Yes, if you are white, heterosexual and male you really need special consideration. Oh cry me a river. Boo-hoo, no human rights for you.
[SIZE=8px][fade in the violins][/SIZE]
What are "human rights" anyway? Which Constitution protects humans? If our "human rights" are violated, who is responsible for righting the wrongs?
Sounds like a load of Marxist doublespeak to me.
Human Rights at the time of the constitution were the rights of every land-owning, white male Christian (it also helped if you were a Mason in addition to the rest). Everyone else was considered "property" in some form or other.
All of this preceded the "Great Awakening" when mankind discovered how to double their chances for a date on the weekend.
2) What assumptions and what name calling are you talking about?
Have you actually read that Wikipedia entry in detail? There is no real consensus about what are "universal human rights", nor are there any ways of protecting or enforcing such nonsense. If you want to get technical, even the US has blatantly violated these alleged "rights". Who's going to take the US to task? It's "feel good" drivel for the UN, which has no real authority anyway. If the US stopped funding the UN, it would collapse entirely.
"Human Rights" and "Equality", the top two propaganda terms of our time. Forget about human rights or equality if you're conservative, heterosexual, Christian, and male. Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) are fully on the side of repression when it comes to these undesirable groups.
You poor victim.
Seems like you are threatened by a level playing field and by the erosion of white privilege in a global economy.
So you try to turn it around and act like SJW are the actual bad guys?
Or does it hurt your feelings when Christianity and conservatism can't be shoved down everyones throats?
Which Constitution and government protects "human rights"?
The point is, there is no such thing. These "rights" are made up and don't exist. In the US we have constitutionally recognized and protected rights that are understood to be inherent and everything else not enumerated in the Constitution is left to the states and the people. There is no world government going around protecting humans and their "rights". If there was, wouldn't they have invaded China by now? Or North Korea? Or (insert country here)?
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but if there is a deficit in the way in which the rest of the world operates vis-a-vis protection of Human Rights, then that's unfortunate, and the rest of the world needs to look to nations that take social justice seriously and which are progressive on the matter as well as on related issues.
"The rights of LGBT Canadians are now as well protected as those of other Canadians largely due to several court decisions decided under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was included in the Constitution of Canada in 1982, with Section 15 coming into effect in 1985."
Have you actually read that Wikipedia entry in detail? There is no real consensus about what are "universal human rights", nor are there any ways of protecting or enforcing such nonsense. If you want to get technical, even the US has blatantly violated these alleged "rights". Who's going to take the US to task? It's "feel good" drivel for the UN, which has no real authority anyway. If the US stopped funding the UN, it would collapse entirely.
They are on the wrong side of morality and on the wrong side of history.
What's your point anyways? That since there isn't a consensus on human rights, it's OK to be a bigot?
The reference was cited to provide numbers for something that is rarely quantified to address the bizarre belief that the UN is a moral compass or an actual arm of some kind of unelected world government. Far from it. If you have a more reputable source, post it. And I'm not being "/s".
Also, the issue was about alleged "human rights" and the fact that no such thing exists, not about your feelings regarding the National Review.
The reference was cited to provide numbers for something that is rarely quantified to address the bizarre belief that the UN is some kind of moral compass or an actual arm of some kind of unelected world government.
If you have a reputable source, post it. And I'm not being "/s".
I don't get it. What's your point? Human rights shouldn't exist?
"Human Rights" and "Equality", the top two propaganda terms of our time. Forget about human rights or equality if you're conservative, heterosexual, Christian, and male. Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) are fully on the side of repression when it comes to these undesirable groups.
This list comes from the Human Rights Campaign. I'm a heterosexual, Christian raised male who has been a registered Republican since 1984. I'm also a member of the HRC. I have made financial contributions and attended some of their events, but I don't represent the organization.
HRC fights for equal rights for all. Their primary focus for now has been with LGBT issues. So for example as a heterosexual, the fight for the equality in marriage is long since over. If you're heterosexual, go out and get married in any of the 50 US states. It's been that way for a while. If you're homosexual, the ability to marry someone of the same gender is just now starting to happen across the country (thanks in large part to the HRC).
Likewise, if you're heterosexual, there are many countries where you don't have to worry about being tortured, imprisoned or killed for having sex with someone of the opposite sex. On the other hand, if you're homosexual and are caught having sex with someone of the same sex, by law you can be tortured, imprisoned, or killed. This is another thing the HRC is working hard to change.
If you're a Christian male, you can't be denied employment, fired or discriminated against in the workplace or by a business solely because of that status. You have long been considered a protected class (gender, religion). You can be discriminated against for being heterosexual (outside of Federal employment) , although there's no evidence of this happening on any significant level. Regardless, having sexual orientation become a protected class is a goal of the HRC.. and no, not just for LGBT, but for all.
The bottom line is that in regards to your comment, you can't point out anything that HRC is fighting for, under the name of human rights and equality that doesnt equally apply to conservative, heterosexual, Christian, and males.
Comments
...people like you?
Great argument¡
Oh, boy. Here come the assumptions and name-calling, right on schedule.
Read post #14 and come back when you have an answer.
1) That post made no sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
2) What assumptions and what name calling are you talking about?
Human Rights at the time of the constitution were the rights of every land-owning, white male Christian (it also helped if you were a Mason in addition to the rest). Everyone else was considered "property" in some form or other.
All of this preceded the "Great Awakening" when mankind discovered how to double their chances for a date on the weekend.
Have you actually read that Wikipedia entry in detail? There is no real consensus about what are "universal human rights", nor are there any ways of protecting or enforcing such nonsense. If you want to get technical, even the US has blatantly violated these alleged "rights". Who's going to take the US to task? It's "feel good" drivel for the UN, which has no real authority anyway. If the US stopped funding the UN, it would collapse entirely.
http://m.nationalreview.com/articles/316577/how-much-does-un-cost-us-brett-d-schaefer
"Human Rights" and "Equality", the top two propaganda terms of our time. Forget about human rights or equality if you're conservative, heterosexual, Christian, and male. Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) are fully on the side of repression when it comes to these undesirable groups.
You poor victim.
Seems like you are threatened by a level playing field and by the erosion of white privilege in a global economy.
So you try to turn it around and act like SJW are the actual bad guys?
Or does it hurt your feelings when Christianity and conservatism can't be shoved down everyones throats?
When it comes to ensuring, for instance, LGBT rights, they do. At least in Canada. Something I support wholeheartedly.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but if there is a deficit in the way in which the rest of the world operates vis-a-vis protection of Human Rights, then that's unfortunate, and the rest of the world needs to look to nations that take social justice seriously and which are progressive on the matter as well as on related issues.
I.e.:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Canada
"The rights of LGBT Canadians are now as well protected as those of other Canadians largely due to several court decisions decided under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was included in the Constitution of Canada in 1982, with Section 15 coming into effect in 1985."
Have you actually read that Wikipedia entry in detail? There is no real consensus about what are "universal human rights", nor are there any ways of protecting or enforcing such nonsense. If you want to get technical, even the US has blatantly violated these alleged "rights". Who's going to take the US to task? It's "feel good" drivel for the UN, which has no real authority anyway. If the US stopped funding the UN, it would collapse entirely.
http://m.nationalreview.com/articles/316577/how-much-does-un-cost-us-brett-d-schaefer
Hahahaha. National Review hates the UN? I'm so surprised.
They are such a great arbiter of morality. /s
The magazine that thinks rape is not a big deal:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378310/crying-rape-j-delgado
Who had to drop racist writers - after it was long overdue:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/04/national-review-fires-another-for-racism-120213.html
They are on the wrong side of morality and on the wrong side of history.
What's your point anyways? That since there isn't a consensus on human rights, it's OK to be a bigot?
Oh, Canada... ????
Great argument¡
Thanks. I was afraid I had to spell out how ridiculous bigotry was and still is.
Just when I thought things were going back to boring... lol!
Thank you, AI...
Hahahaha. National Review hates the UN? I'm so surprised.
They are such a great arbiter of morality. /s
The magazine that thinks rape is not a big deal:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378310/crying-rape-j-delgado
Who had to drop racist writers - after it was long overdue:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/04/national-review-fires-another-for-racism-120213.html
They are on the wrong side of morality and on the wrong side of history.
What's your point anyways? That since there isn't a consensus on human rights, it's OK to be a bigot?
The reference was cited to provide numbers for something that is rarely quantified to address the bizarre belief that the UN is a moral compass or an actual arm of some kind of unelected world government. Far from it. If you have a more reputable source, post it. And I'm not being "/s".
Also, the issue was about alleged "human rights" and the fact that no such thing exists, not about your feelings regarding the National Review.
The reference was cited to provide numbers for something that is rarely quantified to address the bizarre belief that the UN is some kind of moral compass or an actual arm of some kind of unelected world government.
If you have a reputable source, post it. And I'm not being "/s".
I don't get it. What's your point? Human rights shouldn't exist?
"Human Rights" and "Equality", the top two propaganda terms of our time. Forget about human rights or equality if you're conservative, heterosexual, Christian, and male. Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) are fully on the side of repression when it comes to these undesirable groups.
This list comes from the Human Rights Campaign. I'm a heterosexual, Christian raised male who has been a registered Republican since 1984. I'm also a member of the HRC. I have made financial contributions and attended some of their events, but I don't represent the organization.
HRC fights for equal rights for all. Their primary focus for now has been with LGBT issues. So for example as a heterosexual, the fight for the equality in marriage is long since over. If you're heterosexual, go out and get married in any of the 50 US states. It's been that way for a while. If you're homosexual, the ability to marry someone of the same gender is just now starting to happen across the country (thanks in large part to the HRC).
Likewise, if you're heterosexual, there are many countries where you don't have to worry about being tortured, imprisoned or killed for having sex with someone of the opposite sex. On the other hand, if you're homosexual and are caught having sex with someone of the same sex, by law you can be tortured, imprisoned, or killed. This is another thing the HRC is working hard to change.
If you're a Christian male, you can't be denied employment, fired or discriminated against in the workplace or by a business solely because of that status. You have long been considered a protected class (gender, religion). You can be discriminated against for being heterosexual (outside of Federal employment) , although there's no evidence of this happening on any significant level. Regardless, having sexual orientation become a protected class is a goal of the HRC.. and no, not just for LGBT, but for all.
The bottom line is that in regards to your comment, you can't point out anything that HRC is fighting for, under the name of human rights and equality that doesnt equally apply to conservative, heterosexual, Christian, and males.
I don't get it. What's your point? Human rights shouldn't exist?
Human rights don't exist. Do you comprehend why? Are you actually reading anything I've posted?
Human rights don't exist. Do you comprehend why? Are you actually reading anything I've posted?
You are wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
You are wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
Reread this: post #25
You are wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
Wow, a Wikipedia page. You sure showed him.
Wow, a Wikipedia page. You sure showed him.
Thanks. I know. I had to do something simple for him.
Reread this: post #25
I still don't agree with you. There are human rights. Just because you are referring to yourself doesn't make it any better.
Apple still gets a great score.