rmorelan Posted February 24, 2013 Report Posted February 24, 2013 Should we give human rights to trees so people don't cut them down? I mean we already made internet an human right so what I have come to conclude is that this is the only next logical step to human rights. giving human rights to non-humans? I doubt we would start with plants if we were doing that
lolelol Posted February 24, 2013 Report Posted February 24, 2013 Leeets just worry about giving humans human rights first, but that's not happening anytime soon is it?
lolelol Posted February 24, 2013 Report Posted February 24, 2013 What progress have we made in the 3rd world countries in the last couple of years? Not much. The government doesn't really do much and some people like to stir up **** like the Kony 2012 BS. It's 2013 and they still haven't found him yet :mad: I want my money back! We just need a taskforce the likes of which the world has never seen before
rmorelan Posted February 24, 2013 Report Posted February 24, 2013 all this reminds of me of George Carlin's rants on rights and we don't assign human rights to animals, we assign them animal rights.
dazzle Posted February 24, 2013 Report Posted February 24, 2013 We derived animal rights from human rights so et tu, we should derive plant rights from human rights. Why not? Is it so absurd just cuz you use so much paper? When lentils and beans takeover our societies there won't be need for meat and poultry. When that happens, there shouldn't be animal killings... same with tree killings..
future_doc Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Before considering giving trees human rights, let's get rid of crimes against humanity, like the Russians supplying missiles used by Dr. Assad to murder unarmed, innocent civilians including the elderly, women and children from the air.
Che.Kree Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Before considering giving trees human rights, let's get rid of crimes against humanity, like the Russians supplying missiles used by Dr. Assad to murder unarmed, innocent civilians including the elderly, women and children from the air. it seems like you have something personal against the russians and their missiles, don't you?
rmorelan Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 it seems like you have something personal against the russians and their missiles, don't you? might be more the missiles mind you.
future_doc Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 might be more the missiles mind you. Russians are fine. The scud missles they deliver to their friend Assad are used to indiscriminately terrorize, maim, kill unarmed, innocent civilians, including targeting hospitals. This crime against humanity would not be possible if Putin did not give his friends the means to attack civilians.
Che.Kree Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Russians are fine. The scud missles they deliver to their friend Assad are used to indiscriminately terrorize, maim, kill unarmed, innocent civilians, including targeting hospitals. This crime against humanity would not be possible if Putin did not give his friends the means to attack civilians. I wouldn't be so categorical in finding someone in particular to blame for all the atrocities in Syria. remember in the Fall, 2012, when NATO insisted to intervene, the only represenatives that opposed this was Russia, China,(some others, but doesn't matter); they opted for negotiations - it's hard to blame someone for not spilling some more oil into the fire; I know, for russians it was just a client they meant to protect, but so meant to do France, USA and others, they are just on the different sides of the baricade, in the same time, maybe it were the russians who supplied the syrian gouvernement with weapons, but ask another question - who supplies the opposition with missiels
future_doc Posted February 26, 2013 Report Posted February 26, 2013 Atrocities are carried out by all sides. It seems there is no practical solution. Russia has blocked the UN Security Council, the source of international law in such a case, and so, the status quo remains. Whoever is giving any arms to the rebels, it is woefully inadequate to create a stalemate.
Che.Kree Posted February 26, 2013 Report Posted February 26, 2013 Atrocities are carried out by all sides. It seems there is no practical solution. Russia has blocked the UN Security Council, the source of international law in such a case, and so, the status quo remains. Whoever is giving any arms to the rebels, it is woefully inadequate to create a stalemate. I would say that in such cases the solution has to come from the inside - whether Assad abdicate and a new gouvernement is installed, or Assad doesn't abdicate but make certain agreements with the opposition, this state of facts, in continuous change, conflicts, civil wars, is more in favor of the outsiders (the countries that stay behind both sides, ) than of the native population, but, on the other hand, the syrians fight for what they think it's right for them, they don't wait for some USA/French/Russian troups to come and help "to bild the democracy", I respect the opposition for that, with the condition that this wouldn't lead to change of a dictator by another dictator...
future_doc Posted February 26, 2013 Report Posted February 26, 2013 It is an awful situation where the rebels, the opposition, have no choice but to try to find weapons with which to defend themselves. Assad is not interested in any good faith talks it seems.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.