ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Not really, my point was that human rights have been violated continuesly in Turkey and nobody condemned it.(thus it is not really a right in that geographical location)

It's called a double standart.

All that I was arguing was that human rights existed in Turkey. You argued that they didn't exist because they were violated. Then I argued that violation of those human rights did not mean that they didn't exist, it meant they needed to be strengthened.

Your position that they didn't exist really made no sense. Even from the perspective of your statement above. If they didn't even exist then how the heck can you say that something that doesn't exist is being violated?

Anyway, I'm sorry I brought it up, you obviously are thinking about it in a way that makes no sense to me.

You argued trump needed to pay "lip service" to the notion of human rights and condemn it's violation.

That's called "a double standart".

For example, obama had no problems with supporting a president that shut down freedom of speach for two years during the period he did a campaign to get himself ellected as president and reform the consitution and power structure in turkey.

Absorb the bolted part please. Turkey went from a democratic republic to a presidential republic.(2017, with backing from the obama legislation up to 2016)

Erdogan arrested roughly 58% of the turkey military(position of military control) which historically have always stepped up in the past 80 years to control any power-plays from the goverment.
He arrested a big part of the juridicial system and journalist's and public paper institutions that ran against him(in the public opinion).

And all of this happened roughly within 2 hours after a coup broke out in Turkey. Which gives high credibility to the argument that it was a hitlist and staged to take control of the structure prior to the elections.

There has not been a single case in human history where a nation-wide coup has been "dealth" with in under 5 hours.

Yet i don't sense any outrage from you about that at all.

Because for some weird reason, Obama good when he fascilitates the downfall of a democracy and trump bad when he just remains silent.

I will restate the earlier part, double standarts.

I will judge both and say both good and bad things depending on what they do but judged by the same standart.

I call that integrity of character.

Just like i call out Xav in this thread for posting triggering meme's for the purpose of triggering, i do the same with kellog acting in bad faith.

As for the human rights point of view that i have, i can use the analogy with weed regulation in my country for example.
The laws are in place, it's illegal, yet cops don't arrest people that infringe on it, it is public knowledge that the law is just there to discourage.

The law has a goal and an aim and it can be utilized in the court of law, but it rarely if ever does.

Does that make weed illegal, most certainly it does, are people arrested for it? Not really, only the most gross offenders and usually in relation to other laws(human trafficking, hard drug infringements etc)

Human rights is the same deal, it is infringed upon constantly but only the most gross offenders get punished and usually for other motivations unrelated to human rights to substantiate actions against the offenders.

I already mentioned to you that over 10.000 human right violations sanctioned by the court of human rights have not been enacted.
And that most nations have laws that circumvent the enactment of sanctions from that court.(which means they can independently overrule the verdict if they see fit)
Which makes the whole thing what i call "an air castle". Not sure if that translates well in english.

Your equating sentiment for actual enforced law.
Human rights are arbitrarely enforced by law, that doesn't mean we should let go of the sentiment behind them or the believe it instills in people to strive and achieve it.

Do we hold the sentiment that all people have the right to live? Live a good and trouble free live? Be previe to education? That children and women should be protected above all else?etc etc

Of course we do.

Is that enforced by law across the board equally without fail? No, we still have a long way to go assuming it is actually attainable which i have doubts about. I think it's and ideal and the world doesn't seem to work well with ideals since they lead to extremism.

I will end with this, enforcement of law in a nation itself is quite "easy", but enforcing your law and ideals onto other nations has turned out badly in history.(enforcing should raise a red flag, when human freedom is at play)

Lead by example seems to be the best form to actually achieve such a desire and has done wonders for systems that function.(markets as a concept being adopted cross ideology seems like a fair example that comes to mind)

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

There is nothing morally ambigous about being polite to another person three times and asking them to stop lying and then lying in their face, saying your doing it and provoking introspection.

Again, put what I said in context.

I'm talking about the note you put it in your statement, that you were mirroring his behavior, as justification for you being an asshole. That was a pretty morally ambiguous thing to do and hence why I mentioned it.

"

No, it'd be better if you clarified why you want to put physical harm and moral fraud on the same moral wavelength and clarify what your attempting to do.

What is this? Are we going to go back and forth, like kids on a playground? No, you explain what you meant. No, how about you explain what you meant.

This is silly.

I have been clear what I've been trying to do. I'm telling you, that your behavior in that case was wrong. And you can't be acting that way if you want to have a decent discussion with anyone.

You're free to act like an asshole, but you don't get to wiggle your way out and say you didn't do anything bad because you felt he was more of a dick to you.

And on the physical harm and moral fraud. I'm not sure we are on the same wavelength there.

I gave an analogy based on your behavior and asked you to provide a better one if you thought I got it wrong.

If that wasn't so clear, I'm making it even more clear now.

You are free to give me that better analogy, instead of avoiding the question.

"

Because like it or not, words dont physically harm people and they are not the same moral context AT ALL.

Then provide a better analogy that you can agree on. You are taking an extreme view on the position, and throwing a tantrum instead of trying to get to an impasse.

"

Yes, how is anybody to know that lying and missrepresenting others in an open forum disccusion is "acting in bad faith", my moral boundary's are so illusive for others to comprehend.

It's not hard to imagine that other people have different ideas of what lying and misrepresenting someone is. Its open to interpretation and it gets you into shit flinging contests.

For example, I could have gotten pissed and said you were misrepresenting me because you took my words out of context and I've been telling you to stop.

Does that give me the right to lie and do that to you? What is it like twice now? The third times, the charm?

No, it doesn't give me the right to treat you like that.

"

There is a very healthy way of dealing with it, which i did and that's asking the other person to stop continueing this behavior for the sake of the conversation and the group.

Yeah, asking him to stop was healthy.

You intentionally provoking him, by mirroring his bad behavior wasn't.

"

There is no "getting back" at someone. Maybe you wanna make it out to be the case, that's fine.

Well, I'm pretty sure it was about getting back at him.

It might not be what you think happened, but you're making a very compelling case for it by the way you're acting to him.

"

But i have no issue with excluding a person from courtesy if they cannot play by the normal rule-book of a healthy conversation.

The problem I have is that you're absolving yourself of bad behavior, as long as you feel justified the other guy deserved it. That's not good and should be called out.

"

If you wanna play the knight with the moral high-ground, i suggest you take the right people to defend.

I'm pretty sure I got the right person here. Just because you behave well most of the time doesn't give you a free pass when you decide to be a dick.

That's what you would call a double standard.

"

Providing courtesy and credibility to people that have proven they don't deserve it isn't moral, that's the basis for abusive relationships for example.

It is the moral thing to do. It might not be what you'd like to do, but generally you treat others as good or better than yourself.

I mean punish people, if they are breaking the law, but you don't mirror their bad behavior, to prove your point. If someone is in an abusive relationship. You don't get to abuse the abuser. You throw them in jail.

If someone here breaks the forum rules, they get banned. You don't go out, act just like them, to teach them a lesson, and get your ass banned too.

Smollett's career is over? Uh, probably not. Maybe he is changing careers. He will probably either run for political office or start radio program.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2019/03/28/jussie-smollett-up-naacp-award-host-anthony-anderson-hopes-he-wins/3298234002/

Can you imagine if a white person made up that they were attacked by a gang of blacks, then were caught lying about the whole thing, then someone wanted to give them an award?

No one would call that group a Nazi, huh? This is a perfect example of how the far left attempts to constantly sow racial divisions in the US.

They are not even subtle about it.

I'm sure there are many of you that are in favor of giving this loser an award for faking a racist attack. Not surprised.

Just so you know the image award is supposed to recognize people of color who give outstanding performances. I would say your guy did NOT give an outstanding performance as he was caught.

"

Boem wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Interesting that these words are coming from the fellow that believes that there was no human right violated when Khasoggi was murdered because a human right to life doesn't exist.

Not really, my point was that human rights have been violated continuesly in Turkey and nobody condemned it.

"

Boem wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Just because the right is sometimes violated does not mean that it doesn't exist.

That's exactly what it means.

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

"

RPGlitch wrote:

If someone here breaks the forum rules, they get banned. You don't go out, act just like them, to teach them a lesson, and get your ass banned too.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Interesting that these words are coming from the fellow that believes that there was no human right violated when Khasoggi was murdered because a human right to life doesn't exist.

Not really, my point was that human rights have been violated continuesly in Turkey and nobody condemned it.

"

Boem wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Just because the right is sometimes violated does not mean that it doesn't exist.

That's exactly what it means.

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

You don't understand how that is consistent?

You know the difference between a sentiment/guide-line and law right.

Peace,

-Boem-

Double post.

Peace,

-Boem-

Reporting other posters in this thread is kinda lame. We all know what we've signed up for by posting in it; calling in the forum cops because someone else was naughty is pretty weaksauce. =9[.]9=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Reporting other posters in this thread is kinda lame. We all know what we've signed up for by posting in it; calling in the forum cops because someone else was naughty is pretty weaksauce. =9[.]9=

It's perfectly reasonable to exclude people from a conversation if they can't abide by the most basic forms of communication.

Call it weak, i really don't care.

I would do both sides in this thread the same favor, my assumption is that healthy dialogue is the aim for this thread.

Not shitflinging or projecting falsehoods on another actor.

I assume anybody above twelve is capable of having a respectfull conversation with people of differing opinions.
Don't join a public fora if you lack that capability would be my suggestion?

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Reporting other posters in this thread is kinda lame. We all know what we've signed up for by posting in it; calling in the forum cops because someone else was naughty is pretty weaksauce. =9[.]9=