Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:You agree to these?

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. (US law doesn't)

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (US law doesn't)

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (lots of US law doesn't)

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. (US law doesn't)

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (US law doesn't)

The list goes on. The Universal Declaration is meaningless because it reflects the diverse interests of many nations, indicating a lack of agreement to any standard of human rights.

Isn't that cherry picking a little bit? I mean, the document protects against torture, slavery, unfair trial, arbitrary arrest etc. I don't see how it shows a "diverse interest." If anything it's a little Western-centric.

Syria is violating Article 19 and 20, the right to free expression and assembly, right now with their violent suppressions of the protests in the country.

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
That's because it was irrelevant. I completely understand the point you're trying to get across, that maybe for human rights, the west and syria have completely different conceptions of them! *shock horror*

And therefore, Syrias view on human rights is just as valid!

Again, its irrelevant to you. It isn't irrelevant to the UN.

This isn't difficult, its literally just appreciating that a collective body based on international perspective is not the same as people sitting in England and the United States.

Uh, I've said repeatedly that what the West values is just as meaningless in this case. I agree with you entirely in that regard.

However, you seem unable to make the intellectual jump from realising that to realising that 'international perspective' is irrelevant. What the West's view on human rights are is completely irrelevant to the UN, as is Syrias, because the UN has their own views on human rights, detailed already.

Ketara wrote:
I understand the point you're trying to make. And not only is it irrelevant, its just plain wrong. Why?

Because the UN issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In regard to the UN, what is or isn't Human Rights is not up for debate. It states such things as:

bill of human rights wrote:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

And so on.

You agree to these?

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. (US law doesn't)

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (US law doesn't)

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (lots of US law doesn't)

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. (US law doesn't)

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (US law doesn't)

The list goes on. The Universal Declaration is meaningless because it reflects the diverse interests of many nations, indicating a lack of agreement to any standard of human rights.

LordofHats wrote:
Isn't that cherry picking a little bit? I mean, the document protects against torture, slavery, unfair trial, arbitrary arrest etc. I don't see how it shows a "diverse interest." If anything it's a little Western-centric.

Sure, but the point is that everybody cherry picks, even the countries that primarily concern themselves with human rights.

LordofHats wrote:
Syria is violating Article 19 and 20, the right to free expression and assembly, right now with their violent suppressions of the protests in the country.

Yep.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
Syria is violating Article 19 and 20, the right to free expression and assembly, right now with their violent suppressions of the protests in the country.

Yep.

And that known, you don't find the idea of putting them on a council that's supposed to uphold those Articles a little, odd

I mean, everyone probably violates human rights every now and then, but putting them on the HRC while they're doing it in full view of Facebook?

Ketara wrote:
However, you seem unable to make the intellectual jump from realising that to realising that 'international perspective' is irrelevant. What the West's view on human rights are is completely irrelevant to the UN, as is Syrias, because the UN has their own views on human rights, detailed already.

The international perspective, basically just all possible state perspectives, is absolutely relevant as it governs what the UN defines as human rights. You appear to be acting as though the UDHR means anything outside the agreement to adhere to it, which is nonsense. It doesn't reflect what the UN actually does, or how it actually behaves, it reflects what was pertinent when the document was passed and amended. Its also worth noting that allowing state X which violated the UDHR to be on the UNHCR has no necessary bearing on what the UNHCR might do.

You're also acting as though UN isn't an organization that has a history of Western dominance, which is sort of ridiculous when you look as the Security Council and see China all on its own in the P5.

Ketara wrote:
Sure. I agree with you. The Universal Declaration means the US and everyone else in the world is equally hypocritical for wanting to stop Syria, because they do not follow those espoused values of the UN themselves.

Not really. The US doesn't want to stop the ascension of Syria because they are against the values espoused in the UDHR, they want to stop their ascension because Syria doesn't like Israel, and we don't like Syria as a result. There may also be some latent democratic peace theory nonsense, but that's not likely the center of it.

LordofHats wrote:
Its still ironic.

Why?

Because certain nations adhere more closely to the espoused principles than others. Sure, they might not adhere perfectly, or even close to it, but to pull the analogy of Stalin joining an anti-communism organisation, there's a difference between letting a person with some socialist principles be a member, and letting a full fledged communist be a member. It might well be hypocritical to allow the first person to join and not the second, but thems the breaks. It wouldn't render the purpose of the anti-communist organisation null and void to let someone with socialistic tendencies to join, but it kind of does to allow a communist to join.

That's not what irony means. Nor can you properly assess irony here without a long argument over what the UNHCR intends in general, and with respect to the elevation of Syria.

But again, allowing a communist to join an anti-communist group does not render its purpose null and void. Letting someone you hate into your club doesn't mean you stop hating him, it means he's in your club now; possibly because you want to explain to him that you hate him, and why.

You're missusing the word hypocrisy, but that's ok, everyone does. Its almost as bad as the way irony is butchered.

LordofHats wrote:

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
Syria is violating Article 19 and 20, the right to free expression and assembly, right now with their violent suppressions of the protests in the country.

Yep.

And that known, you don't find the idea of putting them on a council that's supposed to uphold those Articles a little, odd

I mean, everyone probably violates human rights every now and then, but putting them on the HRC while they're doing it in full view of Facebook?

its because of the tanks. Sure any two bit dictator can oppress his population. But to really put yourself in the running for the HRC, you have to use tanks.

Frazzled wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
Syria is violating Article 19 and 20, the right to free expression and assembly, right now with their violent suppressions of the protests in the country.

Yep.

And that known, you don't find the idea of putting them on a council that's supposed to uphold those Articles a little, odd

I mean, everyone probably violates human rights every now and then, but putting them on the HRC while they're doing it in full view of Facebook?

its because of the tanks. Sure any two bit dictator can oppress his population. But to really put yourself in the running for the HRC, you have to use tanks.

Of course... It all leads back to armored warfare!

LordofHats wrote:
And that known, you don't find the idea of putting them on a council that's supposed to uphold those Articles a little, odd

No, the US is there, and they don't adhere to the UDHR. Why is killing people worse than denying them the right to work? I mean, there are argumetns to be made, but the UDHR isn't points-based, so most of them don't matter.

LordofHats wrote:
I mean, everyone probably violates human rights every now and then, but putting them on the HRC while they're doing it in full view of Facebook?

Again, the US is also doing it.

LordofHats wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
Syria is violating Article 19 and 20, the right to free expression and assembly, right now with their violent suppressions of the protests in the country.

Yep.

And that known, you don't find the idea of putting them on a council that's supposed to uphold those Articles a little, odd

I mean, everyone probably violates human rights every now and then, but putting them on the HRC while they're doing it in full view of Facebook?

its because of the tanks. Sure any two bit dictator can oppress his population. But to really put yourself in the running for the HRC, you have to use tanks.

Of course... It all leads back to armored warfare!

Well yea. Remember WWHGD? (What would Hanz Guderian do?)

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
And that known, you don't find the idea of putting them on a council that's supposed to uphold those Articles a little, odd

No, the US is there, and they don't adhere to the UDHR. Why is killing people worse than denying them the right to work? I mean, there are argumetns to be made, but the UDHR isn't points-based, so most of them don't matter.

LordofHats wrote:
I mean, everyone probably violates human rights every now and then, but putting them on the HRC while they're doing it in full view of Facebook?

Again, the US is also doing it.

How does it make the the admission any less hypocritical?

I have no problem saying it, cause I think the UN is a massive waste of time and energy, but if no one even bothers adhering to the definition they're supposed to be following, what's the point of an HRC at all? So we can pat each other on the back and pretend to do a good jo- Oooooooohh...

quote]

Well yea. Remember WWHGD? (What would Hanz Guderian do?)

Load the Panzer Grenadiers into the half-tracks and drive until your out of gas

LordofHats wrote:
How does it make the the admission any less hypocritical?

It isn't hypocritical at all. The expressed purpose of body X doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actual purpose of body X, which is an example of why calling anything hypocritical is usually a bad idea.

LordofHats wrote:
I have no problem saying it, cause I think the UN is a massive waste of time and energy, but if no one even bothers adhering to the definition they're supposed to be following, what's the point of an HRC at all? So we can pat each other on the back and pretend to do a good jo- Oooooooohh...

No, so we can pass resolutions to hate on people we don't like, and generally engage in constant diplomatic contact.

Considering the amount of say we have in UN polic, and how little we spend on it, I consider the UN to be a cornerstone of US foreign policy. But then again, I also think Waltz realists are evidence denying morons, so your mileage may vary.

dogma wrote:It isn't hypocritical at all. The expressed purpose of body X doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actual purpose of body X, which is an example of why calling anything hypocritical is usually a bad idea.

Wouldn't having an actual purpose that differs from the expressed purpose reduce your legitimacy and lead to people making jokes about how you don't do your job?

LordofHats wrote:
Wouldn't having an actual purpose that differs from the expressed purpose reduce your legitimacy and lead to people making jokes about how you don't do your job?

Sure, but that doesn't mean doing so is any more savvy.

Edit: I really should stop spilling things on my keyboard.

LordofHats wrote:

dogma wrote:It isn't hypocritical at all. The expressed purpose of body X doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actual purpose of body X, which is an example of why calling anything hypocritical is usually a bad idea.

Wouldn't having an actual purpose that differs from the expressed purpose reduce your legitimacy and lead to people making jokes about how you don't do your job?

Isn't that, that whole hypocritical thing rearing its ugly head?

Nope. Hypocrisy is almost impossible to demonstrate because it turns on the specific indication of what one believes, which basically never happens in politics, or really in life.

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
However, you seem unable to make the intellectual jump from realising that to realising that 'international perspective' is irrelevant. What the West's view on human rights are is completely irrelevant to the UN, as is Syrias, because the UN has their own views on human rights, detailed already.

The international perspective, basically just all possible state perspectives, is absolutely relevant as it governs what the UN defines as human rights.

No. What the UN considers human rights is outlined in the UDHR. Nothing more, nothing less.

You appear to be acting as though the UDHR means anything outside the agreement to adhere to it, which is nonsense. It doesn't reflect what the UN actually does, or how it actually behaves, it reflects what was pertinent when the document was passed and amended.

I'm not saying the UDHR has to mean anything, or even that any of the members have to adhere to it. I don't understand why you keep trying to erect this strawman. Do you genuinely not understand? If so, I'll have to consider a simpler way of breaking it down for you.....

The UN has stated what it considers human rights to be. The purpose of the UN Human Rights Council is to promote the upholding those human rights wherever it can, yes?

International opinion shifts with governments and world events. It's permanently in a state of flux. Some parts of the world stay roughly the same in their style of thinking, others go through times of turmoil and emerge with new governments motivated by different ideologies, and their international stances change as a result. As such, their views on human rights may change.

However, despite this constant flux, despite those changing governments making up a part of the UN, their changes in ideology and stance are not reflected in official UN policy until the previously proclaimed values are officially withdrawn, amended, or drawn up anew.

The official UN policy, is the official UN policy. International opinion and that of member states may change. However, their views are ultimately irrelevant. Their changes in policy do not necessitate automatic changes in UN policy. Any changes to that have to go through the appropriate bureaucratic UN processes, before being considered official UN policy.

UN policy is that humans possess the rights outlined previously. This has no been amended, withdrawn or redrawn, therefore it is the official UN stance. Fact. International opinion is irrelevant until the official policy is amended, withdrawn or redrawn.

I hope this explanation aids your understanding of the affair somewhat.

Its also worth noting that allowing state X which violated the UDHR to be on the UNHCR has no necessary bearing on what the UNHCR might do.

Incorrect. Any action which the UNHCR takes involving any kind of vote is immediately affected by the addition of Syria. Whilst it might not necessarily swing a vote 100% of the time, the fact remains that the addition of a new bloc has the potential to affect UNHCR's actions and decisions.

You're also acting as though UN isn't an organization that has a history of Western dominance, which is sort of ridiculous when you look as the Security Council and see China all on its own in the P5.

I maintain no such thing. You infer too much.

That's not what irony means. Nor can you properly assess irony here without a long argument over what the UNHCR intends in general, and with respect to the elevation of Syria.

But again, allowing a communist to join an anti-communist group does not render its purpose null and void. Letting someone you hate into your club doesn't mean you stop hating him, it means he's in your club now; possibly because you want to explain to him that you hate him, and why.

You're missusing the word hypocrisy, but that's ok, everyone does. Its almost as bad as the way irony is butchered.

If a sizeable majority of people use a word a certain way, the meaning of the word transforms to whatever they intend by it. Words are just sounds after all, the meaning comes from the intent we attach to them. But I digress.

If you genuinely cannot see why allowing a communist to join a club designed to take action against communists might spur people to cease taking the anti-communist organisation seriously, than I'm not sure I can help you. (to extend my original point to a metaphor).

Ketara wrote:
No. What the UN considers human rights is outlined in the UDHR. Nothing more, nothing less.

Even if that is the case, the appointment of Syria to the HRC is no worse than the appointment of the US to the HRC.

Thankfully, it isn't the case, so the US can continue to claim human rights superiority.

Ketara wrote:
I'm not saying the UDHR has to mean anything, or even that any of the members have to adhere to it. I don't understand why you keep trying to erect this strawman. Do you genuinely not understand? If so, I'll have to consider a simpler way of breaking it down for you.....

You are saying it has to mean something, directly. You just did for God's sake. You said the the UDHR has meaning due to UN backing, which means it has meaning in that context.

Ketara wrote:
The UN has stated what it considers human rights to be. The purpose of the UN Human Rights Council is to promote the upholding those human rights wherever it can, yes?

Yes, sort of. Though you're contradicting yourself again.

Ketara wrote:
As such, their views on human rights may change.

Yes.

Ketara wrote:
However, despite this constant flux, despite those changing governments making up a part of the UN, their changes in ideology and stance are not reflected in official UN policy until the previously proclaimed values are officially withdrawn, amended, or drawn up anew.

They are always reflected in UN policy, even, and especially, if the previously explained values are not amended. You're again pretending that pieces of paper have weight outside consensus.

Policy isn't limited to what is written down.

Ketara wrote:
I hope this explanation aids your understanding of the affair somewhat.

Not really, it just makes me think you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ketara wrote:
Incorrect. Any action which the UNHCR takes involving any kind of vote is immediately affected by the addition of Syria. Whilst it might not necessarily swing a vote 100% of the time, the fact remains that the addition of a new bloc has the potential to affect UNHCR's actions and decisions.

Potential, yes. Necessary effect, no. You seem to be unable to sort out your own thoughts.

Ketara wrote:
I maintain no such thing. You infer too much.

I didn't infer anything. I said you acted as though a certain thing were true.

Ketara wrote:
If a sizeable majority of people use a word a certain way, the meaning of the word transforms to whatever they intend by it.

In which case everyone is always being both ironic and hypocritical (because, colloquially, they turn on observation and not fact), meaning the accusation is worthless.

Ketara wrote:
If you genuinely cannot see why allowing a communist to join a club designed to take action against communists might spur people to cease taking the anti-communist organisation seriously, than I'm not sure I can help you. (to extend my original point to a metaphor).

No, I know why someone might believe that, and why that might be the case, I'm just not sure why its is necessarily the truth.

I get very annoyed when people confuse what they believe with what is absolutely true.

biccat wrote:If someone in the private sector is popular but incompetent, they lose.

That is so false that I can't help but laugh.

dogma wrote:
Even if that is the case, the appointment of Syria to the HRC is no worse than the appointment of the US to the HRC.

Thankfully, it isn't the case, so the US can continue to claim human rights superiority.

Interesting. Would you claim the US to be at an equivalent level to Syria with regards to adhering to the UNDHR then?

Ketara wrote:
I'm not saying the UDHR has to mean anything, or even that any of the members have to adhere to it. I don't understand why you keep trying to erect this strawman. Do you genuinely not understand? If so, I'll have to consider a simpler way of breaking it down for you.....

You are saying it has to mean something, directly. You just did for God's sake. You said the the UDHR has meaning due to UN backing, which means it has meaning in that context.

I beg pardon. I thought you would understand that by 'meaning' I was referring your own point that you've stated again below 'You're again pretending that pieces of paper have weight outside consensus.' I meant meaning in that precise way you write 'weight' there. I apologise for not laying them out next to each, I presumed you would connect the two.

Ketara wrote:
However, despite this constant flux, despite those changing governments making up a part of the UN, their changes in ideology and stance are not reflected in official UN policy until the previously proclaimed values are officially withdrawn, amended, or drawn up anew.

They are always reflected in UN policy, even, and especially, if the previously explained values are not amended. You're again pretending that pieces of paper have weight outside consensus.

Policy isn't limited to what is written down.

I said 'official UN policy'. That is quite evidently limited to what is written down I should think. Otherwise you're reduced to trying to argue that official UN policy can be at odds with what they officially claim to be the case, and that is patently absurd.

Ketara wrote:
I hope this explanation aids your understanding of the affair somewhat.

Not really, it just makes me think you have no idea what you're talking about.

I must admit my dear boy, I'm starting to get the same impression from you. I'm fully aware your usual modus operandi of debate is to seize upon a tangent and go with it until the other chap doesn't know which way is up or down, but you seem to be losing track of the original issue here (which is that adding a member to a council with certain specific stated values, that holds very few of those values itself, or indeed the opposite of them, may lead people to not take aforementioned council seriously). Do try to stay on track, hm?

Ketara wrote:
Incorrect. Any action which the UNHCR takes involving any kind of vote is immediately affected by the addition of Syria. Whilst it might not necessarily swing a vote 100% of the time, the fact remains that the addition of a new bloc has the potential to affect UNHCR's actions and decisions.

Potential, yes. Necessary effect, no. You seem to be unable to sort out your own thoughts.

It is entirely possible to argue that merely their presence has a necessary effect, not only upon their vote, but on how others may vote in reaction to them, and what issues may be raised to vote upon in the first place, and so on, but I'm sure you're aware this is completely off the original point without me needing to remind you.

And your own deficiencies in interpreting my chain of thought do not necessarily indicate flaws in aforementioned thought, merely your own inability to comprehend them.

Ketara wrote:
I maintain no such thing. You infer too much.

I didn't infer anything. I said you acted as though a certain thing were true.

......thus inferring something.

To infer:-
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.
2. To reason from circumstance; surmise

For someone who seems so picky on points of grammar, I'm surprised that one escaped you.

Of course, I suppose I'm not inferring that you're picky with grammar, simply saying that you 'act as though a certain thing were true'.

Ketara wrote:
If a sizeable majority of people use a word a certain way, the meaning of the word transforms to whatever they intend by it.

In which case everyone is always being both ironic and hypocritical (because, colloquially, they turn on observation and not fact), meaning the accusation is worthless.

Always? As in, throughout their entire lives, even whilst sleeping? At the same time? My word. I had no idea my mere existence was both ironic and hypocritical. In fact, for me to be 'being' something, it should be a verb should it not? After all, its an activity I'm actively doing! Therefore right now, even whilst sitting at my computer, I'm Ironically and hypocritically all over the place!

Ketara wrote:
If you genuinely cannot see why allowing a communist to join a club designed to take action against communists might spur people to cease taking the anti-communist organisation seriously, than I'm not sure I can help you. (to extend my original point to a metaphor).

No, I know why someone might believe that, and why that might be the case, I'm just not sure why its is necessarily the truth.

I get very annoyed when people confuse what they believe with what is absolutely true.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:If someone in the private sector is popular but incompetent, they lose.

That is so false that I can't help but laugh.

If a company is very popular, but makes a terrible product, people will still buy their goods?

Name one case where this is true.

Consumers don't care about popularity, they care about the value that they receive for their dollars. Yes you have companies like Dolce & Gabbana, but the name conveys a value to the consumer in addition to the quality of the good. I guarantee that if D&G slapped their name on a wet paper sack their reputation would crumble and they'd be out of business. That's because there are plenty of competitors out there who would love to snatch up their business.

Politicians don't have to demonstrate that they offer a better service, only that the other guy's position on X is wrong, and if you vote for him, we'll be living in a third world dictatorship.

biccat wrote:If a company is very popular, but makes a terrible product, people will still buy their goods?

Stop changing the goalposts. You said someone, indicating a person.

A person can be incompetent and yet be vastly rewarded by the capitalist system. Being rich is, and always has been, more of a matter of luck than it is hard work.

Just look at the various CEOs who basically play round robin with the biggest corporations (especially airlines), who despite failing to improve the company continue to get paid ludicrous amounts of money, ludicrous amounts of severance pay, and ludicrous amounts of bonuses despite reducing the value of the company and repeatedly proving themselves incapable of stopping the trend of reduced value.

Not that I expect you to admit that this happens, but it does even still.

I vote for Silvio Berlusconi to chair the Women's and Minor's rights commitees, guaranteed that he will have very "good" deputies and assistants!

Yes please! PLEASEEE.... everything to get him out of Italy!!!!


Anyway... even if Siria surely isn't a paragon of human rights, its acession to UN-sanctioned charters will allow a depper role for the Security council, and maybe it's a step toward something better in the country. I mean... The mere fact that the Sirian cabinet felt the necessity to act in such way to quell the protests, means that such protests are taken damn seriously, and they possibly have an outcome.

I think It's all a matter of internal sirian politics... I mean... Nobody takes UN seriously anyway... It's a Col-war era device... The security council composition itself makes a joke of the UN role in defense of human rights .

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:If a company is very popular, but makes a terrible product, people will still buy their goods?

Stop changing the goalposts. You said someone, indicating a person.

I wasn't moving the goalposts, I was illustrating an example. People and companies are practically identical from a capitalist perspective. Both provide a good or service and the buyer (whether it's a consumer or employer) wants to get value from them. If the company or person isn't providing value, then the company is losing money.

Melissia wrote:A person can be incompetent and yet be vastly rewarded by the capitalist system. Being rich is, and always has been, more of a matter of luck than it is hard work.

This is precisely the opposite of true.

Melissia wrote:Just look at the various CEOs who basically play round robin with the biggest corporations (especially airlines), who despite failing to improve the company continue to get paid ludicrous amounts of money, ludicrous amounts of severance pay, and ludicrous amounts of bonuses despite reducing the value of the company and repeatedly proving themselves incapable of stopping the trend of reduced value.

Not that I expect you to admit that this happens, but it does even still.

No company hires a CEO because he's a nice guy, they hire a CEO because they want him to do a good job. Popularity is relevant, but it's no substitute for competence.

And yet, they still hire and reward incompetents on a regular basis.

Ketara wrote:
Interesting. Would you claim the US to be at an equivalent level to Syria with regards to adhering to the UNDHR then?

Maybe, it would depend on the means of assessment we were using.

Ketara wrote:
I beg pardon. I thought you would understand that by 'meaning' I was referring your own point that you've stated again below 'You're again pretending that pieces of paper have weight outside consensus.' I meant meaning in that precise way you write 'weight' there. I apologise for not laying them out next to each, I presumed you would connect the two.

Why would you ever assume that someone knows what you're talking about when making an argument?

In any case, yes, I knew what you were talking about, and my criticism still stands. When you claim X is has meaning because body Y recognizes it, you are contradicting any claim that the document has no meaning. When I say thing X is meaningless because no one agrees to it, and you assent, then say it has meaning because of some other factor you are contradicting yourself.

Ketara wrote:
I said 'official UN policy'. That is quite evidently limited to what is written down I should think. Otherwise you're reduced to trying to argue that official UN policy can be at odds with what they officially claim to be the case, and that is patently absurd.

Official policy isn't limited to what is written down. The entire idea is ridiculous. Stating something of that nature is like claiming what the Secretary General says has nothing to do with official UN policy, and given that he is promulgating his position from an office of the body in question that is absurd.

Moreover, there is no reason to assume that the official policy of any given institution cannot be contradictory.

Ketara wrote:
I must admit my dear boy, I'm starting to get the same impression from you. I'm fully aware your usual modus operandi of debate is to seize upon a tangent and go with it until the other chap doesn't know which way is up or down, but you seem to be losing track of the original issue here (which is that adding a member to a council with certain specific stated values, that holds very few of those values itself, or indeed the opposite of them, may lead people to not take aforementioned council seriously). Do try to stay on track, hm?

Actually no, that's not what we're discussing. The question of whether or not action X might cause body Y to be taken seriously can easily be settled by reading the OP. The UN might do something, and a person thought it was reason to mock them, so someone somewhere proved the point that action X might cause body Y to not be taken seriously.

The argument we've been having is over whether or not that response is legitimate given the nature of the UN. My position is that it isn't, and yours is that it is.

Ketara wrote:
It is entirely possible to argue that merely their presence has a necessary effect, not only upon their vote, but on how others may vote in reaction to them, and what issues may be raised to vote upon in the first place, and so on, but I'm sure you're aware this is completely off the original point without me needing to remind you.

No, it isn't off the original point at all. the nature of argument is such that, once the initial positions are established, tangential elements will be brought into play in order to support the position which is advocated. In this instance I'm claiming that the inclusion of Syria on UNHRC has no necessary effect on that council's practices (an argument which cannot be refuted due to being made against a hypothetical state) in order to support my point that their inclusion in the body is not detrimental to it; which further indicates that suddenly taking the UNHRC less seriously is foolish. This process is called justification, and it is what separates reasoned argument from children on a playground.

Ketara wrote:
And your own deficiencies in interpreting my chain of thought do not necessarily indicate flaws in aforementioned thought, merely your own inability to comprehend them.

That may be the case, though given what you're trying to say regarding staying on point, I don't believe so.

Ketara wrote:
......thus inferring something.

To infer:-
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.
2. To reason from circumstance; surmise

For someone who seems so picky on points of grammar, I'm surprised that one escaped you.

Bad definition.

Inference-

the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former

When I claim something appears to be the case I'm making a descriptive calim about observation, and not a propositional claim about the implication of an agreed fact.

Ketara wrote:
Of course, I suppose I'm not inferring that you're picky with grammar, simply saying that you 'act as though a certain thing were true'.

Well, yeah, if you phrase that way you're correct.

Ketara wrote:
Always? As in, throughout their entire lives, even whilst sleeping? At the same time? My word.

What you've just said here illustrates my point. I intended the word "always" to express a sentiment equivalent to "always during periods of speech or written word" and you took it to mean the more literal "all possible times involving humans" and in so doing presumed that I expressed something other than that which I intended (irony).

Ketara wrote:
I had no idea my mere existence was both ironic and hypocritical. In fact, for me to be 'being' something, it should be a verb should it not?

No, in English that's almost never the case.

Ketara wrote:
Ah, I never said it was necessarily the truth. My original statement was that, 'This is an excellent way to ensure no-one takes the UN seriously. '

I made such a statement based on my own empirical knowledge of how people tend to behave in relations to certain types of information received.

Right, its the same way people respond to any election which obtains results that they don't like. Domestically in the US it happens with respect to Congress, internationally the US often claims that certain elections are illegitimate because of the way they turned out (the Sandiinistas in Nicaragua, and Hamas in Lebanon). However, that doesn't mean such responses are rational, or even conducive to the purposes of the organization. It also doesn't mean that no one will take the UN seriously, it just means that certain, in my opinion foolish, people will.

Edit: fixed quote boxes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
If a company is very popular, but makes a terrible product, people will still buy their goods?

Name one case where this is true.

You're deflecting, but anyway: General Motors. Ford. Chrysler. Every company that has ever made anything at any point.

biccat wrote:
Politicians don't have to demonstrate that they offer a better service, only that the other guy's position on X is wrong, and if you vote for him, we'll be living in a third world dictatorship.

That is a means of demonstrating that you offer a better service. In the very poor attempt at deflection above that would be called marketing, in the context of what we're really talking about, hiring, its called "selling yourself".