Should Saudi Arabia be on the U.N. Human Rights Council?

[Sengiratolom]

Great idea to make a slavedriver/torturer/executioner with a governing form belonging to the dark ages the head of a human rights council, we live in that time period afterall. Oh wait, we don't....

[HumbleDuck]

No. They should not. They are the embodiment of every thing we despise in the modern world. They are primitive, tribal, violent, rasict, extremely closed minded and anti free speech by the very core.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...Rights-Council
Here is a nother thread I made for the same argument. You can just read some responses from Saudi people in the comments and I don't think there would be any doubt on the subject.

[chrykoolaid]

no way in hell, saudi arabias Wahhabi culture does not show any sorts of human rights

[Stacyrect]

Hell no

/10char

[Mehrunes]

Everything is un-American to Hooked, even the American stuff.

Even Trump?

Do they "totally shit on human rights" or do they do so according to our vision of how human rights should be viewed?

But our vision of human rights stems from UN. It's one and the same.

[Quien Soy Yo]

On a technical basis, I'm sure I'll be getting a memo from the Pope too, but as a general statement I remain correct. Even so-called elective monarchies are not selected by popular vote.

Yes but #NotAllMonarchs

In the struggle for a moral high horse -- excuse me, I mean high ground -- most countries are in a questionable situation when viewed from the outside. The US is no exception. Saudi Arabia isn't particularly different, they cut off heads while we poison people to dispose of them. Seen from the outside, in the terms of a country which has abolished the death penalty, it is an argument about which way to kill someone is less barbaric.

Do they "totally shit on human rights" or do they do so according to our vision of how human rights should be viewed?

This Easterners are fundamentally incompatible with Westerners dichotomy needs to drop dead or be murdered outirght.

[satimy]

How did that work for you in the Middle East?

we didnt conquer the middle east, we tried to occupy and save it.

[Mayhem]

we didnt conquer the middle east, we tried to occupy and save it.

Worked out well, really can´t see how that idea failed in anyway.

[GennGreymane]

[satimy]

Worked out well, really can´t see how that idea failed in anyway.

It was a horrible idea, military strategy has never been about saving and protecting people. It been about killing people.

[shadowmouse]

But our vision of human rights stems from UN. It's one and the same.

Not even close to the case. For one, our view of human rights predates the establishment of the UN.

This Easterners are fundamentally incompatible with Westerners dichotomy needs to drop dead or be murdered outirght.

As I believe you said ... wha? That's rather a random interjection.

[Quien Soy Yo]

As I believe you said ... wha? That's rather a random interjection.

I could expand on this and the errors in your relativist ways if you take me out for coffee first. (*^-^*)

[Deleted]

It was a horrible idea, military strategy has never been about saving and protecting people. It been about killing people.

So your "plan" to "conquer" the world involves standing on a big huge pile of ashes at the end of it?
What does that gain you exactly? You would have quite literally destroyed the world and what wasn't destroyed of the USA is in shambles.
Tos tart with the announcement that you want to kill everyone means everyone will be willing to fight you.
Meaning you got 1,5 million soldiers vs a few billion people. Don't argue now that you could just conscript more people, your economy wouldn't be able to take that if it was able to take war on that scale without the lack of workers anyway.

[shadowmouse]

I could expand on this and the errors in your relativist ways if you take me out for coffee first.

Coffee in Beijing tends toward the horrid, it would serve you right for trying to deflect into relativism.

[Quien Soy Yo]

Coffee in Beijing tends toward the horrid, it would serve you right for trying to deflect into relativism.

Why does every foreigner ever always corrupt the taste of coffee? (︶︹︺)

Welp, there should always be hot chocolate, tea, and various fruit drinks available so I guess I'm safe for now.

[Mehrunes]

Not even close to the case. For one, our view of human rights predates the establishment of the UN.

And yet the backbone of legislature on that that isn't about laws of warfare did not only not predate the UN, it was created by it. UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR are all UN's creations.

[shadowmouse]

And yet the backbone of legislature on that that isn't about laws of warfare did not only not predate the UN, it was created by it. UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR are all UN's creations.

In some ways, that may be part of the problem. The UN is not a world government, it is a forum that produces a series of agreements. Yes, the things you refer to are products of that process, but it would be disingenuous to claim that the world had no discussion of human rights and no fixed feelings of any sort before the UN was created. The mere creation of the UN, as yet one more attempt to set up some form of world congress, shows that wasn't the case.

The UN is trying to herd cats. Consider taking a look at works such as Nisbett's The Geography of Thought: http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Thou.../dp/0743255356 Different regions aren't simply relying on different religious works, philosophers and history -- there is reason to think that they aren't even processing that information the same way.

Consider the word "beautiful". Foreign language dictionaries make it look like we can translate this word into other languages: http://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/...ang_pretty.htm There, you know 漂亮 should mean beautiful. What the dictionary cannot tell you (and may even make hard to understand) is that the words may be equivalent, but the ideas may differ. Pick up a beauty magazine from the US and another from China, you'll start to notice small things aren't the same at all. That's just a beauty magazine. As skilled as UN translators are, imagine the nuances that get lost when it comes to something like human rights.

Why does every foreigner ever always corrupt the taste of coffee?

Well, fellow foreigner, I'd guess neither of us are Ethiopian, so we'll have to ask them. In Beijing, I'd chalk it up to a lack of specialty roasters, we're pretty well stuck with chain coffee at best. Oddly, Yunnan charcoal roasted coffee isn't bad, but it doesn't show up in local coffee places.

Welp, there should always be hot chocolate, tea, and various fruit drinks available so I guess I'm safe for now.

You know not the horror of the truth. Hot chocolate is a myth, and fruit drinks tend to be things like sour plum juice or apple vinegar. I know, you're thinking "Bungee, there must be orange juice" . There is, if you accept that plastic bottles of Sunkist are filled with orange juice. There *is* tea though, as long as by tea you mean white, green or oolong. Just be careful about counterfeit tea. <bungee goes back to drinking a mug of the good stuff ... Nescafe instant without added sugar and creamer!>

[Oktoberfest]

UN should be only exist as a giant diplomacy table. It shouldnt have any powers or armies.

[GrinnersGrin]

What is the UN if not principles, morality, and peace? Guess which two don't apply to Saudi Arabia.

Also, this line of "thought" is why people call Liberalism a disease.

If it makes your sanity feel better, I was being sarcastic