[General Battuta]

The whole point of universal human rights is that they're universal. We say they are - but that's true of any morality.

We can impose them on people for the same reason we can step in to prevent genocide.

[Kosh]

Besides, FGM isn't restricted to Muslims. It's an African tradition, not a Muslim one.

I know that, but this was an example as to how others don't believe in human rights.

The thing that's being complained about isn't true.

Explain.

We can impose them on people

But then that wouldn't be respecting their culture, would it?

[General Battuta]

Cultural rights only extend to the point where they don't infringe universal human rights.

We violate lesser rights (sovereignty) to preserve greater rights (freedom from genocide) as a matter of course.

[Liberator]

And yet, when some of us do it, we get yelled at by the others.  Called "Imperialists" and worse.  You don't see the least bit of hypocrisy in that?

[Nuclear1]

No, we get called "imperialists" when we overthrow democratically-elected regimes or destabilize regions of the world for our own gain.

Hell, if we did step in half the places in the world where human rights are being violated...but we don't get any benefit from telling the Saudis to treat their people humanely.  Or stopping the junta in Burma.  Or stopping sweatshops in Southeast Asia.  Or stabilizing Pakistan.  

See what I mean?  We stand for human rights and democracy when it best suits our interests, not because we actually give two ****s.  

[el_magnifico]

No, we get called "imperialists" when we overthrow democratically-elected regimes or destabilize regions of the world for our own gain.

Hell, if we did step in half the places in the world where human rights are being violated...but we don't get any benefit from telling the Saudis to treat their people humanely.  Or stopping the junta in Burma.  Or stopping sweatshops in Southeast Asia.  Or stabilizing Pakistan.  

See what I mean?  We stand for human rights and democracy when it best suits our interests, not because we actually give two ****s.  

Sorry to have to point this out, but that is true.
Not that it was entirely your fault (at least here in Argentina, the local population is also to be blamed for our bloody past), or that communist terrorists were any better.

But now authoritarian leftists of all kinds can usually rally a lot of support each time they do something awfully wrong just by saying "The US is conspiring to overthrow the popular government!".

[Kosh]

No, we get called "imperialists" when we overthrow democratically-elected regimes or destabilize regions of the world for our own gain.

Hell, if we did step in half the places in the world where human rights are being violated...but we don't get any benefit from telling the Saudis to treat their people humanely.  Or stopping the junta in Burma.  Or stopping sweatshops in Southeast Asia.  Or stabilizing Pakistan. 

See what I mean?  We stand for human rights and democracy when it best suits our interests, not because we actually give two ****s. 

I think we was reffering to so called "cultural imperialism", as in people wanting to be more like us because they see hollywood movies or something like that.

[Liberator]

Well the must see something they like or they wouldn't mimic...

Seriously though, with the advent of the internet and near instantaneous access to information and communication world wide, we're going to see a significantly larger, faster and unstoppable smoothing of culture across the globe.  As Louis Wu pointed out several times in his various appearances, Earth is(will be) full of Flatlanders.

[BengalTiger]

The whole point of universal human rights is that they're universal. We say they are - but that's true of any morality.

We can impose them on people for the same reason we can step in to prevent genocide.

You have no right to impose anything on anyone if it would limit any of their rights (and I'd say imposing anything violates the part of article 1 which says everyone is born free). There's also no article about losing universal human rights as a consequence of breaking them (there should be).

[General Battuta]

So, are you arguing that we should not step in to prevent genocide, because it would restrict their right to kill other people?

That's not a right.

Similarly, who has a right to mutilate women? Nobody.

[iamzack]

Nobody cares when it's only poor black people suffering.

[Kosh]

Nobody cares when it's only poor black people suffering.

Because most of the time it's blacks killing and/or mutilating other blacks.

[NGTM-1R]

Because most of the time it's blacks killing and/or mutilating other blacks.

Because that makes it okay.

[Kosh]

No it doesn't, but it makes it harder to care when they themselves dont are about eachother.

[iamzack]

...uhm, what?

It's humans killing humans no matter what ****ing color they are. It's just as horrible for a black person to kill a black person as for a white person to kill a black person or a black person to kill a white person.

Because the people being massacred by the LRA are the same color as their murderers, it's okay to not care? What the **** is wrong with you?

[Kosh]

...uhm, what?

It's humans killing humans no matter what ****ing color they are. It's just as horrible for a black person to kill a black person as for a white person to kill a black person or a black person to kill a white person.

Because the people being massacred by the LRA are the same color as their murderers, it's okay to not care? What the **** is wrong with you?

Believe it or not western countries largely used to be just like that, endless wars, both civil and foreign, looting armies ransacking helpless villagers, yes we've seen it all before. But now, mostly, those days are gone. France, Germany and Britain aren't having they hundred years wars anymore. Western europe evolved out of it, but the africans didn't. Eventually they probably will, but not for a long time.

Take a good look at our history, and you'll find many parrelels with what is happening today in many parts of the third world.

[General Battuta]

Troll.

(Unless you're actually not aware of the reasons why Africa is in such a state of chaos...and who's responsible.)

[Nuclear1]

That's all I've got to say.



Alright, seriously, Africa was exploited and stripped of its natural resources by Europeans for hundreds of years, and now that the limited resources are being fought for by the natives who they rightfully belonged to, it's the natives' fault they can't stop fighting each other?

[Liberator]

And here I thought it was because there was inter-Tribal warfare and insults and stuff going back hundreds or thousands of years before the Europeans "discovered" the place, which in modern times is preyed up and used by power monger scumbags to grab and hold power for as long as they can and usually come to violent bloody ends.

/imperialist
The only real way to end the violence is to cow the masses with a display of massive force!  Wipe Somalia from the map, pave over the charred smoking bones and turn it into Disneyland Africa!
/sarcasm off

[Nuclear1]

Africa had resources, they had just never had the capability to exploit them before the colonial powers came along and did that for them.  They just never actually saw the profits.

The tribal stuff gets played today because, like Bosch said, old wounds open all too easily.