Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Give me a single reason.

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 6:15:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why international "law" should be respected. I can't think of any.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:08:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 6:15:48 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Why international "law" should be respected. I can't think of any.

1) International Agreement on a set of standards to adhere to promotes a universal moral system that defends the liberty of individuals.
2) The creation of something approaching world peace requires a universal set of laws to be adopted
3) International Law is justified by power, which by its own nature is respected.
4) Basically any internationalist argument.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:18:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:08:05 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:15:48 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Why international "law" should be respected. I can't think of any.

1) International Agreement on a set of standards to adhere to promotes a universal moral system that defends the liberty of individuals.

Nope! Countries at war violate it without hesitation. Israel and Hezbollah cannot afford to follow international regulations due to the nature of the conflict. Neither can Russia in regards to Chechnya. It only works if one country has overwhelming force and can afford to present a suitable PR case against the enemy.

2) The creation of something approaching world peace requires a universal set of laws to be adopted.

What if I don't think that "world peace" is even a remote possibility in the century? It's like enforcing strict background checks on astronauts to ensure that they aren't space pirates, even though space piracy is so far off that we can't even glimpse it over the horizon.

3) International Law is justified by power, which by its own nature is respected.

No, it isn't. The UN has almost no power and merely serves an advisory role. This is uncontroversial.

4) Basically any internationalist argument.

Internationalist arguments are wrong. Post them and I'll show you why.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:20:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your question was a should, not an is. You can't answer "should" with "but in practice". In practice, countries aren't moral and are usually imbeciles.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:26:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:18:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:08:05 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:15:48 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Why international "law" should be respected. I can't think of any.

1) International Agreement on a set of standards to adhere to promotes a universal moral system that defends the liberty of individuals.

Nope! Countries at war violate it without hesitation. Israel and Hezbollah cannot afford to follow international regulations due to the nature of the conflict. Neither can Russia in regards to Chechnya. It only works if one country has overwhelming force and can afford to present a suitable PR case against the enemy.


Exactly, coutries at war, why do you think most of these coutnries end up at war?Because they disregard International law, and then are punished accordingly.

See sanctions currently being implemented below.

http://www.customs.gov.sg...

2) The creation of something approaching world peace requires a universal set of laws to be adopted.

What if I don't think that "world peace" is even a remote possibility in the century? It's like enforcing strict background checks on astronauts to ensure that they aren't space pirates, even though space piracy is so far off that we can't even glimpse it over the horizon.


So what if it's not possible, it's worth a try.

3) International Law is justified by power, which by its own nature is respected.

No, it isn't. The UN has almost no power and merely serves an advisory role. This is uncontroversial.


This is controversial, please find a list of UN peacekeeping operations that resulted in the UN's desired outcome and were subsequently completed.

http://www.un.org...

4) Basically any internationalist argument.

Internationalist arguments are wrong. Post them and I'll show you why.

You may be correct on this final point, I don't have the evidence to hand.

Best Regards,
Ben

Source 1:
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:27:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:20:07 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Your question was a should, not an is. You can't answer "should" with "but in practice". In practice, countries aren't moral and are usually imbeciles.

No, I'm pointing out that countries act in their interest and often have nothing to gain from following international law. This is what I mean by utopianism. You aren't giving me any kind of framework for how international can be followed. You're just dismissing my examples of countries violating it without consequences as them behaving badly. Nothing about military or logistical needs. Nothing about political forces or the Prisoner's Dilemma. You really don't care about such silly things, do you?

It's the No True Scotsman fallacy. "I think that my international framework is effective. Countries ignoring them completely? Well, they aren't responding how they should respond."

Amnesty International's grand strategy for creating world peace is basically recommending that countries follow international law. It's really incredibly sad.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:30:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:27:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:20:07 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Your question was a should, not an is. You can't answer "should" with "but in practice". In practice, countries aren't moral and are usually imbeciles.

No, I'm pointing out that countries act in their interest and often have nothing to gain from following international law. This is what I mean by utopianism. You aren't giving me any kind of framework for how international can be followed. You're just dismissing my examples of countries violating it without consequences as them behaving badly. Nothing about military or logistical needs. Nothing about political forces or the Prisoner's Dilemma. You really don't care about such silly things, do you?

It's the No True Scotsman fallacy. "I think that my international framework is effective. Countries ignoring them completely? Well, they aren't responding how they should respond."

Amnesty International's grand strategy for creating world peace is basically recommending that countries follow international law. It's really incredibly sad.

Please find a link showing just some of the amazing work Amnesty international does.

http://www.amnesty.org...

Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:35:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:26:38 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:18:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:08:05 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:15:48 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Why international "law" should be respected. I can't think of any.

1) International Agreement on a set of standards to adhere to promotes a universal moral system that defends the liberty of individuals.

Nope! Countries at war violate it without hesitation. Israel and Hezbollah cannot afford to follow international regulations due to the nature of the conflict. Neither can Russia in regards to Chechnya. It only works if one country has overwhelming force and can afford to present a suitable PR case against the enemy.


Exactly, coutries at war, why do you think most of these coutnries end up at war?Because they disregard International law, and then are punished accordingly.

See sanctions currently being implemented below.

http://www.customs.gov.sg...

Sanctions are implemented when they politically expedient to powerful countries in the UN. US wants to cut Iraqi oil exports in order to help their ally Saudi Arabia? No problem.

2) The creation of something approaching world peace requires a universal set of laws to be adopted.

What if I don't think that "world peace" is even a remote possibility in the century? It's like enforcing strict background checks on astronauts to ensure that they aren't space pirates, even though space piracy is so far off that we can't even glimpse it over the horizon.


So what if it's not possible, it's worth a try.

No, because it ignores the reality on the ground. You can't respond to a Russian invasion of Latvia by quoting international law. You need a powerful nation with an interest in keeping Latvia independent to do that. Human rights organizations did not liberate concentration camps in Germany; American soldiers with submachine guns did so.

3) International Law is justified by power, which by its own nature is respected.

No, it isn't. The UN has almost no power and merely serves an advisory role. This is uncontroversial.


This is controversial, please find a list of UN peacekeeping operations that resulted in the UN's desired outcome and were subsequently completed.

http://www.un.org...

What distinguishes "the UN's desired outcome" and the US's, China's, Russia's, France's, or the UK's desired outcome? And btw, who exactly did the fighting in your examples? Certainly not the UN itself. The coalition forces that did so consisted of the armed forces of member states, and those states would hardly have cooperated if doing so was inimical to their interests.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:39:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:30:54 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:27:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:20:07 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Your question was a should, not an is. You can't answer "should" with "but in practice". In practice, countries aren't moral and are usually imbeciles.

No, I'm pointing out that countries act in their interest and often have nothing to gain from following international law. This is what I mean by utopianism. You aren't giving me any kind of framework for how international can be followed. You're just dismissing my examples of countries violating it without consequences as them behaving badly. Nothing about military or logistical needs. Nothing about political forces or the Prisoner's Dilemma. You really don't care about such silly things, do you?

It's the No True Scotsman fallacy. "I think that my international framework is effective. Countries ignoring them completely? Well, they aren't responding how they should respond."

Amnesty International's grand strategy for creating world peace is basically recommending that countries follow international law. It's really incredibly sad.

Please find a link showing just some of the amazing work Amnesty international does.

http://www.amnesty.org...

Regards,
Ben

Amnesty international's methods, directly quoted:

"public demonstrations
vigils
letter-writing campaigns
human rights education
awareness-raising concerts
direct lobbying
targeted appeals
email petitions and other online actions
partnerships with local campaigning groups
community activities
co-operation with student groups"


I just can't fathom a response to this.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:41:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:35:48 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:26:38 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:18:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:08:05 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:15:48 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Why international "law" should be respected. I can't think of any.

1) International Agreement on a set of standards to adhere to promotes a universal moral system that defends the liberty of individuals.

Nope! Countries at war violate it without hesitation. Israel and Hezbollah cannot afford to follow international regulations due to the nature of the conflict. Neither can Russia in regards to Chechnya. It only works if one country has overwhelming force and can afford to present a suitable PR case against the enemy.


Exactly, coutries at war, why do you think most of these coutnries end up at war?Because they disregard International law, and then are punished accordingly.

See sanctions currently being implemented below.

http://www.customs.gov.sg...

Sanctions are implemented when they politically expedient to powerful countries in the UN. US wants to cut Iraqi oil exports in order to help their ally Saudi Arabia? No problem.

2) The creation of something approaching world peace requires a universal set of laws to be adopted.

What if I don't think that "world peace" is even a remote possibility in the century? It's like enforcing strict background checks on astronauts to ensure that they aren't space pirates, even though space piracy is so far off that we can't even glimpse it over the horizon.


So what if it's not possible, it's worth a try.

No, because it ignores the reality on the ground. You can't respond to a Russian invasion of Latvia by quoting international law. You need a powerful nation with an interest in keeping Latvia independent to do that. Human rights organizations did not liberate concentration camps in Germany; American soldiers with submachine guns did so.

3) International Law is justified by power, which by its own nature is respected.

No, it isn't. The UN has almost no power and merely serves an advisory role. This is uncontroversial.


This is controversial, please find a list of UN peacekeeping operations that resulted in the UN's desired outcome and were subsequently completed.

http://www.un.org...

What distinguishes "the UN's desired outcome" and the US's, China's, Russia's, France's, or the UK's desired outcome? And btw, who exactly did the fighting in your examples? Certainly not the UN itself. The coalition forces that did so consisted of the armed forces of member states, and those states would hardly have cooperated if doing so was inimical to their interests.

I will debate you on the power of the UN at any time sir,

Yes the United Nations - not one world government, the UN is united and acting in the interests of its members, exactly the kind of force you demand.

Acctually I would remind you that it wasn't just American soldiers with Submachine guns who liberated Nazi Germany that is a shamefull thing to say.

Do you even know where the majority of concentration camps were, and who liberated most of them?

That is a slap in the face to millions of soldiers of the Allies who died so you could say such a thing, I demand you retract it.

Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:42:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:39:14 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:30:54 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:27:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:20:07 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Your question was a should, not an is. You can't answer "should" with "but in practice". In practice, countries aren't moral and are usually imbeciles.

No, I'm pointing out that countries act in their interest and often have nothing to gain from following international law. This is what I mean by utopianism. You aren't giving me any kind of framework for how international can be followed. You're just dismissing my examples of countries violating it without consequences as them behaving badly. Nothing about military or logistical needs. Nothing about political forces or the Prisoner's Dilemma. You really don't care about such silly things, do you?

It's the No True Scotsman fallacy. "I think that my international framework is effective. Countries ignoring them completely? Well, they aren't responding how they should respond."

Amnesty International's grand strategy for creating world peace is basically recommending that countries follow international law. It's really incredibly sad.

Please find a link showing just some of the amazing work Amnesty international does.

http://www.amnesty.org...

Regards,
Ben

Amnesty international's methods, directly quoted:

"public demonstrations
vigils
letter-writing campaigns
human rights education
awareness-raising concerts
direct lobbying
targeted appeals
email petitions and other online actions
partnerships with local campaigning groups
community activities
co-operation with student groups"


I just can't fathom a response to this.

I know you can't, that's why I posted it.

Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:46:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:41:18 AM, Homosapien wrote:
I will debate you on the power of the UN at any time sir,

Yes the United Nations - not one world government, the UN is united and acting in the interests of its members, exactly the kind of force you demand.

What if those interests are incongruent with your conception of human rights?

Acctually I would remind you that it wasn't just American soldiers with Submachine guns who liberated Nazi Germany that is a shamefull thing to say.

Do you even know where the majority of concentration camps were, and who liberated most of them?

Yeah, by the Ruskies. This only helps my point, y'know.

That is a slap in the face to millions of soldiers of the Allies who died so you could say such a thing, I demand you retract it.

Why?

Regards,
Ben
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:46:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:42:44 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:39:14 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Amnesty international's methods, directly quoted:

"public demonstrations
vigils
letter-writing campaigns
human rights education
awareness-raising concerts
direct lobbying
targeted appeals
email petitions and other online actions
partnerships with local campaigning groups
community activities
co-operation with student groups"


I just can't fathom a response to this.

I know you can't, that's why I posted it.

Regards,
Ben

You are aware of how sarcasm works, am I correct?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:50:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:46:17 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:41:18 AM, Homosapien wrote:
I will debate you on the power of the UN at any time sir,

Yes the United Nations - not one world government, the UN is united and acting in the interests of its members, exactly the kind of force you demand.

What if those interests are incongruent with your conception of human rights?

Acctually I would remind you that it wasn't just American soldiers with Submachine guns who liberated Nazi Germany that is a shamefull thing to say.

Do you even know where the majority of concentration camps were, and who liberated most of them?

Yeah, by the Ruskies. This only helps my point, y'know.

That is a slap in the face to millions of soldiers of the Allies who died so you could say such a thing, I demand you retract it.

Why?

Regards,
Ben

These are all assertions you have made without evidence.

Please explain why it helps your point.

Please explain why you think only the United States and Russia contributed towards victory over facism.

Please explain why you claim only American soldiers liberated Nazi germany with submachine guns and has the credit for this victory.

Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:01:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:18:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Nope! Countries at war violate it without hesitation. Israel and Hezbollah cannot afford to follow international regulations due to the nature of the conflict. Neither can Russia in regards to Chechnya. It only works if one country has overwhelming force and can afford to present a suitable PR case against the enemy.

As others have pointed out, this is simply a statement of what is the case, not what should be. You might as well say "give me one good reason why the law should be respected" and then point to the occurrence of theft and murder as proof that the reason isn't a good one.

What if I don't think that "world peace" is even a remote possibility in the century? It's like enforcing strict background checks on astronauts to ensure that they aren't space pirates, even though space piracy is so far off that we can't even glimpse it over the horizon.

Then presumably you still think that it is something good to aim for and that heading generally towards it than not doing so. It's nothing like the example you gave which, frankly, was idiotic.

No, it isn't. The UN has almost no power and merely serves an advisory role. This is uncontroversial.

1) Not it isn't 'uncontroversial' in the least.
2) Even if it were, just because the UN as it is now is flawed does not mean we shouldn't try and put something better in place.

Internationalist arguments are wrong. Post them and I'll show you why.

Why don't you try just making the case, since you seem to think you can cover ALL of such arguments?

This is probably the stupidest thread I've seen on this place.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:03:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:39:14 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Amnesty international's methods, directly quoted:

"public demonstrations
vigils
letter-writing campaigns
human rights education
awareness-raising concerts
direct lobbying
targeted appeals
email petitions and other online actions
partnerships with local campaigning groups
community activities
co-operation with student groups"


I just can't fathom a response to this.

Okay Machivelli, you're right; education and lobbying have never changed anything. Jeez...
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:08:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:03:39 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:39:14 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Amnesty international's methods, directly quoted:

"public demonstrations
vigils
letter-writing campaigns
human rights education
awareness-raising concerts
direct lobbying
targeted appeals
email petitions and other online actions
partnerships with local campaigning groups
community activities
co-operation with student groups"


I just can't fathom a response to this.

Okay Machivelli, you're right; education and lobbying have never changed anything. Jeez...

LOL I like this

*claps hands*

Nicely done sir

Thanks,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:12:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:50:38 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:46:17 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:41:18 AM, Homosapien wrote:
I will debate you on the power of the UN at any time sir,

Yes the United Nations - not one world government, the UN is united and acting in the interests of its members, exactly the kind of force you demand.

What if those interests are incongruent with your conception of human rights?

Acctually I would remind you that it wasn't just American soldiers with Submachine guns who liberated Nazi Germany that is a shamefull thing to say.

Do you even know where the majority of concentration camps were, and who liberated most of them?

Yeah, by the Ruskies. This only helps my point, y'know.

That is a slap in the face to millions of soldiers of the Allies who died so you could say such a thing, I demand you retract it.

Why?

Regards,
Ben

These are all assertions you have made without evidence.

No, they aren't.

Please explain why it helps your point.

Because the Soviet Union helped liberate Jews from concentration camps rather tha human rights organizations or "the League of Nations."

Please explain why you think only the United States and Russia contributed towards victory over facism.

I don't think so. I used them as examples. Why, are you offended because I didn't mention your little island's involvement?

Please explain why you claim only American soldiers liberated Nazi germany with submachine guns and has the credit for this victory.

It wasn't only them, again, it's an example.

Regards,
Ben
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:22:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:12:54 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:50:38 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:46:17 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:41:18 AM, Homosapien wrote:
I will debate you on the power of the UN at any time sir,

Yes the United Nations - not one world government, the UN is united and acting in the interests of its members, exactly the kind of force you demand.

What if those interests are incongruent with your conception of human rights?

Acctually I would remind you that it wasn't just American soldiers with Submachine guns who liberated Nazi Germany that is a shamefull thing to say.

Do you even know where the majority of concentration camps were, and who liberated most of them?

Yeah, by the Ruskies. This only helps my point, y'know.

That is a slap in the face to millions of soldiers of the Allies who died so you could say such a thing, I demand you retract it.

Why?

Regards,
Ben

These are all assertions you have made without evidence.

No, they aren't.

Please explain why it helps your point.

Because the Soviet Union helped liberate Jews from concentration camps rather tha human rights organizations or "the League of Nations."

Please explain why you think only the United States and Russia contributed towards victory over facism.

I don't think so. I used them as examples. Why, are you offended because I didn't mention your little island's involvement?

Please explain why you claim only American soldiers liberated Nazi germany with submachine guns and has the credit for this victory.

It wasn't only them, again, it's an example.

Regards,
Ben

Acctually it wasn't my little island, I don't own it and never did, I was more reffering to the millions of Chinese, Australians, Indians, Africans, French, Dutch, Greek, Spanish etc...

Your flagrant disrespect for facts, such as the fact the league of nations didn't actually exist during WWII, and that it was the Allies acting in WWII, not just America demonstrates you possibly need to spend sime time in a classroom.

Goodbye,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:23:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:01:51 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:18:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Nope! Countries at war violate it without hesitation. Israel and Hezbollah cannot afford to follow international regulations due to the nature of the conflict. Neither can Russia in regards to Chechnya. It only works if one country has overwhelming force and can afford to present a suitable PR case against the enemy.

As others have pointed out, this is simply a statement of what is the case, not what should be. You might as well say "give me one good reason why the law should be respected" and then point to the occurrence of theft and murder as proof that the reason isn't a good one.

OK, I may have phrased a few things poorly, but I'm making a case for why the law is (for the foreseeable future) unenforceable, not just that it isn't enforced.

What if I don't think that "world peace" is even a remote possibility in the century? It's like enforcing strict background checks on astronauts to ensure that they aren't space pirates, even though space piracy is so far off that we can't even glimpse it over the horizon.

Then presumably you still think that it is something good to aim for and that heading generally towards it than not doing so. It's nothing like the example you gave which, frankly, was idiotic.

Why should aiming for it involve a useless method that would only apply AFTER it has become a plausible scenario? Let's say that the entire world falls under the influence of the United States. Congratulations, you now have the beginnings of a possible world government. Now let's say that we merely want to end humans rights abuses, and we form an organization for doing so. What can this organization do? Make a little noise, draw some attention, and solve absolutely nothing. How exactly is it contributing to world peace?

No, it isn't. The UN has almost no power and merely serves an advisory role. This is uncontroversial.

1) Not it isn't 'uncontroversial' in the least.
2) Even if it were, just because the UN as it is now is flawed does not mean we shouldn't try and put something better in place.

Exactly. I disagree with the idea that we can simply snap our fingers and draw up an international organization with actual power or influence.

Internationalist arguments are wrong. Post them and I'll show you why.

Why don't you try just making the case, since you seem to think you can cover ALL of such arguments?

Fraid I don't have the BOP.

This is probably the stupidest thread I've seen on this place.

Thank you for the constructive criticism.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:26:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:03:39 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:39:14 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Amnesty international's methods, directly quoted:

"public demonstrations
vigils
letter-writing campaigns
human rights education
awareness-raising concerts
direct lobbying
targeted appeals
email petitions and other online actions
partnerships with local campaigning groups
community activities
co-operation with student groups"


I just can't fathom a response to this.

Okay Machivelli, you're right; education and lobbying have never changed anything. Jeez...

Lobbying works when you have a degree of power. Human rights organizations can't even begin to compare to the Jewish or Armenian lobbies in the US. "Education?" Omfglol. Yeah, whatever Chomsky-riding college student wants to get involved in some community project where they can learn ethnic cleansing in Darfur can do so.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:29:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:22:28 AM, Homosapien wrote:
Acctually it wasn't my little island, I don't own it and never did, I was more reffering to the millions of Chinese, Australians, Indians, Africans, French, Dutch, Greek, Spanish etc...

Your flagrant disrespect for facts, such as the fact the league of nations didn't actually exist during WWII, and that it was the Allies acting in WWII, not just America demonstrates you possibly need to spend sime time in a classroom.

Goodbye,
Ben

Is this typical British behavior? Pretend to take everything literally, and then act educated by citing newspaper articles? Sorry, but your attempts to establish some kind of faux pas intellectual superiority is crushed more easily than your appropriation of "o" for "i" in the word S-O-M-E.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:34:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:29:47 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:22:28 AM, Homosapien wrote:
Acctually it wasn't my little island, I don't own it and never did, I was more reffering to the millions of Chinese, Australians, Indians, Africans, French, Dutch, Greek, Spanish etc...

Your flagrant disrespect for facts, such as the fact the league of nations didn't actually exist during WWII, and that it was the Allies acting in WWII, not just America demonstrates you possibly need to spend sime time in a classroom.

Goodbye,
Ben

Is this typical British behavior? Pretend to take everything literally, and then act educated by citing newspaper articles? Sorry, but your attempts to establish some kind of faux pas intellectual superiority is crushed more easily than your appropriation of "o" for "i" in the word S-O-M-E.

Ah yes I didn't see that, typo, not purposeful.

Doesn't seem to detract from my point, nor does the suggestion I am sub standard because of the nation I live in.

Anything else?
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:39:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:34:07 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:29:47 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:22:28 AM, Homosapien wrote:
Acctually it wasn't my little island, I don't own it and never did, I was more reffering to the millions of Chinese, Australians, Indians, Africans, French, Dutch, Greek, Spanish etc...

Your flagrant disrespect for facts, such as the fact the league of nations didn't actually exist during WWII, and that it was the Allies acting in WWII, not just America demonstrates you possibly need to spend sime time in a classroom.

Goodbye,
Ben

Is this typical British behavior? Pretend to take everything literally, and then act educated by citing newspaper articles? Sorry, but your attempts to establish some kind of faux pas intellectual superiority is crushed more easily than your appropriation of "o" for "i" in the word S-O-M-E.

Ah yes I didn't see that, typo, not purposeful.

Doesn't seem to detract from my point, nor does the suggestion I am sub standard because of the nation I live in.

Yeah, I bet you didn't catch the other two blatant ones either.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:42:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:39:09 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:34:07 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:29:47 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:22:28 AM, Homosapien wrote:
Acctually it wasn't my little island, I don't own it and never did, I was more reffering to the millions of Chinese, Australians, Indians, Africans, French, Dutch, Greek, Spanish etc...

Your flagrant disrespect for facts, such as the fact the league of nations didn't actually exist during WWII, and that it was the Allies acting in WWII, not just America demonstrates you possibly need to spend sime time in a classroom.

Goodbye,
Ben

Is this typical British behavior? Pretend to take everything literally, and then act educated by citing newspaper articles? Sorry, but your attempts to establish some kind of faux pas intellectual superiority is crushed more easily than your appropriation of "o" for "i" in the word S-O-M-E.

Ah yes I didn't see that, typo, not purposeful.

Doesn't seem to detract from my point, nor does the suggestion I am sub standard because of the nation I live in.

Yeah, I bet you didn't catch the other two blatant ones either.

Probably not as it happens, I believe it's customary to *shrug* at this point.

Want to pop your tampon back in princess and get on with the argument now?

Thanks,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:46:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:23:44 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
OK, I may have phrased a few things poorly, but I'm making a case for why the law is (for the foreseeable future) unenforceable, not just that it isn't enforced.

All laws are, at some point, unenforceable. If they weren't, we wouldn't need them.

Why should aiming for it involve a useless method that would only apply AFTER it has become a plausible scenario? Let's say that the entire world falls under the influence of the United States. Congratulations, you now have the beginnings of a possible world government. Now let's say that we merely want to end humans rights abuses, and we form an organization for doing so. What can this organization do? Make a little noise, draw some attention, and solve absolutely nothing. How exactly is it contributing to world peace?

So just to get this straight, you're claiming that no humans right organisation has ever achieved anything at all and the world would be no worse off without them ever having existed?

Exactly. I disagree with the idea that we can simply snap our fingers and draw up an international organization with actual power or influence.

So your point is that the UN isn't as influential as it should be, not that it's worthless and there's no reason to pursue an more ideal body of international legislation & arbitration?

Fraid I don't have the BOP.

You don't exist and I can prove it, no matter what argument you use to claim you do. OH WAIT THAT'S A RETARDED WAY TO ARGUE.

Lobbying works when you have a degree of power. Human rights organizations can't even begin to compare to the Jewish or Armenian lobbies in the US. "Education?" Omfglol. Yeah, whatever Chomsky-riding college student wants to get involved in some community project where they can learn ethnic cleansing in Darfur can do so.

In one sentence you went from needing a 'degree of power' to 'as much as these examples'. In the last one, you show that you're almost majestically ignorant of the way that human rights organisations go about lobby. You also totally ignored the fact I pointed out you'd just said that education had never changed anything, which is probably about as dumb a comment as it is possible to make.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:52:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:42:03 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:39:09 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:34:07 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:29:47 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:22:28 AM, Homosapien wrote:
Acctually it wasn't my little island, I don't own it and never did, I was more reffering to the millions of Chinese, Australians, Indians, Africans, French, Dutch, Greek, Spanish etc...

Your flagrant disrespect for facts, such as the fact the league of nations didn't actually exist during WWII, and that it was the Allies acting in WWII, not just America demonstrates you possibly need to spend sime time in a classroom.

Goodbye,
Ben

Is this typical British behavior? Pretend to take everything literally, and then act educated by citing newspaper articles? Sorry, but your attempts to establish some kind of faux pas intellectual superiority is crushed more easily than your appropriation of "o" for "i" in the word S-O-M-E.

Ah yes I didn't see that, typo, not purposeful.

Doesn't seem to detract from my point, nor does the suggestion I am sub standard because of the nation I live in.

Yeah, I bet you didn't catch the other two blatant ones either.

Probably not as it happens, I believe it's customary to *shrug* at this point.

Want to pop your tampon back in princess and get on with the argument now?

Is this a joke? High-and-mighty British intellectual becomes six-year old when confronted with someone he can't condensed?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:53:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
*condescend

Apparently some people can catch their errors.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:02:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:46:41 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:23:44 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
OK, I may have phrased a few things poorly, but I'm making a case for why the law is (for the foreseeable future) unenforceable, not just that it isn't enforced.

All laws are, at some point, unenforceable. If they weren't, we wouldn't need them.

Depends on the degree. How enforceable do you think a law against masturbation would be?

Why should aiming for it involve a useless method that would only apply AFTER it has become a plausible scenario? Let's say that the entire world falls under the influence of the United States. Congratulations, you now have the beginnings of a possible world government. Now let's say that we merely want to end humans rights abuses, and we form an organization for doing so. What can this organization do? Make a little noise, draw some attention, and solve absolutely nothing. How exactly is it contributing to world peace?

So just to get this straight, you're claiming that no humans right organisation has ever achieved anything at all

No. They achieve some things, in the same way that a gnat can alter the rotation of the Earth with its gravitational force.

and the world would be no worse off without them ever having existed?

Yes. In fact, it would be a much better place, because such things only hinder education about how international systems really work or how you can actually do something about human rights.

Exactly. I disagree with the idea that we can simply snap our fingers and draw up an international organization with actual power or influence.

So your point is that the UN isn't as influential as it should be, not that it's worthless and there's no reason to pursue an more ideal body of international legislation & arbitration?

I'm simply claiming that there is no real avenue for doing so. States are not going to give up their power to a vague international abstraction.

Fraid I don't have the BOP.

You don't exist and I can prove it, no matter what argument you use to claim you do. OH WAIT THAT'S A RETARDED WAY TO ARGUE.

If you are proposing that we subscribe to this concept of international hierarchy and law, then the burden is on you to make a case for it. If you can't do that, then you have no right to expect be taken seriously.

Lobbying works when you have a degree of power. Human rights organizations can't even begin to compare to the Jewish or Armenian lobbies in the US. "Education?" Omfglol. Yeah, whatever Chomsky-riding college student wants to get involved in some community project where they can learn ethnic cleansing in Darfur can do so.

In one sentence you went from needing a 'degree of power' to 'as much as these examples'. In the last one, you show that you're almost majestically ignorant of the way that human rights organisations go about lobby.

One wonders why you would bother to argue in the first place if you can't do anything beyond deriding opponents for not understanding you.

You also totally ignored the fact I pointed out you'd just said that education had never changed anything, which is probably about as dumb a comment as it is possible to make.

I didn't say any such thing. If the public school system gave us Chomsky to read instead of textbooks, I'm sure that we would have a changed society overnight. So why doesn't Congress implement it? Go "lobby" them or something, and hey presto! you've saved the world!
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:11:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:52:29 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:42:03 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:39:09 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:34:07 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:29:47 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:22:28 AM, Homosapien wrote:
Acctually it wasn't my little island, I don't own it and never did, I was more reffering to the millions of Chinese, Australians, Indians, Africans, French, Dutch, Greek, Spanish etc...

Your flagrant disrespect for facts, such as the fact the league of nations didn't actually exist during WWII, and that it was the Allies acting in WWII, not just America demonstrates you possibly need to spend sime time in a classroom.

Goodbye,
Ben

Is this typical British behavior? Pretend to take everything literally, and then act educated by citing newspaper articles? Sorry, but your attempts to establish some kind of faux pas intellectual superiority is crushed more easily than your appropriation of "o" for "i" in the word S-O-M-E.

Ah yes I didn't see that, typo, not purposeful.

Doesn't seem to detract from my point, nor does the suggestion I am sub standard because of the nation I live in.

Yeah, I bet you didn't catch the other two blatant ones either.

Probably not as it happens, I believe it's customary to *shrug* at this point.

Want to pop your tampon back in princess and get on with the argument now?

Is this a joke? High-and-mighty British intellectual becomes six-year old when confronted with someone he can't condensed?

Wow!

I'm a high and mighty British intellectual?

That's signature material.

Thank you sir!
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."