|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 21, 2022 12:20:41 GMT
. . .Sweden did a survey of their asylum seekers and found that 80% actually returned to these 'dangerous' countries for a holiday after they were granted asylum. . . . link please |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 21, 2022 12:39:06 GMT
I see you are all human rights lawyers now, firstly they are lying to receive those human rights and secondly we are being drawn in by them.So basically you are arguing the case for criminals. Which isn't the first time either. Had you bothered to read you'd have seen I was actually shredding Sandy's deliberately false assertion so you snide little rant and further false assertion is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Do fuck off. What's snide about it, should have done what you were told for your own good. Straight up honest. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 21, 2022 12:43:27 GMT
Had you bothered to read you'd have seen I was actually shredding Sandy's deliberately false assertion so you snide little rant and further false assertion is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Do fuck off. What's snide about it, should have done what you were told for your own good. Straight up honest. if you can't see what was snide you are a lost cause not worth replying to. Toodle Pip |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 21, 2022 12:44:47 GMT
What's snide about it, should have done what you were told for your own good. Straight up honest. if you can't see what was snide you are a lost cause not worth replying to. Toodle Pip No I cannot, so best you back up your nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 21, 2022 12:51:59 GMT
Oh FFS Sheepy educate yourself www.dictionary.com/browse/snide 'derogatory in a nasty insinuating manner' Now look at what you posted: 'I see you are all human rights lawyers now, firstly they are lying to receive those human rights and secondly we are being drawn in by them.So basically you are arguing the case for criminals. Which isn't the first time either.'QED |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 21, 2022 12:53:57 GMT
Oh FFS Sheepy educate yourself www.dictionary.com/browse/snide 'derogatory in a nasty insinuating manner' Now look at what you posted: 'I see you are all human rights lawyers now, firstly they are lying to receive those human rights and secondly we are being drawn in by them.So basically you are arguing the case for criminals. Which isn't the first time either.'QED Son how is that snide, when that is exactly what you were doing? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 21, 2022 13:43:45 GMT
Oh FFS Sheepy educate yourself www.dictionary.com/browse/snide 'derogatory in a nasty insinuating manner' Now look at what you posted: 'I see you are all human rights lawyers now, firstly they are lying to receive those human rights and secondly we are being drawn in by them.So basically you are arguing the case for criminals. Which isn't the first time either.'QED Son how is that snide, when that is exactly what you were doing? FFS I was not. Please say when you're prepared to debate like an adult Sheepy. I won't hold my breath |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 21, 2022 17:47:35 GMT
You either have human rights or you do not. Is there a halfway house? If you deny human rights to some then you have no human rights. If a country prides itself on its human rights then there are no exceptions which specifically disadvantage individuals. If you can exclude one then you can exclude any at your whim. Bollocks ^ When there are 17 separate human rights in the HRA then any intelligent person knows it is possible to have some people support only a number of them. it ain't all or nothing. I support them all. But as it happens you've pathetically failed to back your assertion that the ability of organisations to in certain circumstances use positive discrimination violate any single one of those human rights. Because your assertion was made up crap that's why. So in your view if people have 16 of the human rights they have their human rights? Are you sure? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 21, 2022 17:50:58 GMT
Bollocks ^ When there are 17 separate human rights in the HRA then any intelligent person knows it is possible to have some people support only a number of them. it ain't all or nothing. I support them all. But as it happens you've pathetically failed to back your assertion that the ability of organisations to in certain circumstances use positive discrimination violate any single one of those human rights. Because your assertion was made up crap that's why. So in your view if people have 16 of the human rights they have their human rights? Are you sure? They would have 16 of them. According to you if they have 16 they have none. Not exactly conventional arithmetic |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 21, 2022 19:07:56 GMT
So in your view if people have 16 of the human rights they have their human rights? Are you sure? They would have 16 of them. According to you if they have 16 they have none. Not exactly conventional arithmetic Now I did not say that I said they do not have their human rights. If I say I have a pack of cards, you would not expect the nine of diamonds to be missing. One either has a pack of cards or one does not, just as one either has one's human rights or one does not. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 21, 2022 20:29:12 GMT
Well then Sandy who hacked your account to post this then? You want to get rid of human rights? Well, there's plenty of countries with no human rights for you to try... And the UK is one of them. . . . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 21, 2022 20:48:28 GMT
Well then Sandy who hacked your account to post this then? And the UK is one of them. . . . Well try "and there are plenty of countries with no pack of cards" "and the UK is one of them." A pack of cards is either a pack or it is not just as one's Human rights are a package one either has or does not. No point in saying you have all rights except the freedom not to be tortured as that destroys all the others. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 21, 2022 20:55:05 GMT
Absurd false analogies #193 ^
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 21, 2022 21:35:29 GMT
Absurd false analogies #193 ^ So let us try it your way that Human Rights are not a package that they are stand alone rights that one has. Consider the Cairo declaration which guarantees quite a few of the rights but not all. Do those who exist under it have human rights or not and since everything is subordinated to the Sharia can we talk about those countries and human rights. In the same way if a human right is subordinated to law, even a democratic law, does that country's citizens have human rights?If a right can be abrogated by law then human rights no longer apply as any right can be abrogated if it is considered a necessary step. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 21, 2022 21:49:35 GMT
The Cairo declaration overrules all human rights, it is complete shite and not relevant to this discussion
|
|
