Timeline for Why were China, Russia and Cuba allowed to join the UN human rights council?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 20, 2020 at 4:39 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | I don't think there is anything controversial about the definition of human rights, it looks more like you are trying to make it controversial by introducing some controversy where there is no controversy initially. There are societal goals, and individuals who may stand in the way of these goals. Such individuals have right to keep staying in the way of these goals once they do not violate any rules explicitly declared by the society. That's all. It is about simple deception. Defending human rights is about defending individuals against applying some undeclared rules to them which is deceit. | |
| Oct 20, 2020 at 1:18 | comment | added | cocoJ | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica If votes can save the lives of those who have died, that would be meaningful. Without the most basic right to survive, can this also be a human right? Otherwise, the so-called voting is nothing more than "tittytainment". I did not praise NK’s political system, I was just saying that the definition of human rights is controversial. | |
| Oct 20, 2020 at 1:07 | comment | added | cocoJ | @მამუკაჯიბლაძე I don't think this is confusion. The most basic human rights are at least equal survival. All people have the opportunity to receive equal education and have a relatively equal status in society. A person can only be the right of the people at the bottom, what kind of human rights is this. | |
| Oct 19, 2020 at 17:45 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | You can't tell the difference between narcissistic incompetence and systems designed for oppression? Here's a hint. Criticize Dear Leader in NK or King Fornicate-A-Lot of Thailand and you can, legally, end up in gulags for the first or 10 years of prison for the second. Next month citizens of "certain countries" can choose to vote their bum out if they are wise enough to. And in the meanwhile they can call him names all they want. And you picked NK to make your point, not even a more reasonable country like Cuba? I understood you very well, but thanks for making your position very clear | |
| Oct 19, 2020 at 16:17 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @cocoJ Excuse me but I think you are confusing human rights with something macroscopic. Human rights are, I believe, all about something microscopic, which is protection of the inner private territories of every single person against macroscopic societal goals like collective survival. No? | |
| Oct 18, 2020 at 4:32 | comment | added | cocoJ | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Western countries have their own set of definitions of human rights. Sometimes they use this so-called human rights as a weapon to attack the country they want to attack. However, in reality, the macroscopic human rights should be equality, development, prosperity, and survival. This year, hundreds of thousands of people died in certain countries due to government inaction during the epidemic. Do these people have no human rights? On the other hand, North Korea has ensured to protect its own citizens. It's ironic. | |
| Oct 17, 2020 at 16:54 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | I may misunderstand, in which case I apologize, but this has a distinct, unpleasant, undertone of "human rights are just for rich Western countries, others don't need them". I'd argue the opposite. Much of the rich West, when they do break human rights, have formal complaint procedures so impact to the victims is somewhat mitigated. "Places whose voices have long been ignored" often seem to ignore abuses entirely. Look at Nigeria's SARS Or, are you arguing that beating someone in a poor country is somehow nobler than doing it in a rich one? | |
| Oct 16, 2020 at 8:57 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @agc Although consistency must certainly be one of the priorities, imo if you give it first and foremost priority, you cannot achieve anything at all in politics. In mathematics, you certainly can. In medicine - a little less, but again, yes, you can. In jurisprudence, to some lesser extent, maybe. In politics - no way, I think. | |
| Oct 15, 2020 at 11:51 | comment | added | agc | Please clarify why, or under what circumstances, a consistent definition and application of the "freedom criteria", (with regard to Human Rights), would not be of general international interest. It's not obvious from this answer why an organization with "United" in its name should tolerate wildly inconsistent definitions, any more than ISO would. | |
| Oct 15, 2020 at 11:34 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 15, 2020 at 11:51 | |||||
| Oct 15, 2020 at 11:26 | history | answered | cocoJ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |