Forum Post: Who decides Human Rights?
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 14, 2011, 10:35 a.m. EST by JadedCitizen
(4277)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Know Your Rights – Because They Are Not Set In Stone
Human Rights must be known if they are to take hold. They must be yearned. Or learned. Or taught.
http://www.theurbn.com/2011/12/know-your-rights-because-they-are-not-set-in-stone/
Human Rights once gained can only be lost temporarily. There is not an army large enough to suppress Human Rights indefinitely.
The human spirit is a very hard thing to suppress.
the human spirit will never rest until world peace has been achieved ... and all inequalities are removed .. replaced with fairness .. that you can carve in stone..my friend
......in memory of Mohammed Bouazizi's human spirit.
Mohamed Bouazizi (29 March 1984 – 4 January 2011; Arabic: محمد البوعزيزي) was a Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire on 17 December 2010, in protest of the confiscation of his wares and the harassment and humiliation that he reported was inflicted on him by a municipal official and her aides. His act became a catalyst for the Tunisian Revolution and the wider Arab Spring, inciting demonstrations and riots throughout Tunisia in protest of social and political issues in the country. The public's anger and violence intensified following Bouazizi's death, leading then-President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to step down on 14 January 2011, after 23 years in power.
The success of the Tunisian protests inspired protests in several other Arab countries, plus several non Arab countries. The protests included several men who emulated Bouazizi's act of self-immolation, in an attempt to bring an end to their own autocratic governments. Those men and Bouazizi were hailed by some Arab commentators as "heroic martyrs of a new Middle Eastern revolution."[1] In 2011, Bouazizi was posthumously awarded the Sakharov Prize, jointly along with four others for their contributions to "historic changes in the Arab world".[
No , nothing like this ..
This guy was a nut job who doesn't even deserve to be named.
I don't exactly follow your intended meaning behind the phrase...No, nothing like this..
I don't like the violence.. of the middle eastern ways .. and could not honor their actions..
I understand. I hate violence too. But the societal structures there are much more brutal and dictatorial than here. I can not judge how honorable his actions, without having walked the shoes. I would find it hypocritical of myself to do so. How can I know what he felt? To me, it is just freaking unbelievably sad and makes me so angry that we live in a world where somebody felt so oppressed, so undignified, by the powers that rule, this man felt his only recourse to address these injustices was the action of setting himself on fire.
well when you wrote, ......in memory of Mohammed Bouazizi's human spirit." you were, perhaps unbeknowest, honoring ..which was why I responded as I did after looking this person up.. It is my right to judge imho.
Here in Canada we are going through a trial with the people from said culture .. where a man and his son tied up his three daughters and wife and drowned them in their van in a river.. apparently the daughters were not dressing according to their cultural customs .. an honor killing" they call it .. It's completely evil .. and should be abolished from the face of the Earth. I show them no honor or respect and feel not a hypocrite neither..
Canada has now past a law where all females wearing a hijab will be forced to remove their veil when taking the oath of citizenship. our government is giving some excuse about identity , but I think it is to crack their cultural rules ..and maybe prevent future sensless killings ..in that sick culture.
I feel empathy for the victim Mohammed Bouazizi for what he endured under a regime and will never fully forget his story. Don't get me wrong, I do judge, though. I reserve my judgment for the regime; they are horrible to chip and chip and chip away at a man until they finally take his dignity.
Unbelievable. The reasons for the daughters being murdered is messed up in ways I can't even describe. I would never hold back judgment on those who initiate cruelty and violence. The man and his son acted out of pure evil. There is no justifying their actions.
This isn't utopia here. Most of the world lives in a human rights shithole.
Should be the UN
http://occupywallst.org/forum/human-rights-violations-against-ows-and-the-99/
The UN has the best account of human rights I know of....but it is still up to the people to stand up and claim them.
Congress, Senate and the Big Congress called Knesset that they all Kowtow to in Tel Aviv.
As of today , those with the biggest military do .
yes, that is how it seems to me. right by might sucks and shows we aren't that far removed from our barbarian heritage.
Article 5 Convention Now!
We do! Through an Article 5 Convention and the "Greater Meaning of Free Speech" (GMFS).
I pulled this from an earlier post of mine:
In getting familiar with the Article 5 Convention, I was especially drawn to the info regarding the "Greater Meaning of Free Speech" (GMFS) as an amendment to solidify the success that an Article 5 Convention would provide for us. Interesting as well, is that this is not a new concept in that it predates the Declaration of Independence.
Our freedom of speech has been dangerously chipped away at. To have the Greater Meaning of Free Speech etched back into our consciousness and our constitution for our children and our leaders to be protected, indeed encouraged to practice ~"forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."~ as the proposed amendment clarifies.
What mother would not want to ensure her child these freedoms and nurture from these core principles from the earliest stages of life. The GMFS can integrate beautifully into teaching values of positive and productive socialization by children as well as the truth to the people. How could the world's leaders go astray if taught this way, and then to know that they're constitutionally protected throughout their leadership terms, in fact bound by them to stay truthful by virtue of the people they govern having an integral role in keeping the rights of the people from ever straying off course again.
As a mom, my heart aches at how far we've been led away from these teachings. I fear that our country and our globe will not survive if we, one; do not get back to the importance of these fundamental values, and second; take the "Greater Meaning of Free Speech" and the Artcle 5 convention and secure our rights through the constitution.
http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.html
http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html
Quite a bit of reading, I will have to get to it later.
I don't think the majority of the American citizens have the Balls to get off their lazy behinds and fight for their rights. If we did then the 99% wouldn't be in the shape that we are in. New signs at occupy camps should read "Grow some Balls and back me up. I'm fighting for your USA Constitutional Rights, Don't you care?"
Absolutely, more & more & more people need to stand up for their rights. I like the "Grow some Balls" signage, nice touch.
Part of our barbarian heritage is to defend and fight for a cause to the death. Sometimes it takes a love one getting screwed with to bring the barbarian animal instinct out of us. You would think when 99% of our citizens are watching the news at night that would trigger some action from them to join OWS and get involved.
Not if they are watching Fox. I can't believe people fall for their garbage news.
Good point JadedCitizen. Fox News what a stupid joke. Those guys and gals are so full of shit. They wouldn't know a real news story if it bit them in the ass. A plane would have to come crashing into their building for them to report the truth about the accident. Sorry bunch of communist basterds trying to get Newt nominated."LOL" How in the hell they thought Cain was the next black man to beat the others is nuts too. I wish they could sit in a room with me for one day I'd teach them how to collect a news story worth talking about.
For people without the internet I wish a business like the guardiannews.com had a TV news show. They have decent reporters to cover the world news. Well thanks for letting me vent some of my disappointments with the USA citizens.
Anytime.
Generally, it is accepted that I am in charge of such determinations.
Is that how you got your wings?
Oh yeah! And I didn't get my red ones drinking red bull!
The Revolution has a new theme song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L-GOHa5-YQ
http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-the-name-of-allah/
The Revolution starts here!
I'm busy now. Can I ignore you some other time?
You're so witty. How did you get that way? Did your mother drink while she was pregnant with you?
I am so witty. Thank you mom.
Not really. You can't get any attention in the real world, so you have to come here.
Who decides Human Rights? Obviously you have no interest in the subject I posted, and if you don't have enough respect for the material I posted to respond to it, then why did you come here. In other words, you are disingenuous. If you want to start a post about something you care about, go ahead, and if I'm interested, I'll respond with genuine interest.
Why don't you talk about human rights to the parents of those two girls that burned to death because Enterprise kept on renting out defective cars to people. Those parents had to fight for five years to prove their daughters weren't at fault.
As for Toshiba, they have a rapsheet a mile long of what they have done to people. The are involved in Global Corporate Terrorism and they must be stopped.
I see you have a very personal tie to these particular atrocities. And they are horrible, I agree, and I am talking about these issues, just in a much broader sense. I mean, what kind of society do we have where we can't trust businesses to put people's safety and well being ahead of making a dollar? Who decides that shit like this is acceptable and just business as usual? Who decides the rules that the rest of us play by? Toshiba and Enterprise, and countless other unscrupulous businesses, or us? Why are more people not standing up and fighting against these things?
And the question that bothers me the most, how in the hell can anyone justify defending the status quo? Every time I hear a republican presidential candidate demanding businesses need more deregulation, I cringe. It's a horrible tragedy that these corporations like Toshiba spend millions and millions of dollars lobbying our government to deregulate and give them free reign to do whatever the hell they please. It has to come to a stop.
You cannot trust the government to take these companies to task. The only thing they are good for is generating paper on them. It's us who have to take the companies to task. You can only imagine the hell I've put Toshiba through, but the government only helped after extreme pressure. I promised Toshiba I would make their lives difficult and I will.
As for Enterprise, I promised someone I'd bring as much attention as I could, and I am trying to make good on that promise too. :)
The Revolution starts here!
What can people do to help you? Make a post or add to your comments and explain how we can help. All I ever see is:
[-] stuartchase -1 points 1 day ago
The Revolution has a new theme song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L-GOHa5-YQ
http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-the-name-of-allah/
The Revolution starts here!
Make it personal and explain what is at stake and what it should mean to me and anybody else reading it. for example,
[-] stuartchase -1 points 1 day ago
I promised to the parents of these two girls (names?) that burned to death because Enterprise kept on renting out defective cars to people that I would bring as much attention to stop this from ever happening again. (an action you can take to help. thank you)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L-GOHa5-YQ
http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-the-name-of-allah/
The Revolution starts here!
To get Toshiba, you need to create a paper trail. These are some agencies that can do it. I also think you should e-mail your congressmen and senators.
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en
http://www.justice.gov/contact-us.html
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/computers/toshiba.html
http://www.boycottowl.com/Toshiba/79
http://www.bbb.org/
http://ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=CL
After you get done writing these agencies, go to this link and post the links of these agencies above!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2213279355#!/group.php?gid=2213279355&v=wall
You post it in the comment section of each post so the one who complained knows and everyone who visits knows. The more people know about their options, the more they can do to stop Toshiba.
As for Enterprise here's the links:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=104431542940604&v=wall
http://www.boycottowl.com/Enterprise+Rent-A-Car/176
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en
http://www.bbb.org/
http://www.justice.gov/contact-us.html
Anwer:
My Creator (nature). Hence the term "natural rights" philosophy. One of those most basic rights is control over the body I was given. So long as I do no harm to another person or property, then I decide how to use my own body not some asshole in Washington or Brussels.
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst, how well or poorly or we doing on Feb's axioms as a nation?
All rights can be derived by two simple axioms:
You own yourself.
No right can exist which necessitates in its undertaking the infringement of any others rights.
That and good logic are all that one requires.
That is very concise and simple. But who decides human rights? You individually, or, us collectively? Our society, our world, is complex and full of diverse view points.
And if I followed your logic, America would not exist today, because the Native American's rights were infringed upon and their land taken.
The American Indians never conceptualized land ownership, and had they known soon enough, of such ownership, it may have turned out differently.
The rights are defined by logic deriving from the two axioms.
People can understand or not understand rights but it doesn't change what they are logically.
And yes much harm would have been prevented if people had actually always respected each others rights and if the government had lived up to its only just function - the protection and defense of the rights of its citizens.
Sadly understanding rights does not stop them from being infringed - every person who understands them needs to stand against every infringement of rights they see - especially when the actions are taken by those sworn to defend them.
Can you give me a current issue where you think rights are being infringed on so I can weigh the two axioms against my view?
Sure, any specific actors in mind?
Where rights are infringed by government: Rights of privacy and right to be free from search and seizure with the TSA. 4th amendment rights with no knock warrants. First amendment rights with "free speech zones" and violence against those petitioning their government for redress in public places - or merely associating.
Rights infringed by citizens: Robbery, assault, murder, rape...
Is that what you were looking at?
How about voting rights? A lot going on with readdressing voting rights currently. The pro change voter laws claiming the need to stop fraud and the opposing side claiming veiled attempt to discriminate against certain voters. Who is infringing on who's rights? Is voting a right? Does everyone have the right to vote? If so, how should the laws reflect this?
Voting rights aren't actually rights because they aren't inherent. They are created by systems of man. Civil rights is a term used for things such as these so I understand the confusion. In terms of the philosophy civil rights are privileges granted in order to protect existing rights from abuse by the system that grants those privileges.
Thus since you are voting for someone to have power over you (ownership of you as they now have the final say over your actions) this needs to be granted by consent and so your privilege to vote is granted. Although when examined you cannot not-consent to having an owner at all - which makes democracy itself very problematic when also wanting to preserve rights.
I hope this makes some sense.
Not really. Bear with me. Earlier, you said all rights can be derived from two simple axioms. But reading this, I come to the conclusion that you are saying anything 'created by systems of man' aren't actually rights, but privileges. Did I miss something? You seem to really be saying no rights can be derived from the axioms, and that they are in truth, the sum of all rights, rather than the base from which all rights can be derived.
Earlier, Frogwithwings, said, "The American Indians never conceptualized land ownership, and had they known soon enough, of such ownership, it may have turned out differently." Isn't this 'man creating a system'? and therefore, not a right, but a privilege. So following that logic, I could take your land from you without infringing on another's rights.
Let me try to clear this up.
If you believe in rights they are inherent and inalienable parts of our existence as human. These are no more separable from us as lead's number of protons is separable from its definition as lead. Thus it doesn't matter if any person or group understands rights - they exist independent of any person's understanding of them.
This is one reason why as we continue to think about rights and use our reasoning we discover more rights we have as our logic continues to go. Although all rights stem from self-ownership it takes reason to understand many real world applications involving two or more entities and where the borders of their rights are.
So in short rights exist outside man - man may discover them but this discovery process does not create them nor does a lack of discovery mean that they do not exist. So Frogwithwings' statement that they Indians never conceptualized land ownership is to state they never discovered that right - if they had yes their society and our interaction with them would have turned out differently.
As such you or myself on an Island still have the right to religious freedom, the right of speech, the right of life, of property, and all the rest. So would someone who never heard of the idea of rights. The same is true if we lived in an oppressive state like North Korea - the government does not respect or acknowledge rights but it does not make those rights vanish - it just makes them infringed on.
Civil rights are a construction by a system of man. The right to vote is not a fundamental aspect of our humanity. It is created by the creation of a system of voting which then - in order to acknowledge self-ownership - recognizes that voting must be done.
Rights exist outside man makes no sense to me. Rights are generated from the mind and conceptualized, such as in the case of discovering, or conceptualizing, or creating, a new way of thinking about rights. Changing Frogwithwing's use of the word conceptualizing to discovering is semantics. The intended meaning remains unchanged. That is basic logic.
Really it is semantics? Do we conceptualize quantum theory to make it understandable and thus because we conceptualize the observed actions it did not exist until we observed it?
I am not saying rights exist outside of man - I say they are independent of our recognizing them just as gravity acts as it does regardless if we understand it, have a name for it, or have examined it at all. Just as quantum mechanics acts as it has regardless of our level of knowledge about how it acts.
(In retrospect it is really funny considering I am using quantum mechanics and talking about observation.)
Your equivocating natural scientific laws with laws conceptualized by man. And I don't see any correlation between the two based on any scientific evidence, only on a philosophical basis.
Everything is our attempt to understand it. Our understanding or lack of understanding never defines anything. Its as true with how the human brain functions as with quantum mechanics. Within the philosophical structure of rights and as rights are inherent the construction of the human mind is a requirement for these - therefore it must be.
If you want to talk about philosophy that makes moral absolutes from outside the framework of that philosophy that is fine but the end result is either going to be a uniform action in humanity or they originate from a being greater than man. I have thought for a long time about any other options for an absolute morality but I haven't found any.
The journey of getting to the ....therefore it must be....is filled with to many unproven parallels for me to reach that ending with you. You have already locked yourself into an absolute position based on your belief, so there is really no point in discussing any other philosophy. Still, thanks for sharing.
Well yes that happens with moral absolutism which is what the philosophy of rights is. Because you start with the premise of an absolute moral wrong everything must be argued from that.
Every philosophy which begins with the a priori of a certain moral absolute does this.
Again I remind you I am discussing the philosophy from within the philosophy itself - from outside it it is simply another moral path to follow out of many one may choose. I only lock myself because that is what the logical structure and premise of that philosophy mandates I do in order to explain it.
Where did those two axioms come from? I mean, did a group of philosophers get together and decide this, or did it come from God, or what?
Yeah, asking a question like that sounds kind of dumb, but it gets at the root of the original question. Because whomever decided that these two axioms govern human rights also basically decided the human rights.
Yes a group of philosophers came up with them. I suppose for the first philosopher of the modern era we can look to Locke and his second treatise on government as to property being the merge of nature and the work of man. This laid the groundwork to understand that it was the actions of man which created the property and thus ownership and thus a man must own himself in order to own other things.
Of course it took a few decades to distill the philosophy of rights into such a nice little package as is often the case with ideas such as that where you can express and make judgements but simplifying what exists in the mind is not so easy.
Another way of looking at is that no person has a right to use any sort of violence, threat of violence, or fraud on another. This starts at the other end by not examining if a thing is a right but examines if a thing is not a right by strictly applying the second axiom.
For example I own myself, I own my property. I have full and final say over what happens to that property - unless using that property would infringe on the right of another (say I swing my golf club at your vase - that would be me exerting final say and control over your property).
I own myself and have final say over myself therefore me punching you violates the second axiom (your control over your self) whereas me speaking my mind does not (you can listen or not, you can choose to consider or reject the content of my speech).
I can offer a contract to you (mow my glass and I'll provide you a pint of fresh blueberries from my garden) but I cannot force you to mow (even if I give you the blueberries because it violates your complete control over yourself).
I cannot offer a contract while hiding some of the terms (the blueberries will always be moldy) because that denies knowledge you need to express that full control. (Fraud part). Now if the blueberries were accidentally moldy once or twice since I had no knowledge of that it would be acceptable - though very rude and poor manners.
John Locke ( 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704), widely known as the Father of Liberalism.....Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon, he is equally important to social contract theory.~wiki
So John Locke determines Human Rights?
I didn't give consent to Locke's social contract. Why should I feel bound to it? Does John Locke own me?
Appraisals of Locke have often been tied to appraisals of liberalism in general, and also to appraisals of the United States. Detractors note that (in 1671) he was a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal African Company, as well as through his participation in drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesbury's secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves. For example, Martin Cohen notes that as a secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673–4) and a member of the Board of Trade (1696–1700) Locke was, in fact, "one of just half a dozen men who created and supervised both the colonies and their iniquitous systems of servitude".[16] Some see his statements on unenclosed property as having been intended to justify the displacement of the Native Americans.[17][18] Because of his opposition to aristocracy and slavery in his major writings, he is accused of hypocrisy and racism, or of caring only for the liberty of English capitalists.[19]~wiki
Locke didn't create the idea of a social contract in fact he would outright the reject the notion of a social contract absent any consent. Rousseau is the creator of the modern idea of the social contract - that thing that supposedly forces all of us to take actions for each other.
Neither I, nor Locke, nor anyone is telling you what philosophy to undertake. If you believe that you own yourself then its very likely your own moral philosophy matches that of Locke (so long as you proceed logically). If you do not believe in self-ownership then you do not.
And Locke is the father of Classical Liberalism - the idea of self-ownership as opposed to Classical Conservatism which believed we all held a duty do our station of birth towards a King or other sovereign. It has NOTHING to do with modern American liberalism which was born of the progressive movement and Rousseau's idea of a popular sovereignty (as opposed to individual) which Proudhorn built on; it was this that lead to what we now consider "liberal" thought - which in truth is the antithesis of the original meaning.
Locke 'created a system', a philosophy, and he was a man, thus logic dictates the axioms you speak of are philosophical privileges created by a man named Locke. Man creates systems. Therefore man creates rights. They are not endowed by creation. There is no way around that logic.
Well this goes all the way back to Plato if we want to see a system that Locke worked off of.
Man can create systems. Not all systems are created by man. Are the orbits of the planets and the physics behind gravitation and the curvature of space-time systems that man created or systems that pre-existed and were discovered by man?
Thus the flaw in your logic above is the premise that all systems are created by man thus rights are a system created by man. This is not the case as proved in my example above.
The world exists outside our minds, I will not deny that logic. Yet, I find It absurd to invoke the laws of gravity, and the like, and relate it to man's creation of ownership rights and say that they pre-existed and we just happened upon it. Ownership rights are not scientific laws, they are man made laws. There is a huge difference. Are you going to tell me next that the sun owns itself? How far down the rabbit hole are we going?
The sun is not (at least insofar as we know) a moral actor. It is neither sentient nor sapient so cannot conceive of the consequences of its actions on other sapient creatures. Man can. That is the fundamental difference between man and the others. Since we are sapient and since that sapience stems from both the physical structure and the chemical make-up of our brain - these rights are as fundamentally grounded in chemistry and physics as are the complex magnetic actions of the sun.
Is there any hard scientific evidence, any empirical study, that supports the claims you are making? If I can put it in cheesy layman's terms, you're telling me I came with an owner's manual and was unaware of it. It's hard for me to accept that on faith alone. I need evidence.
You don't have to accept it at all.
It is a philosophy and I am telling you what the philosophy states.
You're free to read lots of philosopher's positions and reason for yourself which you believe most closely resembles the reality of your mind and your being most closely.
If you believe you own yourself then I suggest you start researching Lockean ,Jeffersonian, and Proudhorn's thinking on rights. If you don't you maybe more interested in the divine right of kings or social contract theory as espoused by Rousseau or perhaps you don't think any of that works for you and you want to examine Rawls.
The choice is and will always be yours. I just attempted to answer your question about rights from the framework of being within the philosophy.
Thank you Febs for sharing your views with me. My own view, is that we collectively choose, whether we intend to or not, what human rights are. They are not set in stone.
Then there aren't anything as rights because they aren't dependent on the views of others within the philosophy. You can believe that we collectively choose what privileges are that we grant to each other but fundamentally in the use of the word rights is the idea that they are inherent characteristics.
That is a large problem with how people use the word so freely and it serves to destroy the power and moral implications behind the philosophy of rights.
Quite welcome - hope you do more reading and thinking on the subject - its quite fascinating how far people have gone to try to understand how to do the "right" thing.
rights are endowed by creation, Febs has it right
Febs may have it right, I do find the logic agreeable to me. If I can be honest & candid, Febs definition, centering on logic made me more open minded to listen and actually consider, as opposed to hearing the word creation brought into it. It only occurred to me that I have such a strong prejudice, but hearing rights and creation in the same sentence turn me off (personal baggage I guess). I know that is a problem on my part, but I would ask if we could focus only on the logic part.
I am looking for examples of real world issues where I can apply the axioms to and see how they fit in my mind. Probably the more controversial or divisive, the better. Or really anything you think will help me understand the axioms when applying them to laws that govern our society.
I was not using creation in the theological sense...but rather, in the "actual" sense...
I know, I wasn't referring to the theological sense either. A wolf or ant or cockroach is created in the "actual" sense, does it have the same natural rights as you or me or Febs. That's why I prefer the distinction of "human" rights, I guess. Does that make sense?
Aren't they set in paper?
lol. funny.
Funny how? The constitution gives us our rights and has been copied many times so it is more or less everywhere. Or were the founding fathers infiltrated by the 1% as well?
Yeah but they staved them off for years. In 1871 the relentless plan to begin ownership of The New America got a foothold due to our nation being in a position of "financial embarrassment" due to, you guessed it, the cost of war.
lol. funny.
You are an incredibly intense and intelligent person to hold a conversation with. (Sarcasm)
lol. funnier. (humor)
No. They are set on paper. Unless you want to argue that the ink seeps inside the paper?
Written on the constitution and in the Geneva Convention. Ink does seep into paper.
The problem with your example is a that Geneva Convention is a paper. So you should say "set in a paper, as in an article, or a convention". If you simply say "set in paper" it is wrong. It should have been "set on paper". And, ink does seep inside certain types of paper. It depends on the paper's consistency.
Well to be honest I was referring to the constitution and first not the Geneva Convention which I remembered after the fact. However, it is still set in paper. Just not more than one in the example I was referring to. However, after you add in the Geneva paper it talks about two. I'm not actually sure what you're talking about so could you please clarify.
We set stuff in writing, but on paper. I was just giving you a short grammatical lesson. We can get back to the topic now.
Ok whatever. What about the original topic?
Like you, I don't have much to say about the topic. That's why I followed your diversion.
God decides Human Rights.
I don't do theological discussions.
God is falling down on the job in Iran, Cuba, North Korea, China, The Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Saudia Arabia, to name a few.