US needs to consider human rights proposal of China

[Brainsucker]

If? The best you can do is 'if'?

If I shoot you, that is a direct action. I deprived you of life and I would go to prison or even executed.

The world is filled with speech that can be and have been interpreted in many ways that caused deaths and destruction. As soon as you -- in your mind -- need to figure out what the speaker meant before you act, that is no longer direct action.

So in using your grossly wrong understanding of the concept of human rights, we should have no speech at all since anything said can be interpreted as a commandment or advisement to kill. Jesus and the Bible should be banned, so should the Quran.

I said IF, because there are two alternative of it. Between yes and no. Freedom of Speech, just like what I said in previous post, is only good as long as it doesn't cause the violation of human right.

I agree with your point here. "The world is filled with speech that can be and have been interpreted in many way that caused death and destruction" So it just strengthen my point about the Freedom of Speech.

And your basis of saying that my concept of human right is wrong is just the product of indoctrination by your "Political Science".

And based on what your argument, so Christian and Islam are the religion that spread lies that can cause death and destruction? I will let Christian and Muslim to answer this argument of yours.

 

[gambit]

I said IF, because there are two alternative of it. Between yes and no. Freedom of Speech, just like what I said in previous post, is only good as long as it doesn't cause the violation of human right.

I agree with your point here. "The world is filled with speech that can be and have been interpreted in many way that caused death and destruction" So it just strengthen my point about the Freedom of Speech.

No, it does not. Simply because you conceded with 'if' as in you cannot bring yourself to show HOW the general concept of the right/freedom to speak one's mind in regards to relationship with the State could cause anyone to lose his own rights and freedoms.

I will put it this way: In what ways does reading Playboy causes anyone to lose his/her human rights?

 

[Brainsucker]

No, it does not. Simply because you conceded with 'if' as in you cannot bring yourself to show HOW the general concept of the right/freedom to speak one's mind in regards to relationship with the State could cause anyone to lose his own rights and freedoms.

I will put it this way: In what ways does reading Playboy causes anyone to lose his/her human rights?

Now, let me ask you, is demonstration ( people gather on the street, bringing banner, etc to protest the government) be considered as an act of freedom of speech? I'm sure that you will say YES. But what if that demonstration goes into chaos and anarchy, and houses are burned, robbed, women are raped, and some people are even killed. Is it not a violation of human right? These are not only happen in imagination or what if scenario. It's happen.

Edit :

But well..., I'm surprise that you think that reading Playboy is also to be considered as a human right. So if you can't read Playboy then your right as a human has been violated? LOL. Well, to each own then. You're... well, if you have a special taste like that, then who am I to oppose your taste

 

[wiseone2]

at the end of the day most people are settling and immigrating in the western countries
that includes indians, pakistanis and chinese

 

[gambit]

Now, let me ask you, is demonstration ( people gather on the street, bringing banner, etc to protest the government) be considered as an act of freedom of speech? I'm sure that you will say YES. But what if that demonstration goes into chaos and anarchy, and houses are burned, robbed, women are raped, and some people are even killed. Is it not a violation of human right?

I'm surprise that you think that reading Playboy is also to be considered as a human right. So if you can't read Playboy then your right as a human has been violated?

Here is where you continually go wrong...

The US version of human rights is about against the State, not the individual. If I beat you up, I harmed only one person. But it is the State that has the power to beat up -- or do worse -- to an entire people.

If I stopped you from reading Playboy, I have stopped only one person, but it is the State that has the power to stop the printing presses.

Do you understand now?

You and the others' arguments about human rights are what I call 'pop', as in Britney Spears and Justin Bieber kind of pop. Shallow and filled with emotional candy instead of intellectual nutrition.

 

[lilibo]

Here is where you continually go wrong...

The US version of human rights is about against the State, not the individual. If I beat you up, I harmed only one person. But it is the State that has the power to beat up -- or do worse -- to an entire people.

If I stopped you from reading Playboy, I have stopped only one person, but it is the State that has the power to stop the printing presses.

Do you understand now?

You and the others' arguments about human rights are what I call 'pop', as in Britney Spears and Justin Bieber kind of pop. Shallow and filled with emotional candy instead of intellectual nutrition.

The "right", "duty"and "liability" must be balance. To overemphasize "right" would cause chaos.
Similarly the "Government" , "religious"and “capital" should not interact with each other.They should be conditionally constrainted.

 

[gambit]

The "right", "duty"and "liability" must be balance. To overemphasize "right" would cause chaos.

The US have been emphasizing 'rights' for all of its existence. We have problems, no one is denying that, but the country is hardly chaos despite what you see in the news.

 

[lilibo]

The US have been emphasizing 'rights' for all of its existence. We have problems, no one is denying that, but the country is hardly chaos despite what you see in the news.

Well.I just made a goodwill reminding,and China just gived a goodwill proposal.

 

[TaiShang]

Watching the world turn upside-down

By Alan Eagle Source:Global Times Published: 2018/3/28

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

When I first moved to China in 2007, I expected to witness a color revolution with the Communist Party of China being replaced by a Western-type liberal democracy. Thinking back on this gives me a sense of vertigo, a world turned upside-down.

A decade later, everything is topsy-turvy. China has become a leader in green technology, and now leads major economies fighting global warming as the US has isolated itself among nations, denying the problem exists.

When I arrived, China was said to be facing a property bubble that would imminently collapse and bring down its economy. But in the last decade, the US really did bring the world economy to the edge of disaster, and at the moment it is the US economy, not China's, that seems to be suffering from overheated stock prices.

Ten years ago, foreign countries were pushing for China to adjust its market to match Western free market principles and make its currency fully convertible. Now few people question the wisdom of protecting the country from flows of hot currency that have triggered financial crises elsewhere.

The government's decision to keep control over the levers of the economy has not only promoted strong growth, but allowed it to cool down hot property markets without triggering a panic or a collapse in housing prices.

When I first arrived, China was heavily criticized for its control over the internet. In the meantime, the Russians have been accused of using the US internet to influence an election, using programs banned in China such as Facebook to spread rumors and socially divisive and false news. "Fake news" first spread over the internet, then from the White House, has destroyed public confidence in the news media, poisoning the national narrative and creating two polarized realities.

Chinese, on the other hand, feel their fortunes are improving and are united in supporting their government's policies. China's ban on **** was seen as puritanical, but New York Times columnist Russ Douhat recently suggested banning **** in the US amid concern of how it is warping the perceptions of children and teens.

The US government now seems hopelessly corrupt, poisoned by dark money and lobbyists with a self-dealing president who has installed his relatives as top officials, and faces an investigation so toxic that one of his former top advisors has called a meeting attended by the president's son and son-in-law "treasonous." The voting map is hopelessly gerrymandered, with no hope for a remedy in sight. We have the second president this century who was elected despite losing the popular vote, and a vote for president in Wyoming is worth more than three votes in California.

Partisan gridlock is preventing the simplest bills from being passed. The most extreme gun violence is unanswered by government. Some families are having a hard time sitting down for a meal together because of political differences. The president has announced there are "good people" among hate groups that have the stated aim of sparking a civil war.

In contrast, a four-year-old crackdown on corruption in China has surprised skeptics who labeled it a partisan purge and instead caused a sea-change in the way officials operate, with few officials daring to accept even a pack of cigarettes from the public and a noticeable improvement in quality of service and accountability to the public.

It is the fabric of the US that seems to be fraying, with many pundits speculating the traditional party system is dead, while China seems to be a model of stability.

Obviously China is far from perfect, and like all nations has a lot of room for improvement. But as someone raised with the idea that the US is a bright mansion on a hill for others to emulate and aspire to, the spin of the wheel since Beijing hosted the 2008 Olympics has been dizzying and hard to align with my unquestioned core beliefs. China is expanding its national interests by developing infrastructure and trade across Asia, Africa and eastern Europe, while the US continues to pursue its interests by growing its military, entering a new nuclear arms race and continuing its second decade in two armed conflicts. I have to re-evaluate a simple, indoctrinated narrative of the world's "heroes" and "villains."

 

[Brainsucker]

Here is where you continually go wrong...

The US version of human rights is about against the State, not the individual. If I beat you up, I harmed only one person. But it is the State that has the power to beat up -- or do worse -- to an entire people.

If I stopped you from reading Playboy, I have stopped only one person, but it is the State that has the power to stop the printing presses.

Do you understand now?

You and the others' arguments about human rights are what I call 'pop', as in Britney Spears and Justin Bieber kind of pop. Shallow and filled with emotional candy instead of intellectual nutrition.

Now, We are returning again to the beginning of our bickering. You call it States Right and not Human Right. I said that it is the States that can decide (and protect) the human right of the people in the country. I said that without the existence of a country, nobody can protect the people's right in the vicinity. That country automatically become the land of Anarchy. Or I call it the land of freedom. It's full of freedom, because there is no law that can restrict you from anything. So you can doing cannibalism, rape other people daughters, kill somebody, or even become the warlord of a stateless region. That's freedom. the unrestricted freedom.

So now the US version of human rights is actually about against a states. Isn't that actually the worst violation of human right itself? If you erase the existence of a state, then you just erase the only one who can protect the people from harm. So basically, you just take out the four basic human rights from the people in that country; The right of live, the right of security, the right of equality, and the right of having financial capability.

Oh, I'm surprise that as an old man, your preference of singers are Britney Spears and Justin Bieber. I don't enjoy pop actually. I prefer Jazz and Classical Music.

 

[gambit]

Now, We are returning again to the beginning of our bickering. You call it States Right and not Human Right.

Here is where your English failed you.

What you said as "States Right" has nothing to do with human rights. The idea of "State's rights" is about the autonomy level of a political entity in federated or confederated union. So based upon this flawed understanding, there is no need to address the rest of your post.

 

[Brainsucker]

Here is where your English failed you.

What you said as "States Right" has nothing to do with human rights. The idea of "State's rights" is about the autonomy level of a political entity in federated or confederated union. So based upon this flawed understanding, there is no need to address the rest of your post.

Now that's interesting. You said that States Right is about the autonomy level of a political entity in Federated or Confederated Union. But you claims that Chinese proposal is about the States Rights. Aren't you failed yourself when addressing this matter? I just use your term when you addressing Chinese proposal. I rejects that Chinese proposal doesn't has any relation with Human Rights. Because there are. Or else, the majority of countries who participate won't agree with China (unless you claims that they're idiot and doesn't understand about Human Rights matter).

But you, when you said about A, now you claims about B. maybe you should stop right now and not continue our bickering. Because it already take a toll of your brain. Be careful of your health old man.

 

[gambit]

But you claims that Chinese proposal is about the States Rights.

Where ?

 

[Brainsucker]

Where ?

Now you have forgotten about that. Are you in an early stage of Alzheimer? Ok then, I won't push you more about this. Take a rest and take care of your health more. Let us rest for now. Nothing is gain or lose with this bickering anyway. Just take care of your health, ok?

 

[gambit]

Now you have forgotten about that. Are you in an early stage of Alzheimer? Ok then, I won't push you more about this. Take a rest and take care of your health more.

In other words, you cannot prove what you claimed I said.

Your misunderstanding of the debate due to your poor grasp of English is not my fault. The idea of "State's rights" has nothing to do with human rights. I do not know where you got that from my posts. Until then...