fibokbv wrote:
There is no failure in logic on my part. Are you confusing my posts with someone else's?
The poster that I was in conversation with said that gays were being denied basic human rights. I responded by saying that there is no such thing as basic human rights because every country is free to define its own version of basic human rights. Are you claiming that this is not true? Are you telling me that the United States, Brazil, and Iran all have the same laws?
Your second paragraph talking about countries losing their right to govern because of genocide/etc is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about.
So, again, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are wrong.
You just aren't getting it. Yes, the United States, Brazil, and Iran have different laws because they have defined basic human rights. However, you're original argument wasn't that other countries DO define human rights for their citizens, it was that they are FREE to define human rights for their citizens (aka they have the right to define human rights for their citizens). The examples I gave are relevant because they show that countries are not necessarily free to define human rights for their citizens. If you don't understand this difference, then you are too dense to participate in an argument.
You say there is no such thing as basic human rights, because every country is free to define its own version of basic human rights. So there is no such thing as human rights, but there is such a thing as the right to define human rights. That doesn't make a lot of sense, champ.
I'm arguing that the "right" to define basic human rights extends beyond a country's borders to the rest of the global community.