One of the MANY reasons why the UN is a Joke

[emprworm]

of course i will communicate about them.

but i will not answer loaded questions, and I wont begin to.

ask an unloaded question, and you get an answer.

[nemafakei]

If, by loaded, you mean you can provide no answer which is not contradictory to or bvad for your argument, and if the question makes no false assumptions, then there is something wrong with your argument.

And I will continue to wait.

[emprworm]

by loaded i mean:

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html

try reading that link.

and i continue to wait for you to actually contribute to the thread rather than adding on more of this irrelevant stuff about me not answering loaded questions. I've posted quite a bit about this topic.

Here is all I have contributed:

---

LYBIA HEAD OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMISSION???

*GOOD GRIEF*

Earthnuker...please...PLEASE tell me you can see the glaring hypocrisy in this!!

Oh, I'm sorry Edric. You are right. Put Kim Jong, Saddam Hussein, and Momar Gaddaffi as the Human Rights board. SIlly me!!! How could I be so blind as to their wonderful qualifications!!

Yes, Lybia Head of Human Rights Commission! What a GREAT choice for the cause of Human Rights!

You know, using your sound, wonderful logic, I was thinking, it is too bad that Nikolai Ceausescu is dead, because he would be a very nice candidate for the head of human rights commission. In fact, if we could have made Nikolai Ceausescu the Secretary General of the UN AND the head of the HUman Rights Comission, that would have been a wonderful thing. And if someone tries to challenge us and say "Nikolai Ceausescu head of Human RIghts Comission is despicable" we only need to say to them what you said to me: "So it would be better if there was no Human Rights comission at ALL?"

Having Lybia as head of human rights is a hypocritical mockery of immense proportions.

is it better to have Adolph HItler as head of your government, or no head of government at all? Logged

To answer your questions, Edric:

I want a human rights commission. I want it to be VALID. I want it to be LEGITIMATE.

Lybia as head of human rights is a contradiction, and turns it into a joke.

If you cannot see this, then there is little I can do for you.

lol! a better option? LOL! Pretty much ANY country in the world is a better option than Libya. Tell you what, since you seem to have such a hard time with this, lets begin by assigning the head of human rights to a NON-DICTATORSHIP country. Hows that for a place to start?

But since the UN is so inept that it cannot even grasp its own unbelievable bigotry, it is a corrupt organization, and I hope the US leaves it at once.

NOw, because I am such a nice guy, I will give you a question that I would have answered for Edric, had he asked it:

Proposed Questions I would have answered: "So are you saying that someone else should head the Human Rights Comission?"

Answer: YES

---

i think that if you actually READ what I have been posting, you will see quite clearly that my opinions are stated on the matter. Yours, however, are not.

because you have not contributed to the thread and have indeed taken it off course, I think locking is appropriate.

[SurlyPIG]

I know a girl from Iraq who lived in Libya for five years and she said she thought it worse than Iraq (and you should hear her rant about Iraq if you think it's not all that bad). She said there were what she described as extreme beatings employed as simple school discipline.

Having them lead the HR commission is very, very ironic indeed. Like an olympic swimmer drowning in a bathtub.

[Edric O]

I will not answer loaded questions

In other words, you will not answer any questions that you don't like, because they might just put you in a bad light. ::)

Now, if you want this to be an actual discussion instead of a hypocritical rant, please tell us what SHOULD be done, instead of what SHOULDN'T. What do you think the UN should do about this?

[SurlyPIG]

I believe he said that when he said that the HR commission should be headed by a democratic nation...

[emprworm]

i believe Ace is the first person to actually read what I said.

cool!

what should be done: to begin with, make yourself LEGITIMATE. A democratic nation heading the HR commission for starters. The way it is now makes the UN look like the utter mockery that it is.

[ordos45]

Two countries spring to my mind automatically if Lybia were to be replaced as head of the Human Rights Commission, they are known as "Canada" and "Switzerland". The Netherlands also briefly crosses my mind.

[Egeides]

"to begin with, make yourself LEGITIMATE"

What makes USA more legetimate? Anti-Americanism is growing strong everywhere (striving even in America!). It is sad some people mix Americans and America's politicians/corps, but anyway doesn't it cause some legitimacy problem?

[emprworm]

"What makes USA more legetimate?"

that we are not a dictatorship. Do you really think LYBIA has more freedom and human rights for its citizens than the US?

Let me rephrase that:

Do you really think LYBIA has more freedom and human rights for its citizens than the US?

[Egeides]

Woa... I didn't ask "What makes USA more legitimate than Lybia" but "What makes USA more legitimate than other countries in general".

And for not beeing dictatorship, you may not be dictator, but some of your leaders installed dictators (Pinochet after killing Allende, everywhere in latino countries, Bin Laden, Saddam, Iran shah (the democratic was overthrown with US support), and many others). So what makes USA more legitimate than other non-"dictator" (USA dictates on other countries some believe (IMF, NAFTA-like...)) countries?

[Sneakgab]

He never said America should lead HR. He just said a dictatorship shouln't. He probably agrees with a country like Switzerland or Canada as leaders of HR, as do I.

By the way, Empr is totally right about not awnsering loaded questions. The reason for him not awnsering them are not that ''they will put him in a bad light''. Honestly, if you can't see what he means about loaded questions that is you're problem because I doubt anyway feels like explaining.

btw, I don't support anyone here, it is just clear to me that Nema is being silly...

[Edric O]

I know very well what a loaded question is, the only problem is that Emprworm likes to stick that name on any question he doesn't feel like answering to...

Now, Emprworm, tell me WHO exactly should have the power to decide which nations are democracies and which aren't?

[Sneakgab]

''I know very well what a loaded question is, the only problem is that Emprworm likes to stick that name on any question he doesn't feel like answering to...''

I thought that's what you thought about what emp said:D

Still, you must admit that you're question was QUITE loaded in this case... even if it was un-intentional (as I can tell the question was a fairly casual one)

I don't know what you're question to emp has to do with whos heading the HR (actually I do:D), but I can awnser that (if you would allow me) by saying that no one needs the power to decide which nations are democracies and which are not

Thats like asking who should have the power to decide who is homosexual or not. Democracy, like homosexuality, is a state and cannot be subjectively applied by any person or ''judge''

If people have the freedom to vote,freedom to speech,e.t.c , then the country that those people live in is a democratic country

Lybia is not a democratic country and definetely does not uphold many human rights.

Switzerland or Canada should be the head of the HR commision... but if not them, then atleast a country that upholds HR! having a country that downplays HR to lead the HR commision is ludicrous!

[SurlyPIG]

Might I remind you that the right to vote, directly or for a representative, is a Human Right and is clearly stated in the UDHR. I think it's one of the more important ones. Well, they're all important, but this one's especially so.

That said, don't you see it as a contradiction that the leader of the HR commission denies this right to EVERY one of its citizens? I don't think there's any country without questions of HR abuse from Amnesty International, but some reports are more inquirous than protesting.

Go here to visit AI's country-by-country directory of alleged HR violations.

Go here to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in its entirity. You'll find the right to vote under Article 21.

[emprworm]

I know very well what a loaded question is, the only problem is that Emprworm likes to stick that name on any question he doesn't feel like answering to...

Now, Emprworm, tell me WHO exactly should have the power to decide which nations are democracies and which aren't?

i don't care if the UN decides, but they make themselves into an illegitimate joke when they decide on LYBIA for Human Rights....and then turn around and decide on IRAQ to lead the disarmament commission.

what a pathetic body. It is utterly rediculous. This is supposed to be the leaders of the world...they make a mockery out of themselves. Lybia leading HR commission is a manifestation of how rediculous, bakcwards, and impotent this group is. Proof that it needs dramatic repair.

[emprworm]

Might I remind you that the right to vote, directly or for a representative, is a Human Right and is clearly stated in the UDHR. I think it's one of the more important ones. Well, they're all important, but this one's especially so.

That said, don't you see it as a contradiction that the leader of the HR commission denies this right to EVERY one of its citizens? I don't think there's any country without questions of HR abuse from Amnesty International, but some reports are more inquirous than protesting.

Go here to visit AI's country-by-country directory of alleged HR violations.

Go here to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in its entirity. You'll find the right to vote under Article 21.

great post ACE. Thanks for those links. I think that pretty much puts the matter to rest about selecting LYBIA to lead human rights.

And (at least for me), it puts to rest the issue of the UN as a credible, responsible organization.

[nemafakei]

What would you prefer instead of the UN, if anything?

[emprworm]

What would you prefer instead of the UN, if anything?

i like the UN concept. I think the rules governing its functionality need a complete overhaul.

If the UN were functioning properly, LYBIA would not be in charge of Human Rights.....IRAQ would be fully disarmed, IRAQ would not be selected to lead the disarmament commission, and resolutions would actually mean something.

Yea, I know its lame to complain about something and not have a solution. heh, cuz I don't know a solution to it. It seems beyond repair to me. For starters, granting a bazillion tiny muslim (hence anti-semitic) countries that are the size of my backyard seperate UN representatives, yet give the US and Canada one rep each, we have a major problem. A land mass practically the size of western Europe, Africa and the Middle east gets a total of 2 representatives. Make sense to you? Not to me. If canada gets 1 vote, then All of Europe should get 1 vote.

Voting power in the UN should not be based soley upon your borders.

[emprworm]

oh, almost forgot, the primary function of the UN should NOT be:

"UN = representatives of the world"

it SHOULD be:

"UN = representatives of the free world"

dictatorships should get NO vote in the UN.

[nemafakei]

"For starters, granting a bazillion tiny muslim (hence anti-semitic)"

Do you mean anti-jewish? Semitic includes arabs, as I recall (I know it applies to arabic languages).

Why should landmass have anything to do with the say in the UN? Surely population would be a better guide?

"dictatorships should get NO vote in the UN"

Er... in which case, surely the UN simply would not work? Discriminating against countries based on their political systems is a dangerous route to start with, in addition to the fact that without representation from a good deal of the world, international legitimacy would have no meaning in most of the world.

[Gobalopper]

Population is better but still not the best option, if thats the case the new power holders would be India and Indonesia. It should be a number of factors including power, both military and economic, human rights, landmass of the country, etc. Basically there should be some sort of scorecard for rating countries instead of giving everyone one vote.

According to my dictionary:

anti-semitism:

hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

[Egeides]

oh, almost forgot, the primary function of the UN should NOT be:

"UN = representatives of the world"

it SHOULD be:

"UN = representatives of the free world"

dictatorships should get NO vote in the UN.

In the opinion of many, US is not "free world"... Some journalists were fired after they wrote against Bush/else, some people arrested without motives, a journalist was arrested for taking photographs of Cheney's place, FBI guys went visiting some people that had anti-Bush or anti-capitalism posters/museum/others, someone was suspended from school for starting an anarchism club... Freedom is not perfect. A democracy where only the parties with more money have a chance, thus the ones very close to corporations, is it freedom since it means your leaders aren't the one that should be? Personally, I prefer to call it a corporate democracy, otherwise it seems biased to me.

So how do you evaluate all this? Does power have soemthing to do into this?

[Acriku]

Such is private businesses, in private enterprise the bosses can fire whomever they want to fire, provided it isn't for discrimination of race or ethnicity or whatever. No place is completely free, if it is then chaos comes quickly and without mercy.

[Egeides]

Such is private businesses, in private enterprise the bosses can fire whomever they want to fire, provided it isn't for discrimination of race or ethnicity or whatever. No place is completely free, if it is then chaos comes quickly and without mercy.

Yes, I understand the reason... but private business should not be permitted to fire its journalists for their ideas like this, therefore corrupting what the population will know.