ness31 wrote:To call the UK racist is just silly
It is not silly at all, it is simply a fact, that this Hostile Environment policy is a racist policy that has caused serious trouble to several people.
But to label the UK racist is just contrary to facts and a bit mean.
Actually giving me a lecture that people have the right to be sadistic, racist and mean against other people and then calling me mean and silly because I recognise their right but still call it for what it is, is a bit ridiculous, especially when my own human rights are under a direct and very real threat.
One Degree wrote:I have repeatedly pointed out that ‘individual rights’ on their own are not practical, because there is no basis for creating and maintaining civilization. I accept government (community) as a necessity. It should never be larger than what is necessary for a vibrant civilization or it becomes too authoritarian.
You repeatedly claim that conservative libertarians care more about community rights than liberals who supposedly care more about individual rights than libertarians. But your argument is simply not true, conservative libertarians care more about individual rights than classical liberals.
You are arguing the UN should overrule all and now arguing for local autonomy for California?
I am not arguing that the UN should overrule anyone, the UN definition of racism is the working definition that all countries in the planet have collectively agreed, the UN has not overruled them in any way, the countries of the world have made this definition. And this definition does not overrule anything, nor does it have any legal effect on anyone. Has your own unknown definition any legal effect on anyone?
We are both forced to alter our philosophy to address existing realities. It doesn’t mean we changed our philosophy.
No dear, I am not a hypocrite and I am not altering any ideology of mine to suit my purposes like you are. I have not made any statement that local government should overrule national government or that national should overrule transnational government or vice-versa. You
made the argument that local government should overrule national government, but in the example I gave you about California deciding locally what to do with immigrants, you disagree with California and insist that Trump at federal level should overrule California's local rights, meaning that your ideology is as good as single-use toilet paper whenever it is convenient to you.
Each autonomous area has to decide what rights they have if any. Personally, this is bizarre to me because there is no reason for illegals to have any rights, but ‘individual rights’ advocates think they should have.
Unless that area is called California and unless she decides that they do not have any human rights.
Once again conservatives are "individual-rights advocates", you seem to be calling human-rights advocates as "individual-rights" advocates which is also wrong.
We are trying to find a balance between these views and decide what rights we will grant them or take away.
And what balance is that? What are the balanced rights in your example?
One Degree wrote:That makes no sense. Agreeing you produced a definition is not agreeing with your position.
You did not agree that I merely produced a definition, you explicitly said:
One Degree wrote:I was not aware of this definition existing. I don’t accept it, but it does justify your claims.
So drop the act. It's not good being so dishonest about your own statements.
basically nothing other than a liberal mouthpiece
And you are a conservative libertarian mouthpiece that seeks to defend racist policies. Your argument is entirely based on semantics and victimisation. Why should we go with your individual definition of racism whatever that is and not with the definition that 192 countries and their elected governments have collective agreed upon? Besides ad-hom-ing the UN does not attack the definition one bit. What is wrong with the definition of racism? You haven't said. You are doing the exact thing that you whine daily of others doing to you without even bothering to address the definition itself quite unlike all these others. You are seeking to categorise it as "liberal" and dismiss it while spending numerous pages literally whining that liberals categorise you as "racist" in order to dismiss you.
But noone has called you racist, we have called this UK government policy racist and have proved why that is so. It is your individual choice to defend this racist policy and assume this position without even attempting to show why that policy is not racist.
Glad we agree I am right. Truism
EN EL ED EM ON
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...