walrusbear
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,261
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
is this assumption correct, by the way? (it may be of course, but it seems like a grand claim to make on the fly)Not-That-Bright said:1. ok
2. yes, because it is the (imo) best model. Of course however, I don't see where my sort of 'rule' for when intervention is necessary exactly differs from that of the UN's.
The UN only ever seems to intervene when an oppressive government has been doing things the majority of their nations population disagree's with, or when a nation does something that adversely affects another nation.
3.I have my own belief of what common standards/rights are, other people have their own beliefs... For instance, the majority of australians probably feel the death penalty is wrong. However, the majority of indonesians probably feel it is a just thing to do...
Who am I to say i'm objectively right?
And sure, perhaps in the future we may need an international standard for ALL human beings, based not on how much "power" your country has, and not based on the number of "votes" but based on some sort of international referendum (which of course... could also be tainted).
I feel for now the simplest way is to maintain the concept of a 'nation'.
also rich you should question the concept of objectivity at this point
you of all people on this board seem to assume a position of being 'right' and vehemently criticise opposing opinion often with paltry, ill-considered and empty crap (i point to your response to my suggestion that your argument is inherently supremacist).
anyways, i take pride in being one of the only one's here to know that NONE of us know shit and, self-conscious of all flaws, offer an opinion to try to challenge the status quo conservative nonsense (imo of course) this board thrives on.