United States is the only country which voted against investigating war crimes in Gaza by UN.
http://4bitnews.com/uk/un-human-rights-votes-investigate-war-crimes-gaza-uk-backs-israel/

US criticizes Russia over supplying arms to Ukrainian rebels, but they themselves arm Israel to its teeth by giving them $3B a year in military aid.

the Bush Administration and the Israeli government agreed to a 10-year, $30 billion military aid package for the period from FY2009 to FY2018. During his March 2013 visit to Israel, President Obama pledged that the United States would continue to provide Israel with multi-year commitments of military aid

I don't know enough about the situation in Palestine, or what kinds of laws are imposed from outside there, but just hypothetically, I wonder: what if they renounced all initiation of violence altogether, and just dropped the push to set up their own state? What if, instead they declared their territories to be "state-free" and "tax free havens?" Maybe they could open some casinos a la Native Americans; and provide some tax-free banking; let tech giants set up tax-free research centers there without all of the immigration restrictions that seem to impose so many unnecessary challenges.. And what if, instead of waging war or attacking Israel, they simply used any military capabilities they had to set up private security firms, and secure their banking system, maybe provide some safe gold depositories? In a generation or two, the Israelis would see that they are the ones living in a prison/tax farm, not the Palestinians. I wonder if they could get away with it...


It's interesting to me how some folks tend to (more or less) "take sides" in defense of states (or would-be states) in conflicts like this one. As if states somehow had "rights" or as if states somehow represented "the people" within each state. That is simply, prima facie, false: For one thing, I think armed conflict on any sort of large scale inflicts violence against innocent parties on both sides; who, in their own rights, have reason to see the other side's violent acts as aggression (or at least as material threats to their human rights).

So I certainly agree that Israelis have a right not to have rockets coming at them, but it also seems to me that individual Palestinians have a right not to be collateral damage in Israel's bombings. Surely the hundreds who've lost family in Gaza have reason to be angry at Hamas, but you could see why they too would want to defend themselves.

The logic of war often leads to a situation where if you can defend one side fighting, you have to see why the other side would fight as well. And so we can condemn both sides, or sympathize with the innocent victims of both sides, but I don't see any simple formulation that shows why people who happen to live on one side of an arbitrary line have more of a "right" to respond violently to attacks that threaten their lives than the other side has.

The United States commits many forms of aggression quite frequently. In revenge, terrorists murdered innocent Americans on 9/11. Those Americans had a right not to be attacked and as Americans, we have a right to defend ourselves. But if tactics our government employs hurt third parties, doesn't it seem that the logic of collective self defense could easily be used to justify perpetual war?

None of what I say relies on any assumption that Hamas is any less criminal than the Israeli state. Even if it's much more criminal than the Israeli state, it seems to me that collective defense = perpetual war, because of the innocents on both sides who seem to have no way of striking against belligerents without violence that itself puts innocent people in harm's way.

For what it's worth, I did some digging and the rumors that Tim Cook is gay seem to be at least partially sourced to a speech he made in 2013.

http://business.time.com/2013/12/15/apple-ceo-tim-cook-gives-remarkable-speech-on-gay-rights-racism/

The relevant bit is at about 3:10 when he says that "I have seen, and I have experienced many other types of discrimination, and all of them were rooted in the fear of people that were different from the majority."

The rest of the speech talks about human rights in general, whether from a perspective of disability, race or gender.

Sure, it sounds like he's hinting at discrimination he experienced as a gay man in Alabama, but it could just as easily be sloppy wording on his part. I'm leaning towards sloppy wording just because I don't think he would hint at his sexual orientation so casually. As Apple's CEO, such a move would be a lot more intentional and carefully orchestrated.

So again, the CNBC host doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and he didn't out anyone. He just spread unsubstantiated rumors.

@newtboy,

Who'd of thought our back and forth would wind up the civil portion of the thread?

On veracity, accuracy and demonstrable evidence please note I twice provided external links beyond my own day so. The last being to a thoroughly researched and documented account from Human Rights Watch. The only claimed verbatim quote I included was italicized to make clear what was quote versus a shorten in my own words summary. I included a link to the full document so anyone questioning my summary is very to call me out on specifics. Thus far the only in accuracy in aware of has been corrected. If you believe I'm in any other way mischaracterizing events as HRW documented it ask you to point it more specifically or failing that cease insisting that my account is anything less than very thoroughly backed by very well evidenced research.

By way of declaring lesser evils, I would ask you to be specific about worst ISIS has done that you feel so trumps the million dead of the Iran Iraq war and Saddam's multiple genocidal campaigns.

Lastly on ISIL, I don't think they are specifically the ones to stay up at night over anyways. Nouri Al-Maliki's credentials as a brutal thug are underestimated quite widely IMO and I very much expect the real nastiness will come from his crushing of Sunni Iraqis in the guise of stopping ISIL. Ugly times ahead, but I fear the guys your worried about are going to be taking it more than dishing it out, sadly leaving more Sunni Iraqi civilians dead than anyone else.

My information and sources are consistent on the 4-4,500 count of villages, the 7,500 was my own typo in my post, now retroactively corrected, thanks for pointing me to it.

For the rest I think your first sentence said all you needed to, there's no clue to the veracity of your 'reports'. Your view of a meticulously documented account from Human Rights Watch including interviews of hundreds of first hand witnesses, thousands of captured documents and audio tape recordings, as well as forensic evidence taken from places including but not limited to the mass graves themselves is to declare there's no clue to the veracity of such a report.

I think that about sums up everything, no?

Being racist basically refers to being mean. I'm not being mean. I'm a humanist who cares about human rights.

What I said is true that the reason South Africa has so much more wealth than it's neighbors is because European folks built it, and now much of it has decayed.

Believer in euthanasia? Yes, as a basic human right. If someone has suffered through a terminal illness for so long, that they no longer have the will to live, and medical science has expended all treatment options available, is it morally correct to let that person to continue to suffer through the agonising pain until their body collapses? Or is it more moral to allow them to have control over when they leave this earth, and in what manner it is done?

Either case - this isnt about euthanasia.

An abortion can only be medically acheived safely up to the 2nd trimester, and it gets tricky in the third as the embryo is large enough and involved into the mothers own body that it has the potential to cause more harm than if it was done earlier.

'Abortion' (lets just call it what it is, murder..) after birth, at 10 months old...is infanticide, and you can be thrown in prison for a very long time for doing something like that. The child's brain has developed, they breathe, they love, they hear, see, smell, taste, comprehend, communicate....they do everything that a fetus does not do.

They have developed into a human being.

Thats murder.

Terminating an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy is not murder, because its just a couple of thousand cells, not yet developed.

(Reuters) - About 30 Syrian government fighters were killed when rebels set off a bomb in a tunnel beneath a checkpoint in a northwestern province, activists said on Tuesday.

Videos and images posted by opposition supporters online showed a massive plume of smoke and earth shooting into the air near a small town as men shouted "Allahu akbar" (God is greatest).

Rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad regularly carry out guerrilla attacks against his forces, but the size of the blast, which occurred on Monday, was unusual.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based monitoring group, said the blast took place outside the town of Ma'arat al-Nu'man in the northwestern Idlib province.

At least two officers were among those killed when insurgents from the Islamic Front and the Shields of the Revolution Council set off tons of explosives in a tunnel running from the road to the checkpoint, the group said.

That is a valid concern, and it's very difficult to address.

Certainly, bionics for injury victims should be made available through your health system. I'd agree with the speaker here when he says that is a human right.

But voluntary augmentation is a much harder sell. On one hand, the situation you describe (where we have an augmented "caste" and a baseline caste) is certainly undesirable. But equally, it's not really practicable to fund everyone for every augmentation they want.

Tricky question.

Although as Yahtzee says "if there's a conflict between people who have ocean liner pistons for forearms and people who insist that everyone be as shit as they, I know which side I'm on!"

Thanks Silvercord, I do believe you've articulated yourself here better than I have. I don't take much issue with anything you've said above and I think we agree more than we disagree.

You're right, I'm from Canada. I have a unique perspective of American culture at the same time as living in the most culturally diverse city in the world. Here, multiculturalism is enshrined in law. We see ourselves as a mosaic instead of a melting pot. Something I'm quite proud of. (but not all Canadians feel the same way) There are plenty of conflicts of culture to choose from around here.

But when I'm speaking about an individuals 'fundamental human rights', I'm not speaking as a Canadian, or Torontonian or North American, I'm speaking as a human. And when I stated that religious/cultural rights were trumped by physical ones I didn't mean to suggest they were non-existent. The Klu Klux Klan for example is a religious organization (or at least that's what they call them selves) as is the Westboro Baptist Church and it's because their rights "extend to the tips of their noses" that they can't impose their will over people they believe are lesser than themselves. They are free to carry hateful ideas around in their heads, (as is their "right") but if it causes them to commit hateful actions, they are breaking the law.

The same can be said of the baker and the photographer. Albeit of varying degrees. The reason the baker and photographer have a sacred idea of marriage being only between a man and a woman is because of an intolerance of homosexuality. You say they're not intolerant because they serve the gay community in every other aspect outside of marriage and I say if there is any way they treat the gay community differently than that is the very definition of discrimination. Again, it's just in varying degrees.

What if I held a religious belief that marriage was only between a white man and a white woman and refused to supply services to anyone outside of that definition? "Sorry we can't in good conscience go there. Oh, it's not you, it's me." I would be running my business in a discriminatory fashion and I would pay a fine. As it should be.

Might I suggest if you want to be selective as to who you will serve and who you won't based on the physical attributes someone was born with, that you keep those reasons to yourself and politely refuse service to those people citing a scheduling conflict or artistic differences. Because to stand up proudly saying you don't recognize gay marriage or mixed race coupling as your 'fundamental human right' is offensive. By all means, carry your intolerant ideas in your head, just don't carry out intolerant actions and think the rest of the community has to respect you for them.

"Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't."

Um, no, you're right. It doesn't work that way. But laws do create culture if not for this generation, than for the next. As Yogi stated above; "Eventually these people will die, and the old husks and their followers left behind will spur further movements towards greater equality." A little harsh perhaps, but when you you think back to the '40s, '50s and '60s and the how attitudes and culture have changed for the Black community you can't deny that civil rights laws have made the world a better place, for equality and for everyone.

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

@RedSky

20 billion was just an arbitrarily large number I chose to demonstrate that I think that the world would survive significant population growth beyond what we'll be dealing with in the near future.

The point of no return I was referring to is simply a point where we won't be able to get back to a place where we can sustain human population levels without significant environmental degradation and territorial disputes, among other challenges I'd prefer not to experience.

I do consider things like global warming, the fact that China is buying up land in Africa to feed its population, US foreign policy's competitive focus on securing cheap oil and the large scale destruction of rainforest to make way for single crop agriculture in Brasil to be symptoms of an imbalance in population vs. resources.

I'm not drawing the line at "everyone and stock up at the grocery store/pumps" type destruction before I take notice and preach caution. I think that defining that as a deadline would be irresponsible.

Again, I agree that we could theoretically mechanize the whole world in a way that grows the supply of resources and shares them equitably amongst an enormous human population, but that goes against the type of world I'd want to live in (excessive mechanization of natural resources) and the way human social systems typically work (equitable sharing).

There are various estimates on how much longer exponential human population growth will last, but it has certainly happened on a scale of centuries or decades - blips like baby boomers are just expected outliers within that trend.

But what's more important is that even if population levels peter off, it is consumption - which is the only statistic that really matters because it is the only negative effect of population increase - that will continue to increase exponentially as a greater proportion of the world's population begins to achieve first world living standards.

This is why free trade alone is not enough to solve problems. While it is likely to bring people out of poverty, raise education levels and increase human rights (all very good things), it will also continue to push our overall imprint on the planet in a more exponential direction than I'm comfortable with (one reason being the argument detailed in this video).

But of course I'm also uncomfortable with the prospect of any sort of forced population reduction mechanism, and I'm also uncomfortable with the notion of not raising people out of poverty.

So as I see it the only thing left to mitigate my fears is to place a primary emphasis on Education.

There's a million and one ways to do this: Everything from broad, effectual efforts like getting the Pope to get with the program and endorse contraceptives, to nearly insignificant efforts like arguing with people on the internet in hopes that you contribute some small part to a culture that places some significant emphasis on educating people about the importance of self control and restraint in every type of consumption - family size included.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest the Muslim men were not discriminating. I simply stated that the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair, for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do. Just as if a mixed race couple were to find Archie Bunker to ask him to cater their wedding solely for the purpose of crying foul when they get discriminated against by the well known racist.

But that's not what's going on with the wedding couple, the photographer or the bakers. You are insisting that discrimination should be protected as a fundamental human right if someone calls it their “religion” and I find that idea abhorrent. So does the State of Oregon.

The bakers can't discriminate against a gay couple on religious grounds just as Archie Bunker can't deny blacks from drinking from the same water fountain as him. The difference between these two analogies is Archie Bunker wouldn't then turn around and suggest that his right to be a bigot is a fundamental human right that is on par with black's rights to not be discriminated against.

“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

As stated many times above, your right to religion extends to the tip of your nose. That's how and why physical rights trump religious rights.

First of all, I believe the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair is a jerk. I think that's kind of obvious. Outside of human rights, I think there should be laws to protect you from jerks. Depending on the area, municipal or provincial legislatures could address these kinds of issues in a more sensitive, localized, one on one basis.

But when it comes to basic, universal, human rights; your life, the colour of your skin, the sex you were born as and your sexual orientation are more protected than the thoughts in your head.

So when you say “People on both sides have rights” You leave me with the impression that you think these rights are equal, and they are not.

Really? Lets say a wedding photographer was hired to shoot a wedding, but then refused to do so once the they found out it was going to be a wedding of a mixed race couple. And they said; "We're not going to shoot your wedding because interracial marriage is against our beliefs."

You don't think that sort of discrimination is worthy of the state human rights commission to fine that business?

Personally, I'm sick of bigots using religion as an excuse to treat fellow human beings like trash and getting away with it.

Maybe if you're a piece of shit bigot, you shouldn't own a business that deals with the public, or run for office.