2 ms·

> Which then means that Article 15 that doesn't specify an actor when talking about "right to nationality" calls on anyone to provide that nationality. If a sta

> Which then means that Article 15 that doesn't specify an actor when talking about "right to nationality" calls on anyone to provide that nationality. If a stateless person washes up on shore of America, and if the USA refuses to provide citizenship, nsheppard or me (or anyone) gives him that citizenship. This is inane. You're inventing a rule for mutilating the statements of the UDHR that I never claimed exists. "Everyone has the right to a nationality" in standard english says that everyone has the right to a nationality. There's no actor to fill in, it doesn't call on anyone to do anything. The document as a whole is an agreement among member states to (try to) enforce the rights asserted to exist within. > If so, there is no need to refer to the UDHR in an attempt to back up your argument. The article asserts (factually / morally) the existence of certain "human" rights, which is exactly what I am talking about.

jasode 10y ago
>"Everyone has the right to a nationality" in standard english says that everyone has the right to a nationality. There's no actor to fill in, it doesn't call on anyone to do anything. Incorrect. It does call on someone (the government!) to do something. The "right to nationality" is not to be parsed the same way as "right to exhale carbon dioxide". Nobody has to do anything to enable people to exhale CO2. CO2 is a natural process and just happens on its own. On the other hand, the concept of "nationality" must be actively provided by a sovereign government. Look at the next sentence Article 15.2: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality..." How can anyone "deprive" someone of something if nobody has to do anything to provide it? If you're not familiar with the concept "nationality", refer to the wiki[1]. So yes, somebody must do something. Again, Article 15 was another response to the Nazi government stripping the German citizenship from Jews and leaving them stateless. If as you say, "nobody" has to do anything to provide nationality, it also means "nobody" including the Nazis could take away citizenship from the Jews. Obviously, that makes no sense. It doesn't seem like you understand the origins of UDHR or its actual scope. Referring to it to assert that non-government "free speech" is a "moral right" undermines your argument. Instead, frame "free speech" as a puzzle of money and freedom of association. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality
- nshepperd 10y ago
  All of those things are nonsensical extrapolations of things I didn't say. Yes, I understand that nationalities are granted by governments. This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the basic grammar which is involved in parsing "Everyone has the right to a nationality" as a declarative statement. The way you are constantly substituting in things that seem "vaguely relevant" for unrelated grammatical terms ("this is a 'government document' so whenever something is unspecified I guess I just put 'government' in there and hope it parses??") defies basic reading comprehension and standard english. At this point I don't think there's any point in me continuing.

jasode 10y ago

>"Everyone has the right to a nationality" in standard english says that everyone has the right to a nationality. There's no actor to fill in, it doesn't call on anyone to do anything. Incorrect. It does call on someone (the government!) to do something. The "right to nationality" is not to be parsed the same way as "right to exhale carbon dioxide". Nobody has to do anything to enable people to exhale CO2. CO2 is a natural process and just happens on its own. On the other hand, the concept of "nationality" must be actively provided by a sovereign government. Look at the next sentence Article 15.2: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality..." How can anyone "deprive" someone of something if nobody has to do anything to provide it? If you're not familiar with the concept "nationality", refer to the wiki[1]. So yes, somebody must do something. Again, Article 15 was another response to the Nazi government stripping the German citizenship from Jews and leaving them stateless. If as you say, "nobody" has to do anything to provide nationality, it also means "nobody" including the Nazis could take away citizenship from the Jews. Obviously, that makes no sense. It doesn't seem like you understand the origins of UDHR or its actual scope. Referring to it to assert that non-government "free speech" is a "moral right" undermines your argument. Instead, frame "free speech" as a puzzle of money and freedom of association. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality

nshepperd 10y ago
All of those things are nonsensical extrapolations of things I didn't say. Yes, I understand that nationalities are granted by governments. This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the basic grammar which is involved in parsing "Everyone has the right to a nationality" as a declarative statement. The way you are constantly substituting in things that seem "vaguely relevant" for unrelated grammatical terms ("this is a 'government document' so whenever something is unspecified I guess I just put 'government' in there and hope it parses??") defies basic reading comprehension and standard english. At this point I don't think there's any point in me continuing.