Slashdot Mirror

Strange, I don't see Scotland here:
http://www.un.org/en/member-st...

Or here:
http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls...

The UK has internationally recognised lands and assets. If Scotland wants to leave the union, they can ask nicely for some of them. They can have them - but they can have the debt associated with them too.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of how the law works in this area.

No, I merely have the ability to rip apart your pathetic arguments that continue to come out of your imagination. No more. Reply if you want but I wont even read it.

The theory (I'll call this The Theory) goes like this: If you give free food to Africa, you'll price out African farmers who will starve because they have nothing else to do. And then the people will starve when you stop donating food.

That complaint seriously misses the point. Let me tell you why: African farmers don't need to farm. They need to do something that pays for what they need. Any work will do, really. As long as an unskilled person can do it. So there are three possibilities here: Industrialization is impossible for African nations (so there can't be other work) OR there isn't enough investment to drive industry (so the farmers can't get other work) OR technological unemployment now makes unskilled work insufficiently profitable to support a person.

Now African farmers are already doing something otherwise (effectively entirely) done by machine in first world countries. A farm in Europe requires far, far less human labor. A European farmer's job is more in the line of managing machines, scheduling planting, organizing finances, and so forth. You won't see him on his knees weeding a patch of land. You won't see him with a scythe in his hand at harvest time. You won't even see him helping a pig give birth or tending a sick cow* An EU farm averages "...an average size of 16.1 hectares per agricultural holding. An average EU farm has less than one person see here. 12 million farms, 10 million farmers.

If the above theory about farmers going out of work is to be believed then it's impossible for farming to make up a significant percentage of employment. Otherwise the complaint would be invalid. So the farming singularity has not arrived in Africa. I'm going to beg the question that a strong industrial economy and a service economy also haven't, I think it's obvious. This leaves the third possible support for The Theory completely without support. In Africa unskilled labor can still pay what passes for a living wage. On to the first possibility.

The statistics here tell us that Africa has averaged a 3 to 6 percent increase in GDP for the last decade. This is despite AIDS, Malaria, pants-on-head retarded or just evil actions by African politicians, revolutionary wars, and otherwise being the unwashed asshole of the world. More to the point, this increase represents industrialization. For evidence see this economic diversification report.

It may not be enough yet, or even certain but it is happening.

Going back to africaneconomicoutlook.org if we look at table 10, foreign direct investment we see that the middle objection to food exports to Africa is quite strong. Africa has averaged 51 billion dollars per year of direct foreign investment. For a whole continent that's shockingly small. As shown by continual growth through massive problems... problems that are going away one by one, Africa is at the cusp of a new era. All that needs to be done is entice a rational amount of foreign investment (say, 400 billion dollars per year) by parties interested in money, not power (actual economic investment, not strings-attached economic manipulation) and it will industrialize at a clip only seen so far in China's rise to power.

If that happens:
1. The Theory's complaint will be rendered moot very quickly by African farmers reaching par for productivity.
2. Food can be freely given on the basis that the vast majority of

You should stop reading faux news - the Ghanaians are producing their own cars http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/29/africa/ghana-katanka-cars-feat/index.html - and even bicycles made from bamboo http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2014/08/bamboo-bikes-initiative-ghana/

2 billion move out of extreme poverty over 25 years, says UN report

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Source: http://www.un.org/en/universal...

I like the list but they don't count in Guantanamo Bay.

So your objection to the claim "hottest year on record" is purely because your definition of how it should be calculated is different to NOAA's? And different to NASA, the Met Office Hadley Centre, the WMO, and the ECMWF, based on separate analyses of all three major dataset - they all agree that 2015 was the hottest year on record. Good luck convincing them that they're all wrong while your simplistic method is the only meaningful approach. Maybe start with trying to get a paper about that through peer review.

And the NOAA page I linked above has links to FAQs describing collection and processing, full datasets, and the papers describing their methodologies - all there for anyone who is interested enough to click through.

Listen, little tough guy, you're not impressing (or schooling) anybody. Before you get all impressed with yourself at bursting my bubble, I'm a fucking atheist, you twit. I know full well there is no invisible man that lives in the sky, and have no illusions about that, m'kay?

Now as for your "two types of people" thing, you're right, you are in the second group.....they're called imbeciles. If you honestly believe that these texts have nothing to do with either religion, when you obviously have absolutely no understanding of either and are just pontificating from whatever you're dreaming up in that head of yours.

But I digress, that isn't really the point here, is it? The point of this whole thread was the folks who are trying to link this type of terrorist violence to a religion (thus all the talk about religion and texts). I'm illustrating that the religions have nothing to do with it, and I'm countering arguments by other morons who like to cite the "violent" passages in the Koran by showing them that the Bible is no better. They don't seem to like that. And you don't seem to like the fact that I can prove my point. So let me get your position straight here. So if the KKK had more press lately, and had committed more mass atrocities more recently, then the argument works, but since they haven't been getting a lot of air time lately, it's not the same thing. Is that it? The Westboro assholes aren't big enough, and they haven't detonated any bombs yet, so they're good, even though they specifically exist to incite hatred and bigotry, it's not a big deal, and not at all proof that Christians do bad shit, is that it?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you probably have a reason in mind that I can't point to Hitler (also a Christian)....probably too long ago, huh? Never mind the 6,000,000 dead.....that's old news, huh? How about this guy , or maybe these folks ? No? Are we allowed to count these guys ?

Probably not. I'm sure you have a reason that you've dreamed up that they're totally different and therefore, they don't count.

I love how guys like you believe you're super informed and intelligent, but it never occurs to you that when you spend 16 years raining fucking bombs down on a country, eventually, the poor, uneducated, starving people in that country might rise up and right back, in whatever rag-tag militia that they can cobble together.....nah, you just focus on the fact that they're called Muslims, and therefore, Muslims=bad. The reality is, your a fucking hack, dude. You know squat, and talk all the shit you want, but you KNOW I'm right here. You're off base, I tried to be nice, but you wanted to be a condescending prick about it.

Seriously, read a little bit sometimes. Stop dreaming up your own delusions, and for goodness sake, stop listening to Rush and Drumpf.

You're correct, though the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction treaty was signed in 1997, and has since then accumulated 133 signatory parties all doing their part, keeping those EOD boys and girls excited.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/...

AP Mines are recognized as pure evil, and we no longer make and sell them to dictators and such. (or at least that's what we SAY) Our evils are much smarter now, and the smarter evils will keep getting smarter. This is the discussion we need to be having. As the IT crowd, we all know there is a host of very bad things that can go wrong with the use of even semi-autonomous anythings..... for countless reasons, not the least being security. I wouldn't want to be the guy fusing and/or priming the boomboom box that operates on some remote signal, doubly so in a populated place like a munitions depot or air force garrison full of bored soldiers and airmen on their smartphones.

land mines are autonomous weapons, no human is in the decision loop to fire when the preset conditions for detonation are met.

http://www.un.org/en/globaliss...

...a life on the run...

Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/universal...

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (signed by US and most countries on earth) would beg to differ.

http://www.un.org/en/universal...

have a look at articles 24, 25 and 26 ...

article 24 - reasonable limitations on hours of work required. paid vacation is mandatory.
article 25 - guaranteed minimum income
article 26 - accessible education for all

Looking over that, I'd say that this basic minimum wage guaranteed is simply a means to comply with the United Nations declaration of universal human rights.

=begin gadfly
As far as I know, this declaration is for humans only, not robots, not corporate "humans" (that frankenstein creation of SCOTUS), not military contractors with their guaranteed cost plus corporate welfare that dwarfs the cost of this plan.
=end gadfly

Using lasers to blind individuals is a violation of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons signed by 105 countries including the United States and the United Kingdom. So I suppose from a legal philosophy perspective, calling the use of lasers to interfere with a person's vision an offensive weapon isn't that big of a stretch.

" ... The new record was caused by the long-term warming of the planet due to human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, combined with a extra bump in temperature due to the strongest El Niño event ever recorded in the Eastern Pacific. ..."

This is, of course, the Kool-Aid of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); here is another summary from the IPCC's webpage:

" ... the human influence on the climate system is clear and is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. ..."
http://www.un.org/climatechang...

This has nothing to do with whether Global Warming is real or imagined; it's about the causes of Global Warming. There is (at least) one other contributing factor, namely a historical record of patterns in Earth's climate that predicts that we should be experiencing a warming trend, regardless of human activities.

The reason is the IPCC is limited to considering the human activities affecting Global Climate and is prohibited from even considering any other cause, including the Geological record.

In other words, when you read that humans are the only cause of Global Warming, you are drinking the IPCC Kool-Aid, which is a very narrow view of the issue that specifically ignores well regarded science on the subject. Ignoring science is a poor method to investigate the causes of Climate Change.

Article 23 implemented in you constitution?

http://www.un.org/en/universal...

That is in NO WAY a scientific position, it is 100% a POLITICAL position.

Bullshit. Just because it's not phrased in scientific-journal-language doesn't mean its contents aren't scientific. Sure, saying "death" instead of using clean, nice scientific terminology is a different way of putting it, but it is a scientific position, because continuing the thought from the immediate effects to the consequences is necessary.

Coal power plants also provide very cheap electricity.

You might want to double-check it. In my country, coal is only cheap because of hidden government subsidies.

Citation required. To get energy from coal the steps are trivial. Pick up lump of coal from the ground, light lump of coal on fire, done. Sorry to burst your bubble, but developing nations aren't running on coal because of a deep seeded desire to subsidize the coal industry or something. It is the cheapest and easiest way to produce energy right now. I'm all in favour of switching over to nuclear power as France already did years ago. Truth be told, if anybody was taking climate change seriously 30 years ago we'd have already switched over to nuclear on a large scale. The environmental movement though made sure to exhaust themselves crushing that idea, Greenpeace is still trying to crush nuclear for that matter :(.

We aren't talking about the seas rising by metres in our kids life times

According to the WHO, we are talking about five million additional deaths from the health side effects of climate change alone.

The UN is talking about seven million premature deaths per year due to pollution.

Google a little for youself and you will find much, much more.

"Your children will die from this shit" is quite an adequate summary, IMHO.

You seem a bit confused on what your sources are saying. Your WHO report, which they acknowledge is very approximate spreads out the 5 million deaths you quote over 20 years. The UN report you cite is NOT deaths from CO2 or climate change, it is deaths from all the other toxic crap that gets burned up from coal. It does cite 7 million per year, but if that's what the non-CO2 pollution is causing today, I'm thinking the priority should be on that part. Focusing on the very approximate 5 million that might die over a span of 20 years sometime after 2030 seems the wrong focus.

If we want to get off coal, climate change is the least of the reasons to do so. As you've already referenced, 7 million die each year to air pollution, and WHO's estimates expect climate change to kill less than that over a span of 20.

China is probably the biggest body count for excess deaths to air pollution. That said, the crazy amount of coal they are burning has also allowed them to move their economy forward. Since the 30-40 million that died in China leading into 1960, the per capita GDP has come from a 1962 low of $83.33 to a 2014 all time high of $3865.88.

But abject poverty doesn't kill anybody does it? If only they knew that using coal was worse for them than dying penniless in a ditch.

That is in NO WAY a scientific position, it is 100% a POLITICAL position.

Bullshit. Just because it's not phrased in scientific-journal-language doesn't mean its contents aren't scientific. Sure, saying "death" instead of using clean, nice scientific terminology is a different way of putting it, but it is a scientific position, because continuing the thought from the immediate effects to the consequences is necessary.

Coal power plants also provide very cheap electricity.

You might want to double-check it. In my country, coal is only cheap because of hidden government subsidies.

We aren't talking about the seas rising by metres in our kids life times

According to the WHO, we are talking about five million additional deaths from the health side effects of climate change alone.

The UN is talking about seven million premature deaths per year due to pollution.

Google a little for youself and you will find much, much more.

"Your children will die from this shit" is quite an adequate summary, IMHO.

Ah yes, saying "Israel isn't as bad as the anti-Semitic racists claim" is a Holocaust denial.

Ah, favorite tactics of neo-Nazis in Israel. It's getting old.

Being against Israel does not mean that one is antisemitic. But let's try to flip it - I think that you are anti-Arabic, since you clearly don't support the Palestinian state actions. That of course means that you want to commit a genocide of all Arabs.

I'm the devil, for being able to look at things objectively. That's an offensive skill these days.

No, you're just a pseudo-Nazi. Except that you are targeting a different ethnic group. "Israel isn't that bad" might have worked 15 years ago. Not now. Now we see that it's just as bad as Arabic states around it.

This is a good start, but it isn't complete, due to politics:

http://www.un.org/en/universal...

Judaism certainly has problematic concepts as well. Islam wants to convert us, Ovadia Yosef just wanted to rule us.

The establishment of Israel makes it in my opinion inevitable that religious Judaism will change into a form pushing for the annexation of the temple mount and the promised land in general ... the orthodox outside Israel might maintain the illegitimacy of Israel, but the ones inside won't be able to unite the dichotomy for long. See the changing rabbinic opinions about visitations to temple mount for instance. There is also a demographic shift under way away from secularism.

As for what religious Judaism might consider the promised land, lets just say it's not cut and dry :

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL....

An Ayatollah or a Haredi with a finger on the button, seems about equally as scary a thought to me.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/met...

Mexico is part of Central America. Other definitions may place Mexico in N.America.

The ringleader of the cryptolocker gang is Evgeniy Bogachev, aka "lucky12345" and "slavik". He's praised as a hero back home.

The simple facts are that most of these programs trace back to organized crime in Russia, which takes advantage of the fact that Russia shelters them from extradition.

Now, do I even need to go into any of the absurdity that you posted? Meh, let's do it for fun.

1. Malware != advertising spam

2. Advertizing spam is spread by botnets with service purchased from the operators of the botnets. The companies whose products are being plugged are not the same people who compromised or run the botnets (the latter two which can also be separate entities)

3. The most common currency to ask for in advertizing spam is US dollars because it's the most universal currency on the planet (the second most common spam currency to see is euros). It's the same reason that most spam is in English. However, some spammers do tailor their spam lists by region.

4. The US has never been against an extradition treaty with Russia - the US always seeks bilateral extradition treaties where possible. Russia is always against extradition treaties - not just with the US, but with everyone. Extradition is a violation of article 61 of the Russian constitution: "A Russian citizen cannot be sent beyond the borders of the Russian Federation or given to another state"

5. The UN inspection team did have the rights to go into any company in Iraq, under resolution 1441 - which was introduced and highly sought after by the US.

6. The US never vetoed any resolutions related to Iraq.

7. The US did not have any chemical companies operating in Iraq at the time of the inspections. Iraq was under sanctions.

You are correct on one aspect, however: The US does in all extradition treaties require exemption of US soldiers for actions involved in armed conflict.

The ringleader of the cryptolocker gang is Evgeniy Bogachev, aka "lucky12345" and "slavik". He's praised as a hero back home.

The simple facts are that most of these programs trace back to organized crime in Russia, which takes advantage of the fact that Russia shelters them from extradition.

Now, do I even need to go into any of the absurdity that you posted? Meh, let's do it for fun.

1. Malware != advertising spam

2. Advertizing spam is spread by botnets with service purchased from the operators of the botnets. The companies whose products are being plugged are not the same people who compromised or run the botnets (the latter two which can also be separate entities)

3. The most common currency to ask for in advertizing spam is US dollars because it's the most universal currency on the planet (the second most common spam currency to see is euros). It's the same reason that most spam is in English. However, some spammers do tailor their spam lists by region.

4. The US has never been against an extradition treaty with Russia - the US always seeks bilateral extradition treaties where possible. Russia is always against extradition treaties - not just with the US, but with everyone. Extradition is a violation of article 61 of the Russian constitution: "A Russian citizen cannot be sent beyond the borders of the Russian Federation or given to another state"

5. The UN inspection team did have the rights to go into any company in Iraq, under resolution 1441 - which was introduced and highly sought after by the US.

6. The US never vetoed any resolutions related to Iraq.

7. The US did not have any chemical companies operating in Iraq at the time of the inspections. Iraq was under sanctions.

You are correct on one aspect, however: The US does in all extradition treaties require exemption of US soldiers for actions involved in armed conflict.

Ah the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One of the jewels of post war civilisation.

I wonder when the SJWs will finally declare their fatwa on the whole document. It's really only a matter of time at this stage.

Ah the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One of the jewels of post war civilisation.

I wonder when the SJWs will finally declare their fatwa on the whole document. It's really only a matter of time at this stage.

Thus begins the war on roads, think of the children!

Straight out of page 48 of Agenda 21.

Some people think that this is part of a coordinated effort by governments, worldwide, to increase their own power by coralling the bulk of their populations in high-density urban areas, limiting their access to transportation, and making them totally dependent on government controlled services.

By that model, "Transit oriented developments" (i.e. no space to park a car for you - go only where and when public transit deigns to take you), "walkable neighborhoods", and "getting people over their love affair with cars" (by designing road networks to make commuting and recreational travel difficult and unpleasant) isn't enough. They've been closing roads in much of the rural areas, in the name of "protecting the environment". Next step: Make it a public policy to abandon or close non-wilderness rural roads.

Oil is the big one right now, but water is showing all signs of being the next.

No, it isn't. Water falls out of the sky in most of the world..

Great soundbite, but the problem is most of the world is ocean. Water scarcity is in fact a growing problem, as GP correctly observes.

I've not even heard such a goal proposed before. The panic over population growth isn't as severe as it used to be, as it's becoming clear that population does eventually level off naturally.

When you say, "level off naturally" are you counting the starvation, displacement and epidemics?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/st...

I don't believe the Pope is going to come out and say something like, "limit your families to 2 children" or anything like that. He's not going to endorse abortion. But he's not an idiot. He knows very well that by advocating for more equitable distribution of resources and wealth, and for the education of women, he's effectively insuring smaller families.

If you don't think anyone is violating the treaty, please explain how the US's current system of replacing nukes with newer and better nukes is in keeping with the wording of:

Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

from:
http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/...

How has the US/Russia/etc negotiated in good faith on effective measures ... to nuclear disarmament? It seems that the arsenals are growing, or if shrinking, they are becoming more powerful overall as they are replaced with more modern weapons.

What part of "strict and effective international control" do you think exists?

Iran?

North Korea?

If you're not supportive of continued and probably even STRONGER sanctions against Iran to absolutely prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, you're not supportive of the prime prerequisite for nations such as the US, Russia, China, and France "[negotiating] in good faith on effective measures...".

If you don't think anyone is violating the treaty, please explain how the US's current system of replacing nukes with newer and better nukes is in keeping with the wording of:

Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

from:
http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/...

How has the US/Russia/etc negotiated in good faith on effective measures ... to nuclear disarmament? It seems that the arsenals are growing, or if shrinking, they are becoming more powerful overall as they are replaced with more modern weapons.

According to http://www.un.org/en/members/ , Australia is part of the UN. I think it would then be more accurate to describe this conspiracy as an Australian Government conspiracy than an UN conspiracy.

Let me rephrase because I think you missed the point. Discriminations are generally wielded by a majority against a minority. Your argument that we should let the market decide makes no sense: the majority will not feel the impact of a minority of their customers going elsewhere and thus will not have any reason to change their behavior. So it's a hypocritical way of say minorities should continue to be discriminated against "until the problem goes away".

And here are some parts of the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US helped draft, that you don't seem to be aware of:

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

So you don't understand the difference between the words "minority" and "majority". Thanks for telling everyone.

I totes agree, that guy is a cock mongrel. How dare he imply that all people are created equal, like he's some Jefferson of misogyny. It's almost as bad as the patriarchy's so-called Charter of the United Nations and their oppressive hatespeech about equality and universal peace.

They should know by now that a minority is worth much more than a white guy. It's like duuh, of course you cannot be prejudiced against white cis males, what planet are you from? Stupid cis-scum the lot 'em, right?

(For reference, the UN charter http://www.un.org/en/documents... . Check out Ch 1 2, and Ch 1 3. Specifically,

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; ...)

Note the "without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". Does that sound like the Bechdel test?

Read the link:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/...

  Article II ...not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

What it does not infringe is the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes

  Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

It is called the Non Proliferation Treaty, and the idea is to not allow additional countries to develop nuclear weapons beyond the countries that had developed them before the treaty was finalized in 1996
http://www.un.org/disarmament/...

The central idea being that the existing countries had made it through the cold war without nuking each other and had developed control system mature enough to avoid an accident, while many of the banned countries did not have nukes yet and demonstrated aggressive behavior to wards their neighbors

"I don't know how it works in the US, but the Canadian government cannot refuse a Canadian citizen entry into the country. That's a very good thing."

The right to return is part of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
http://www.un.org/en/documents...

that would be nice but first we have to get conservative religious countries to agree to the UN universal declaration of human rights

http://www.un.org/en/documents...

what happens if you go to a conservative, religious country and say you don't believe in god or are from another religion?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

so conservative religious belief supports moral behavior like not hacking someone to death just for believing different that you, right?

They've saved far more lives than they've taken.

Citation needed. An estimated 15,000 to 20,000 people are killed each year by landmines. What you really mean is that you don't live with them in your community, and are therefore unconcerned by the impact of these killing devices. And now you think autonomous, mobile killing machines is a *good* idea. If you live in the USA, then it might pay to do some research in the militarisation of your police forces - and then think about whether you really want these kinds of things being built by the military-industrial complex.

And reproducing without bounds isn't batshit crazy?

Oh noes problem is too many PPL reproducing like rabid rabbits. Fact many developed countries are seeing negative population growth. If not for immigration USA would be one of them.

http://esa.un.org/unpd/ppp/Fig...

Seems kind of foolish to cling to overpopulation when difference in resource consumption between poor vs rich societies easily exceeds an order of magnitude.

http://worldcentric.org/consci...

We are going to overrun this planets capacity to sustain us. What then?

This has been a recurring sentiment for hundreds of years. I would suggest introspection before committing same mistakes in reasoning as those before you.

Do you know what planets carrying capacity is or can be projected to be 40 years from now?
I personally have no idea. All I know for sure it is far from static and very much a function of need/innovation and how resources are managed.

For all anyone knows in 40 years the world will be completely powered by fusion reactors, all of our food generated by artificial means in factories rather than grown and only remaining reason to pull hydrocarbons out of the ground is production of goods or it could essentially be the same or worse than today. Predictions of the distant future have a habit of being worthless.

There is on the other hand a societal problem of people abusing those who don't or can't conform. It doesn't matter if its the color of your skin or your sexual interests.

Well, of course, that's the whole point - to marginalize the "out group" and in this case, gain political favor by oppressing them.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Russia is a signatory, says:

Article 13: You have the right to move about freely within your country. You also have the right to travel to and from your own country, and to leave any country.

And this has always been interpreted to mean "in the common manner of travel", not that humans must be allowed to crawl from place to place through a forest while dragging a dead ox. So Russia's claim is a clear human rights violation by the standards of International Law (not that it has power) even if they aren't protected by their own laws.

But propaganda is a powerful thing. You should hear the number of Americans who parrot the "driving is a privilege" propaganda that Drivers Ed. courses teach, despite the UDHR and the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. It's a powerful technique, and even after people have had the logic shown to them, they will still argue for the diminution of their own rights, because to acknowledge them would be to create a moral imperative to action, and that's not entertaining.

It's article 16 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

I wish people like you would quit pretending it doesn't exist.

It's considered a universal human right to be secure in your own body.

Articles II and III of the treaty are pertinent:

Article II

Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Article III

States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.

By Article II, the US cannot make a sovereign claim to an an asteroid and assign mineral rights as it does on other federal lands, unless it abrogates the treaty. By Article III, "use of ... celestial bodies, in accordance with international law", it seems similar to mining on the sea floor in international waters, which is governed by an international authority.

Canada doesn't start wars. It ends them. We have committed more troops to UN peacekeeping efforts than any other country.

Sorry for nitpicking - and I'm really not trying to trivialize any country's peace contributions - but I can't find anything to back up this claim. Canada doesn't even seem to be in the top ten in terms of troop contributions.

I've checked:

• google
• UN's site

Let's get this straight: you're so rabidly anti-public-spending that you're willing to trample all over article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for it? (And no, the USA is not exempt.) It makes me sad that a supposedly intelligent person can seriously suggest things like this, and makes me fear for the future of American democracy. What ever happened to "freedom"? Does that only count when it comes to guns?

Thinking about Card's Hierarchy of Foreigness will give you an idea what these people are trying to accomplish.

http://ansible.wikia.com/wiki/...

They are basically trying to have chimps and dolphins reclassified as raman, not as humans, not as djur. Raman don't get citizen rights such as voting, but the non-state related parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ought to apply to them as persons.

http://www.un.org/en/documents...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12. And the UDHR was ratified in June 1992 and signed into law by Pres. Bush.

The constitution provides for the process, which has been followed.

Of course, one might cynically note many other actions that appear to be against the law, yet go unprosecuted; or indeed laws that conflict with international obligations as established by treaty, or laws that conflict with the constitution.

(Yes, I know parent was being rhetorical).

I can only hope. From your fingers to God's eyes.

I'm sure someone will trot out the "but countries that have banned guns..." yes indeed, they have pretty much eliminated gun violence. Of course criminals moved onto knives, bats, and other things. Which is why in a place like the UK if you're under 18 you can't buy a knife easily, and why assault with a weapon is the most commonly laid charge with "blunt force, or lacerations" being the primary indicator in cases of death or AS.

I'm sure someone with an agenda will start modding this into oblivion, and I say "disprove it." The stats are out there, you can see them yourself on wikipedia and can order them under FOIA/Open Access in various countries. You don't like it? Tough, it's reality. You want it changed, fix the problem.

The stats are out there but the stats don't back you up. Checking the UN's Intentional homicide, number and rate per 100,000 population For 2008, we have Canada at 1.8, the UK at 1.3 and the US at 4.6. So yes, not allowing people to walk around armed to the teeth really does seem to help.

Today, 54 per cent of the worldâ(TM)s population lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 66 per cent by 2050

http://www.un.org/en/developme...

Has it ever occurred to you that it's possible Cuban Law is simply wrong on this point?

Has it ever occurred to you that the Cubans have the right to defend themselves? Because that's the right you are denying them. When the US interest are attacked, you don't ask for justification to invade your attacker. Yet when Cuba is, you claim that Cuban law is "wrong" for wanting to defend themselves.

Terrible straw-man. I mentioned some pretty drastic steps they could have taken to defend themselves that would not have convinced me they want the embargo to go away.

My argument has always been that their method of defending themselves was so extreme that they had to know it would guarantee the embargo continued until Obama left office.

In a world with nuclear weapons proportionality has to be a very important part of determining whether one state was overly-aggressive in defending itself. Otherwise the Russians get to nuke Kiev over Crimea.

Since you're talking about practice the actual letter of the law is irrelevant. What matters is convictions. Name one whose been convicted.
Seriously. Name a single person convicted of being an unregistered foreign agent who was not a citizen of the US.

The Cuban Five. Notice how I ignore the "not a citizen of the US part". Being a citizen of the US had nothing to do with the convictions: they were convicted for failing to register as agents, for "conspiracy to commit espionage" (even though the prosecution couldn't prove that any secret document was leaked) and "conspiracy to commit murder" (even though they had no way of knowing the outcome).

You set up arbitrary rules that effectively stop Cuba from defending themselves (like being free to enter the US without registering and being citizens). You asked earlier, that's what I meant by arbitrary. The Cubans don't play by those rules, because those "rules", besides made up, imply "just sit there and do nothing while we invade you." You cannot unilaterally make up a rule that benefits you and then claim foul when the other party unilaterally decides to ignore it.

It's so convenient for you to ignore essence of my argument. At least you admit this one is a straw man.

For the record, when they accepted US Citizenship the Cuban Five swore to obey our laws, and give up all foreign allegiances.

You realize you;re talking about thought crimes. He didn't have to do anything, but those thought he thought while he was in Washington DC were anti-Cuban, so he can be charged with thinking them while he was in Havana.

Sigh. Again. He acted in Cuba. And it's rich that you speak about thought crimes, given that the "conspiracy" charges are essentially thought crimes too, and you don't seem to have any problem with those, as long as they are not directed against your agents. But again, irrelevant, he wasn't convicted for sitting in DC thinking about what he was going to do. He was convicted for going to Cuba and doing his part in the conspiracy.

You do realize I've already conceded that the things he actually did in Cuba were crimes under Cuban jurisdiction? So your argument so far consists of straw men and repeating a point I'd already agreed with.

Your problem is most of the things you charge him with happened outside of Cuba. He didn't plan to overthrow the Cuban government from his hotel. The plan was already in place. He didn't go to Havana and then volunteer to be a spy.

In international relations when something pisses you off you don't bitch about in press releases for 25 flights, and then go straight for the jugular.

Read some history. They didn't "bitch about it in press releases for 25 flights", they denounced it, repeatedly, to the US authorities, only to be ignor