consideration. Let me ask this: Marijuana arrest by race shows considerable racial disparity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a0b8418ece1is it unfair to blacks? if the available options were: blacks get punished frequently and whites almost never do; or nobody gets punished at all, which is fairer? It is unfair to blacks, but that doesn't mean that the black guys who are punished for smoking weed didn't smoke weed. Smoking weed is a loaded question though because I don't think that anybody should be punished for smoking weed, unlike crimes against humanity. By changing it from something that nobody should be doing and that should never be tolerated (human rights abuses) to smoking weed you've set yourself up to get the answer you want. That's not a cool way of arguing, don't do that. So let's make it a little more comparable by comparing something bad with something bad. Let's say that black people are punished far more harshly for rape than white people and my options are to keep punishing black rapists while letting white rapists walk free, or letting all rapists walk free. Well, I'm gonna pick option A, while working on expanding it to punishing white rapists. So assuming you agree that human rights violations are more like something that should be universally condemned, for example rape, than something that should be universally permissible, like smoking weed, we're good. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here; since you already conceded the argument to me in the opening line. Since the parallel is clear here; and thus the UNHRC is indeed being unfair to Israel. (which thus is a reversal from your prior stance of : [I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"]) Since you agree it's unfair, and thus it would be reasonable for someone to point out that it's unfair. That was the issue under contention; whether or not it's unfair. It's also rude and unjustifiable of you to insult my perfectly reasonable method of arguing. Just because you can come up with a better example doesn't mean it's unreasonable of me to pick what I did to demonstrate my point. And to further your parallel; in some of the cases against Israel, it may be like a case of "The black man looked at the white woman funny, lynch him!" Given the amount of animosity against Israel, it's very plausible that some cases are just a pretext. You have completely failed to understand my point. I'm not sure how but I'll make it very clear. 1) Human rights abuses are something that are always worthy of condemnatiion 2) Israel committed human rights abuses 3) Israel was condemned for the human rights abuses This is all as it should be. There is no 4) Unless other countries also committed human rights abuses and nobody condemned them, in which case they should get a pass Fairness is simply not a component of this. It's just not. I didn't fail to understand your point; you failed to understand mine. YOURE the one who brought fairness into the conversation first. I'm free to thus explore and contest your statements on it. You can't object to my discussing the fairness issue, as you're the one who brought it up. I brought it up by saying that their complaint about fairness isn't relevant. That was my starting point. It's still my point. My point is that fairness isn't relevant. It's not relevant. They objected about it because they think it's unfair. I think their objection is dumb because fairness isn't relevant. It's just not. Relevant that is. noted; and I disagree. I think fairness is relevant. And I think it would be similarly reasonable for a politician to complain that black people are being treated worse for the same crime (regardless of what that crime is)
Fairness is a worthy goal, but in cases like rape or human rights violations, lack of fairness is absolutely not an excuse.
You cannot invalidate condemnation through unfairness because fairness is not relevant to whether the act should have been condemned. White people getting away with smoking weed doesn’t excuse black people for doing it, the fact that nobody should be punished for it does that. Saudi Arabia getting away with human rights violations doesn’t excuse Israel for committing them. Fairness simply doesn’t come into it.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 16 2018 09:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 08:53 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 08:29 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 08:27 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 08:22 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 08:18 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:54 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:46 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
how many nations commit worse human rights abuses and are barely mentioned?
is it possible that there's a degree of being singled out that would be truly excessive? No. The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement. that doesn't establish your point though; if there IS heavily selective enforcement, then there's a reasonable case that it's unfair imho. Sure, an ideal solution would be consistent universal enforcement; but that's not the available option, nor the question under consideration. Let me ask this: Marijuana arrest by race shows considerable racial disparity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a0b8418ece1is it unfair to blacks? if the available options were: blacks get punished frequently and whites almost never do; or nobody gets punished at all, which is fairer? It is unfair to blacks, but that doesn't mean that the black guys who are punished for smoking weed didn't smoke weed. Smoking weed is a loaded question though because I don't think that anybody should be punished for smoking weed, unlike crimes against humanity. By changing it from something that nobody should be doing and that should never be tolerated (human rights abuses) to smoking weed you've set yourself up to get the answer you want. That's not a cool way of arguing, don't do that. So let's make it a little more comparable by comparing something bad with something bad. Let's say that black people are punished far more harshly for rape than white people and my options are to keep punishing black rapists while letting white rapists walk free, or letting all rapists walk free. Well, I'm gonna pick option A, while working on expanding it to punishing white rapists. So assuming you agree that human rights violations are more like something that should be universally condemned, for example rape, than something that should be universally permissible, like smoking weed, we're good. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here; since you already conceded the argument to me in the opening line. Since the parallel is clear here; and thus the UNHRC is indeed being unfair to Israel. (which thus is a reversal from your prior stance of : [I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"]) Since you agree it's unfair, and thus it would be reasonable for someone to point out that it's unfair. That was the issue under contention; whether or not it's unfair. It's also rude and unjustifiable of you to insult my perfectly reasonable method of arguing. Just because you can come up with a better example doesn't mean it's unreasonable of me to pick what I did to demonstrate my point. And to further your parallel; in some of the cases against Israel, it may be like a case of "The black man looked at the white woman funny, lynch him!" Given the amount of animosity against Israel, it's very plausible that some cases are just a pretext. You have completely failed to understand my point. I'm not sure how but I'll make it very clear. 1) Human rights abuses are something that are always worthy of condemnatiion 2) Israel committed human rights abuses 3) Israel was condemned for the human rights abuses This is all as it should be. There is no 4) Unless other countries also committed human rights abuses and nobody condemned them, in which case they should get a pass Fairness is simply not a component of this. It's just not. I didn't fail to understand your point; you failed to understand mine. YOURE the one who brought fairness into the conversation first. I'm free to thus explore and contest your statements on it. You can't object to my discussing the fairness issue, as you're the one who brought it up. I brought it up by saying that their complaint about fairness isn't relevant. That was my starting point. It's still my point. My point is that fairness isn't relevant. It's not relevant. They objected about it because they think it's unfair. I think their objection is dumb because fairness isn't relevant. It's just not. Relevant that is. noted; and I disagree. I think fairness is relevant. And I think it would be similarly reasonable for a politician to complain that black people are being treated worse for the same crime (regardless of what that crime is) Fairness is a worthy goal, but in cases like rape or human rights violations, lack of fairness is absolutely not an excuse. You cannot invalidate condemnation through unfairness because fairness is not relevant to whether the act should have been condemned. White people getting away with smoking weed doesn’t excuse black people for doing it, the fact that nobody should be punished for it does that. Saudi Arabia getting away with human rights violations doesn’t excuse Israel for committing them. Fairness simply doesn’t come into it.
Pretty much. If you did the crime, you deserve to serve the time.
|
On June 16 2018 09:16 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 09:07 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 08:53 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 08:29 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 08:27 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 08:22 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 08:18 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:54 KwarK wrote:On June 16 2018 07:46 zlefin wrote:On June 16 2018 07:41 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
No.
The solution to selective enforcement is non selective enforcement, not non enforcement. that doesn't establish your point though; if there IS heavily selective enforcement, then there's a reasonable case that it's unfair imho. Sure, an ideal solution would be consistent universal enforcement; but that's not the available option, nor the question under consideration. Let me ask this: Marijuana arrest by race shows considerable racial disparity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a0b8418ece1is it unfair to blacks? if the available options were: blacks get punished frequently and whites almost never do; or nobody gets punished at all, which is fairer? It is unfair to blacks, but that doesn't mean that the black guys who are punished for smoking weed didn't smoke weed. Smoking weed is a loaded question though because I don't think that anybody should be punished for smoking weed, unlike crimes against humanity. By changing it from something that nobody should be doing and that should never be tolerated (human rights abuses) to smoking weed you've set yourself up to get the answer you want. That's not a cool way of arguing, don't do that. So let's make it a little more comparable by comparing something bad with something bad. Let's say that black people are punished far more harshly for rape than white people and my options are to keep punishing black rapists while letting white rapists walk free, or letting all rapists walk free. Well, I'm gonna pick option A, while working on expanding it to punishing white rapists. So assuming you agree that human rights violations are more like something that should be universally condemned, for example rape, than something that should be universally permissible, like smoking weed, we're good. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here; since you already conceded the argument to me in the opening line. Since the parallel is clear here; and thus the UNHRC is indeed being unfair to Israel. (which thus is a reversal from your prior stance of : [I'm amazed that serious politicians go on serious news programs and tell serious people "but it's not fair!!!!"]) Since you agree it's unfair, and thus it would be reasonable for someone to point out that it's unfair. That was the issue under contention; whether or not it's unfair. It's also rude and unjustifiable of you to insult my perfectly reasonable method of arguing. Just because you can come up with a better example doesn't mean it's unreasonable of me to pick what I did to demonstrate my point. And to further your parallel; in some of the cases against Israel, it may be like a case of "The black man looked at the white woman funny, lynch him!" Given the amount of animosity against Israel, it's very plausible that some cases are just a pretext. You have completely failed to understand my point. I'm not sure how but I'll make it very clear. 1) Human rights abuses are something that are always worthy of condemnatiion 2) Israel committed human rights abuses 3) Israel was condemned for the human rights abuses This is all as it should be. There is no 4) Unless other countries also committed human rights abuses and nobody condemned them, in which case they should get a pass Fairness is simply not a component of this. It's just not. I didn't fail to understand your point; you failed to understand mine. YOURE the one who brought fairness into the conversation first. I'm free to thus explore and contest your statements on it. You can't object to my discussing the fairness issue, as you're the one who brought it up. I brought it up by saying that their complaint about fairness isn't relevant. That was my starting point. It's still my point. My point is that fairness isn't relevant. It's not relevant. They objected about it because they think it's unfair. I think their objection is dumb because fairness isn't relevant. It's just not. Relevant that is. noted; and I disagree. I think fairness is relevant. And I think it would be similarly reasonable for a politician to complain that black people are being treated worse for the same crime (regardless of what that crime is) Fairness is a worthy goal, but in cases like rape or human rights violations, lack of fairness is absolutely not an excuse. You cannot invalidate condemnation through unfairness because fairness is not relevant to whether the act should have been condemned. White people getting away with smoking weed doesn’t excuse black people for doing it, the fact that nobody should be punished for it does that. Saudi Arabia getting away with human rights violations doesn’t excuse Israel for committing them. Fairness simply doesn’t come into it. Pretty much. If you did the crime, you deserve to serve the time.
and in reality, the world is seldom so clear cut as to what is and is not a violation.
as previously noted, there was no shortage of false accusations of blacks having committed the rape of a white woman, and getting killed for it.
if a body is a sufficiently biased, then it's rulings do not advance the cause of justice at all; as it's merely a pretext for other things. would you condone a court that solely acted as a pretext for lynchings? Of course not.
What is deserved is a very complicated question, as it's also very important to maintain rule of law and standards of conduct of those who judge. Sometimes a guilty person should be let go to prevent abuses that are far more dangerous; in such a case would it be said that they deserve to be punished even though they should not be? (i.e. not sure what you'd mean by deserve in such a case)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
