NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean, first off, you live in the country of the ruler. People complain about the human rights in places like North Korea, but it's Kim Jong-il's country, he can do what he wants! Second, it's not like you need them anyway, you're just gonna die eventually. Third, it's not like it's a double standard, everybody has copped shit throughout history, it's not like there are a few people missing out.

Apologist, Nihilist, Statist, and Autocratists all in one post! You get a medal for worst mix of political ideologies ever.

Ja!
They sure are!
I mean, if I want to put people in gas chambers, and start a massive genocide...
its totally my right!
So, yeah, human rights are overrated, people don't care about their human rights anyways!:sniper::sniper::sniper:

I mean, first off, you live in the country of the ruler. People complain about the human rights in places like North Korea, but it's Kim Jong-il's country, he can do what he wants! Second, it's not like you need them anyway, you're just gonna die eventually. Third, it's not like it's a double standard, everybody has copped shit throughout history, it's not like there are a few people missing out.

Dear Sir or Madam,

what

Sincerely,
Copiosa Scotia

You do realize that the only reason you were even able to post that is entirely due to the human rights accorded you by residing in a free country, right?

Why do wannabe autocrats always assume that they're going to be Big Brother, or for that matter even members of the Inner Party? Chances are, you're going to be waiting in line for toilet paper and Victory Cigarettes with the rest of us and you're going to be the one suffering the brunt of said human rights violations whenever they occur. Trust me, you're never going to have it as good under a dictatorship as you currently do.

Apologist, Nihilist, Statist, and Autocratists all in one post! You get a medal for worst mix of political ideologies ever.

He should also get an award for "Someone Who's Not Andaras Defending North Korea."

I mean, first off, you live in the country of the ruler. People complain about the human rights in places like North Korea, but it's Kim Jong-il's country, he can do what he wants! Second, it's not like you need them anyway, you're just gonna die eventually. Third, it's not like it's a double standard, everybody has copped shit throughout history, it's not like there are a few people missing out. they're not the ruler's counties they're God's countries. and He's sick of you kids treating each other like crap.

so cut it out, now!

you don't want him to have to pull the universe over... cuz if He does someone's gonna get their behind beat.

You do realize that the only reason you were even able to post that is entirely due to the human rights accorded you by residing in a free country, right?

Why do wannabe autocrats always assume that they're going to be Big Brother, or for that matter even members of the Inner Party? Chances are, you're going to be waiting in line for toilet paper and Victory Cigarettes with the rest of us and you're going to be the one suffering the brunt of said human rights violations whenever they occur. Trust me, you're never going to have it as good under a dictatorship as you currently do.

I don't really care either way. I'm gonna die anyway, I might as well go out in a wave of sympathy and guilt and crap.

I don't really care either way. I'm gonna die anyway, I might as well go out in a wave of sympathy and guilt and crap.
well sure you're gonna die, but you don't wanna end up burning forever in the lake o'fire... so be good...Now! forever is a long friggin time.

I don't really care either way. I'm gonna die anyway, I might as well go out in a wave of sympathy and guilt and crap.

Yeah, but there's a big difference dying in some Third World dictatorial shithole and dying in a free, developed country where the government doesn't bust your balls (or ovaries) about everything and lets you at least get a decent go of it before you die.

You do realize that the only reason you were even able to post that is entirely due to the human rights accorded you by residing in a free country, right?

Why do wannabe autocrats always assume that they're going to be Big Brother, or for that matter even members of the Inner Party? Chances are, you're going to be waiting in line for toilet paper and Victory Cigarettes with the rest of us and you're going to be the one suffering the brunt of said human rights violations whenever they occur. Trust me, you're never going to have it as good under a dictatorship as you currently do.

If everyone treated others the way they would like to be treated, we wouldn't need human rights laws because that behavior would be innate. But have you ever heard the phrase "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"? It's human nature for those in power NOT to treat others the way they would like to be treated, instead taking advantage of that power to provide themselves and their chosen ones with advantages while depriving those without power. Human rights laws are in place to keep that deprivation above the certain level that has been globally deemed to be the minimum required for human survival and dignity.

To the original argument: Try moving out of North Korea. I'd bet a pretty hefty chunk of the population would move away to get out from under Kim Jong Il's thumb if they could, but when the choice is live under a dictatorship or be executed, most folks will choose a shitty life over death.
Here's something else to think about: Try living without oxygen. It's not like you need it anyway, you're just gonna die eventually.
And the history excuse is pretty weak. A parallel argument would be a doctor who says, hey, I just developed penicillin or a cure for cancer, but since people have been dying of bacterial infections and cancer since the species evolved, I'll just throw it away. Who needs the combined products of all of human intellectual and moral development, anyway? Not us!

well sure you're gonna die, but you don't wanna end up burning forever in the lake o'fire... so be good...Now! forever is a long friggin time.

I laugh at your beliefs system.

Yeah, but there's a big difference dying in some Third World dictatorial shithole and dying in a free, developed country where the government doesn't bust your balls (or ovaries) about everything and lets you at least get a decent go of it before you die.

Doesn't really matter. "The West" is just gonna go to shit anyway.

Apologist, Nihilist, Statist, and Autocratists all in one post! You get a medal for worst mix of political ideologies ever.

Juche is its own ideology in north Korea.

I laugh at your beliefs system.


you looking at a serious smiting sometime in the future, if you don't repent and start behaving.... seriously Dad is getting annoyed.

You're silly....or not....I can't really tell.

you looking at a serious smiting sometime in the future, if you don't repent and start behaving.... seriously Dad is getting annoyed.

Ahh, you're joking. Nice.

Human rights are absolutely over rated,
Well one point is, people will have no discipline and order if there are a lot of human rights.
Also human rights are very irritating, when people use them to get away with everything.

Human rights are an excuse for everything.
They are very over rated.

Human rights are absolutely over rated,
Well one point is, people will have no discipline and order if there are a lot of human rights.
Also human rights are very irritating, when people use them to get away with everything.

Human rights are an excuse for everything.
They are very over rated.

Hehehe. Do you have any more comic material? So far, you've made me laugh my pants off, keep it up mate.

I thought this was sarcasm. Maybe my meter's broken.

Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_of_Morals)


Or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichomachean_Ethics)

or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bible)

or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_Of_Narnia)

or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_of_Champions)

or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22)

or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_dick)

Or just get some godforsaken empathy

and get yourself a reason to live

Or get some professional help.

Unless you were just being sarcastic. In which case I say "HA HA HA"

Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_of_Morals)


Or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichomachean_Ethics)

or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bible)

or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_Of_Narnia)

or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_of_Champions)

or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22)

or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_dick)

Or just get some godforsaken empathy

and get yourself a reason to live

Or get some professional help.

Those are all a bit of a waste of time, aren't they?

depends on if you're a sadist

depends on if you're a sadist

I wouldn't say I take pleasure in people dying. I just don't care.

Counter point: Are hallucinogens over rated? I mean, if you drop aid then post something really, really, REALLY FUCKING STUPID on a debate forum, then you're just going to hate yourself when you come off the trip, right?

Oh.

Shit.

You're being SERIOUS?!?

You're funny, then. :)

Human rights are for those who are too weak to pursue their own ends.

Those are all a bit of a waste of time, aren't they?

No. I suggest you read Breakfast of Champions first. I think it will do you the most good.



P.S. They are only a waste of time if you are being sarcastic.

I wouldn't say I take pleasure in people dying. I just don't care.

The human suffering is the sadism part, not necessarily the dying.

No. I suggest you read Breakfast of Champions first. I think it will do you the most good.

No thanks, I'm pretty good right now.

The human suffering is the sadism part, not necessarily the dying.

Again, I don't take pleasure in it, I just don't care.

Human rights are for those who are too weak to pursue their own ends.

Let's see you singing that particular song if whatever the hell religion you practice (or don't) becomes illegal and punishable by the death penalty. I'm pretty sure you'd start bitching about your rights being violated pretty quick.

Here's a hint: Before you start kicking other people, have someone else put on steel toes and kick the shit out of you. You'll get a whole new perspective.

No thanks, I'm pretty good right now.





C'mon, do it for old times sake. It's not like you have anything better to do.

C'mon, do it for old times sake. It's not like you have anything better to do.

Nah, I'm too dumb.

Nah, I'm too dumb.

That's the first thing you've said in this thread that made any kind of sense.

What? you don't seem dumb to me.

The book really is hilarious and relatively short. There are even pictures!:cool:

Second, it's not like you need them anyway, you're just gonna die eventually. Third, it's not like it's a double standard, everybody has copped shit throughout history, it's not like there are a few people missing out.

http://www.famecast.com/uploads/fan_avatars/186000/186238_320_277.jpg

Wait. You were complaining about restrictions on alcohol.

Why?

WHY??

http://www.famecast.com/uploads/fan_avatars/186000/186238_320_277.jpg

Wait. You were complaining about restrictions on alcohol.

Why?

WHY??

I figured it's easier not to care about human rights or freedoms. It's not like anybody is entitled to them.

No thanks, I'm pretty good right now.



Again, I don't take pleasure in it, I just don't care.

So stop eating. I mean, why waste the effort? You're just going to die anyway, after all.

I mean, first off, you live in the country of the ruler. People complain about the human rights in places like North Korea, but it's Kim Jong-il's country, he can do what he wants! Second, it's not like you need them anyway, you're just gonna die eventually. Third, it's not like it's a double standard, everybody has copped shit throughout history, it's not like there are a few people missing out.

1. Troll.
2. It's not Kim Jong-il's country - it's every single North Korean citizen's country.
3. So, you think that you don't need human rights because you're going to die anyway? That's utterly ridiculous! Just because life ends doesn't mean that the short time we have on this earth should be lived in poor conditions.
4. Through history we learn, and an increase in human rights is a sign that the world is becoming a better place.

1. Troll.

Nope.

2. It's not Kim Jong-il's country - it's every single North Korean citizen's country.

Kim Jong-il begs to differ:

Chairman of the National Defence Commission - Kim Jong-il

3. So, you think that you don't need human rights because you're going to die anyway? That's utterly ridiculous! Just because life ends doesn't mean that the short time we have on this earth should be lived in poor conditions.

Why not?

4. Through history we learn, and an increase in human rights is a sign that the world is becoming a better place.

Oh please, the world's never becoming a better place. It's probably never been worse than it is now.

I figured it's easier not to care about human rights or freedoms. It's not like anybody is entitled to them.

At this point I would ask if it was all right if I chopped off your limbs and made you eat them, or something along those lines, but somehow I don't think it would achieve anything. Bye.

So stop eating. I mean, why waste the effort? You're just going to die anyway, after all.

I can't do that, it goes against my programming as an animal.

I can't do that, it goes against my programming as an animal.

Sure you can, since sitting on your computer saying stupid shit all day does as well.

would you bow down to someone without question because they told you so?


and you seem like the almost but not quite nihilist, why hasn't suicide ´popped up in your life?

and who on earth said that of all humans in the world kim jong il should be the ruler of North Korea?

human rights=rights for humans we are humans and as humans why should we even consider living by natural laws of heirarchy? or submitting to any heirarchy outside our interests?

living with a gun to your temple, is that your preference?

and if you dont care? what about the suicide thing?

Human rights are for those who are too weak to pursue their own ends.

I'd love to see you screaming that as you have parts of your genetalia cut off/ get raped in the ass/ being refused education/ not being treated fairly under the law/ starving to death/ etc.

Kim Jong-il begs to differ:


And he's wrong.

Why not?

You have no idea how much of a privilage it is simply to have internet access. I could imagine that you take that for granted, and if your perogative to use the internet was taken from you, I could imagine that you would kick up a stink. If you were ever in a situation where your basic human rights were being violated, maybe you'd change your opinion.

I can't do that, it goes against my programming as an animal.

Oh, because no one has ever been able starve themselves... :rolleyes:

would you bow down to someone without question because they told you so?

Yes.

and who on earth said that of all humans in the world kim jong il should be the ruler of North Korea?

Kim Jong-il did. With guns.

human rights=rights for humans we are humans and as humans why should we even consider living by natural laws of heirarchy? or submitting to any heirarchy outside our interests?

We are also animals.

living with a gun to your temple, is that your preference?

What, we're not already all doing that right now?

weeeeell SOMEONE was stoned when they made a thread amirite?

Sure you can, since sitting on your computer saying stupid shit all day does as well.

Oooooh SNAP! He got you there, mate.

Oh please, the world's never becoming a better place. It's probably never been worse than it is now.
I dunno...

Living in Europe during the Black Death or in any heavily industrialised town during the Industrial Revolution was probably a lot shitter, considering the massive chance of a hideous death, something that you probably don't face everyday, otherwise you'd probably be whinging about that as opposed to the whole human conidition being pointless and we might as well be better off dead.

I mean, first off, you live in the country of the ruler. People complain about the human rights in places like North Korea, but it's Kim Jong-il's country, he can do what he wants! Second, it's not like you need them anyway, you're just gonna die eventually. Third, it's not like it's a double standard, everybody has copped shit throughout history, it's not like there are a few people missing out.

Heheheh very funny. How does one person own a country?
Yes we all die, should we then live our lives unhappily, should we be forced into thins against our will?

Copin' shit is, like all sorts of things, realtive. The shit I cop in my day to day life I would rather suffer, than the shit that starving people from despot regimes cop.

Shit is layed thing, and some shit is worse than other shit, to say that we all cop shit and then try to make that equal, is in fact, batshit insane!

I find it ironic that this guy was equally rubbish in his thread the other day when he was kicking up a stink about, and I quote, "Human Rights Being Violated In Victoria".

The lulz get old, sometimes...

Human rights are for those who are too weak to pursue their own ends.

How very Nietzschean of you - not that I entirely disagree with the sentiment.

What stops people from asserting their rights, especially on such a grand scale as a country like North Korea? They say people discard them piece by piece, which means they don't notice the whole. It's like rebuilding a bridge part by part while traffic continues to use it daily, each part so small that no one realises they're driving along an entirely new bridge 1 year down the line.

We don't have a right to rights, we need to stand up for them and if we don't, we lose those rights. Lofty ideals of 'human rights' seem to absolve us of the responsibility to actually do something and, worse, they can divorce us from the reality of situations, to misunderstand the context of those rights.

Having said that, we're built with compassion and empathy, it makes us human, we can certainly extend rights to others and it certainly makes the world a better place if we do so.

You can live as an island with your own rights or share the world by recognising the rights of others.

Heheheh very funny. How does one person own a country?

Either by election or by strength.

Yes we all die, should we then live our lives unhappily, should we be forced into thins against our will?

Sure, why not?

I find it ironic that this guy was equally rubbish in his thread the other day when he was kicking up a stink about, and I quote, "Human Rights Being Violated In Victoria".

The lulz get old, sometimes...

It's easier just to ignore human rights than to convince people to fight for them.

I'd like more human rights, not fewer, and I'd like them entrenched in legislation that cannot be as easily amended by Parliament as ordinary legislation. I'd also like politicians to stop bitching how human rights prevent them fighting terrorism, i.e. locking people up without trial and respecting my privacy. I'd also like people to stop whinging about their rights while moaning about how the human rights act is PC and only protects Evil Muslims and Minorities who shouldn't have rights anyway.

As long as the human rights being trampled are someone else's then I have no problem with considering human rights hideously overrated.

They deserve what they're getting because they're inferior to me...I mean, if they don't have human rights or are too stupid not to complain or survive complaining they're not humans, right?

:p

I'd like more human rights, not fewer, and I'd like them entrenched in legislation that cannot be as easily amended by Parliament as ordinary legislation. I'd also like politicians to stop bitching how human rights prevent them fighting terrorism, i.e. locking people up without trial and respecting my privacy. I'd also like people to stop whinging about their rights while moaning about how the human rights act is PC and only protects Evil Muslims and Minorities who shouldn't have rights anyway.

I disagree with that. Who are you to tell the government how to run it's country? They can do whatever they want.

Either by election or by strength.

Our survey says......

Wrong! No body owns any country.


Sure, why not?

Well make me coffee. Now!

I disagree with that. Who are you to tell the government how to run it's country? They can do whatever they want.
It's Gordon Brown's country over my dead body.

Our survey says......

Wrong! No body owns any country.

Kim Jong-il and Ali Khamenei disagree.

Well make me coffee. Now!

Make me.

It's Gordon Brown's country over my dead body.

You elected him!

I mean, first off, you live in the country of the ruler. People complain about the human rights in places like North Korea, but it's Kim Jong-il's country, he can do what he wants! Second, it's not like you need them anyway, you're just gonna die eventually. Third, it's not like it's a double standard, everybody has copped shit throughout history, it's not like there are a few people missing out.

Your human rights are overrated. My human rights are underrated. :)

It's easier just to ignore human rights than to convince people to fight for them.

Well it's not exactly your responsibility dude.

Kim Jong-il and Ali Khamenei disagree.

Bwahahahahha!



Make me.

Kay whats your address?

I disagree with that. Who are you to tell the government how to run it's country? They can do whatever they want.
Well, since the government in question (or at least I imagine Newer Burmecia was talking about a democratic nation) is in theory electec by the people to run the nation in their interests rather than their own, they can't do what they damn well please. They should be doing what the people want, not what the head of state/head of government want, in order to line said leader's pockets or strengthen their own power base.

Call me old fashioned in that respect.

And, no, we didn't elect Gordon Brown. After Blair retired and Brown was appointed PM, he didn't have the balls to call a General Election.

Well, since the government in question (or at least I imagine Newer Burmecia was talking about a democratic nation) is in theory electec by the people to run the nation in their interests rather than their own, they can't do what they damn well please. They should be doing what the people want, not what the head of state/head of government want, in order to line said leader's pockets or strengthen their own power base.

Call me old fashioned in that respect.

Well, you've been duped. No government does what the people want.

And, no, we didn't elect Gordon Brown. After Blair retired and Brown was appointed PM, he didn't have the balls to call a General Election.

You elected Labour, you elected Gordon Brown.

Well, you've been duped. No government does what the people want.
Good job you were here to enlighten me to that fact, then, wasn't it?

I said that's what the governments should be doing, not necessarily what they are doing. I've not quite been labouring under that misapprehension since the Iraq War fiasco back in 2003 when we were lied to about the whole WMD thing.

I feel you're being overly cynical and probably got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. It's not some massively conspiracy of governments to dupe the people. They're just tossers who get corrupted by power.

You elected him!
That doesn't mean he can do what he likes for five years, and it doesn't in any way mean that it is his country. We are a democracy, and government is accountable not to itself but to the people who elect it. If the people want to reserve certain rights to themselves and restrict the ability of the government to infringe on those rights, and to put safeguards against tyranny, I have no sympathy for any government who wants to end those rights and safeguards.

When we use the term ''elective dictatorship'' - a criticism levied against the British 'constitution' - it is a criticism, not a compliment, against the government and constitution in question.

Since when did Ferrous Oxide turn into Andaras' Kim-loving shower buddy?

I mean, first off, you live in the country of the ruler. People complain about the human rights in places like North Korea, but it's Kim Jong-il's country, he can do what he wants! Second, it's not like you need them anyway, you're just gonna die eventually. Third, it's not like it's a double standard, everybody has copped shit throughout history, it's not like there are a few people missing out.

If anything, they are underrated in almost every country on the planet.
And no, people in North Korea do not live in Kim Jong-Il's country, they live in their own country over which Kim Jong-Il has illegitimately gained power. If someone breaks into your house, that doesn't mean your house suddenly belongs to the buglar.
And having committed crimes in the past is no carte blanche to go on committing them.

You elected Labour, you elected Gordon Brown.

Labour was indeed elected. Gordon Brown in his current role wasn't.

Labour was indeed elected. Gordon Brown in his current role wasn't.

I demand a General Election. Why can't Britain put fixed terms to the prime minister?

Labour was indeed elected. Gordon Brown in his current role wasn't.

Meh don't really matter, over here we have party politics, that is you vote for the party not the person.

I think about human rights, some rights are fundamental. These are never overrated. Other rights are cultural, and yes, some of these cultural rights are nowadays very much overrated in the West. The right to vote for your leaders is definitely too overrated.

I demand a General Election. Why can't Britain put fixed terms to the prime minister?

We have.

You elected him!

That doesn't make it his country. He was elected to do a job (or, in Gordon's case, not even that, but let's assume he was), he was elected fo a position with certain rights and responsibilities. Nobody handed him the right to do what he wants with the country.

Think of him as janitor. He's responsible that the school runs smoothly, but that doesn't mean the school belongs to him.

I demand a General Election. Why can't Britain put fixed terms to the prime minister?
There's an upper limit of five years, I believe. There has be to be a General every five years, but you can have them earlier than that if the Government thinks it will benefit them.

We have.

Well, yes and no. I think what he means is an additional regulation that when a prime minister abdicates (or retires, as in Bertie's case now), re-elections should be compulsory.

Well, yes and no. I think what he means is an additional regulation that when a prime minister abdicates (or retires, as in Bertie's case now), re-elections should be compulsory.

I mean that. I had the American model in mind. One election every four years, despite the conditions at the time. What if I'm non-partisan and I like Blair but I hate Brown? Why wasn't I allowed to choose last year, or the year before, whenever Blair stepped down?

I mean that. I had the American model in mind. One election every four years, despite the conditions at the time. What if I'm non-partisan and I like Blair but I hate Brown? Why wasn't I allowed to choose last year, or the year before, whenever Blair stepped down?

What's the American model though in case the president - for whatever reasons - steps back? Will there be re-elections or will they be stuck with the vice president for the remainder of the presidency?

What's the American model though in case the president - for whatever reasons - steps back? Will there be re-elections or will they be stuck with the vice president for the remainder of the presidency?

For the remainder of the presidency (think Roosevelt and Truman).

For the remainder of the presidency (think Roosevelt and Truman).

That's basically what has happened here already. What are you advocating that's new?

That's basically what has happened here already. What are you advocating that's new?

General elections on a regular basis, not at the whim of the prime minister and have us guessing and guessing and fuming when one of the more power-hungry ones won't call one until his term is up even though the country is driving into deeper trouble.

General elections on a regular basis, not at the whim of the prime minister and have us guessing and guessing and fuming when one of the more power-hungry ones won't call one until his term is up even though the country is driving into deeper trouble.

Ah, but what would the fun in that be? It'd be like playing the wrong kind of football.

Ah, but what would the fun in that be? It'd be like playing the wrong kind of football.

Hahaha! Fine. I concede. General elections called at the whim of a prime minister is quintissentially British and needs to be maintained.:p

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b161/P3Shinobi/1192392913251.jpg

Not particularly.

I mean, first off, you live in the country of the ruler.

The point being that...?


People complain about the human rights in places like North Korea, but it's Kim Jong-il's country, he can do what he wants!

Kim Jong-il doesn't have a right to live, and his state doesn't have a right to exist. Put that in your compiler.



Second, it's not like you need them anyway, you're just gonna die eventually.

Then I will shoot you and remove all of your major organs and sell them on the black market. Find a rational objection to that. Go.



Third, it's not like it's a double standard, everybody has copped shit throughout history, it's not like there are a few people missing out.
Human rights are a double standard, eh? I can has proof?

I can't do that, it goes against my programming as an animal.

And as animals, humans beings are biologically programmed to coordinate themselves in a social manner in order to better ensure survival of the species. As part of that social behavior, humans came up the concept of that, most of the time, it's a good idea to mutually help others live easily. From there, the concept of "human rights" came around to describe basic conditions for the way people should be treated.

And as animals, humans beings are biologically programmed to coordinate themselves in a social manner in order to better ensure survival of the species. As part of that social behavior, humans came up the concept of that, most of the time, it's a good idea to mutually help others live easily. From there, the concept of "human rights" came around to describe basic conditions for the way people should be treated.

There's no such thing as human rights. They're just a bit of paper written up by a piss weak organisation.

http://enigma.dune.net/~eric/Do-not-feed-the-troll.PNG

There's no such thing as human rights. They're just a bit of paper written up by a piss weak organisation.

Of course we have some bits of paper outlining what our rights are. Human rights though are more intrinsic than that.

Think about yourself for a while, would you like to live your life how you wish to?

I'm betting that you do, and that there is not much more important than your inidvidual freedom. If this is true about you, if you think that you should be free to live how you wish, then the same is true for all of us.

This is the most basic of human rights, to have the freedom to live how you wish, to be free from thought police, to have nobody but you dictate how you should live.

Another stupid trolling thread. Waste your time arguing with the troll if you like. He's just jerking you around because he needs the attention.

Which human rights?

For me, the most important thing is to have people kept safe from dying, by the state's intervention if they can't cope by themselves, and free from religious or racial discrimination.

The rest is all gravy, really. Voting and such is nice, but if it starts to infringe on those other rights, it can fuck right off, see also free speech in general.

It is funny to see how everybody takes you seriously and tries to engage in a sensible discussion with you, ferous oxide, because probably you were just bored and wanted to kill some time by opening this thread. Get a life!

So you expect us to all suffer so a few can have there fun?