3 ms·

> Why do you care about human rights? I dunno, perhaps the same reason Winston Churchill cared about them.

by jarym 3y ago

arethuza 3y ago
Which is presumably a reference to: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-european-convention-human-rights https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-european-convent...
corobo 3y ago
Not sure India and Ireland would agree with the idea Churchill cared about human rights :x https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767 "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" - Winston Churchill
- SpaceManNabs 3y ago
  > Not sure India and Ireland India in the Modi era is pretty inspired by Churchill.
- skippyboxedhero 3y ago
  He was referring to the use of tear gas in order to disperse crowds (rather than using violence)...that section of the memorandum tends not to be quoted (and Britain only used gases in warfare after Germany began using it indiscriminately in WW1). It is quite bizarre to imply that pre-colonial India was a haven for human rights but that Britain, the country with the most advanced legal system and which had recognised the notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier, did not.
  - corobo 3y ago
    I made no comment about Britain. I was talking about Winston Churchill, the singular person. That is your infer, not my imply.
    - skippyboxedhero 3y ago
      You don't understand what inference is. Merely stating that you didn't mean to infer it isn't relevant.
      - corobo 3y ago
        When a statement is made by me, you would be inferring and I would be implying. In this case though I am saying I did not imply what you inferred. My comment is regarding the individual, not the country he was in charge of.
        skippyboxedhero 3y ago
        > When a statement is made by me, you would be inferring and I would be implying. Correct, you have just explained that you don't understand what inference is.
        corobo 3y ago
        I'm open to being wrong mate, any chance you could correct me rather than just say I don't know? That's kinda super tedious. I even went to a dictionary and asked chatgippity to double check lmao. Whatever you're implying, I'm unable to infer :)
        RoyalHenOil 3y ago
        I'm just an onlooker here, but you have been misunderstanding/misusing the word "infer" in this thread. So let's put that word aside and focus on understanding what the person above you is trying to communicate. They made an accusation against Churchill, and you responded with a defense of Britain. This reveals that you misinterpreted their comment. They wish to correct your musunderstanding and make it clear that they were not talking about Britain, only Churchill.
  - polygamous_bat 3y ago
    > It is quite bizarre to imply that pre-colonial India was a haven for human rights but that Britain, the country with the most advanced legal system and which had recognised the notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier, did not. Pop quiz: How long did it take the United States to recognize the human rights of those born into slavery? People are selectively blind about who the human rights apply to all the time, it's nothing new whatsoever.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    >He was referring to the use of tear gas in order to disperse crowds (rather than using violence) 1. Tear gas is still violence. 2. He called them uncivilized tribes. That's shitty regardless of context.
    - burnished 3y ago
      1) The context of poisoned gas is now clearly one where the implication is murder, and not the slew of effects from tear gas. Big difference and worth pointing out considering the bar was never 'is an action violent or not' 2) sure, not relevant here though
      - corobo 3y ago
        In fairness I picked the quote specifically because of the "uncivilised tribes" bit and we got distracted by the gas bit. It was quite relevant.
        burnished 3y ago
        Oh thank you, I did indeed get distracted.
  - smcl 3y ago
    > the most advanced legal system and which had recognised the notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier One which didn't seem to care too much about lives of its Indian subjects apparently.
  - frabbit 3y ago
    I think you are demeaning any valid position you may hold by your contortions over Churchill's well-known and repeatedly documented racism and imperialism. But maybe that's the fashion nowadays among sophisticated thinkers?: " I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year. 2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church. On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open cities was regarded as forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a question of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for women."* https://archives.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html https://archives.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier Yeah, no. Magna Carta wasn't recognition of _human_ rights (we still had literal slaves and also separately serfdom), it was basically a bunch feudal lords insisting that the courts which the King owned personally treat any case against the King himself with the same regards as any other defendant. Both sides reneged very quickly, leading to one of the many English Civil Wars that UK history lessons completely ignore because it's not as exciting as Cromwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barons%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barons%27_War
Karellen 3y ago
Um, because I'm human? What a bizarre question. Like... what?
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  It's just a question, designed to provoke a response that might be useful. Border officials the world over are like this. They have broad leeway to assume everyone is a threat, and to provoke, inconvenience, belittle and annoy them until they are satisfied. Obtuse, trollish rudeness is but one tool in the toolbox. -- Responding more generally rather than specifically to your point, if you'll forgive me: I am inclined to believe that while our British border officials are wholly embarrassing, the situation is no worse than it is in every single western democracy. Let us all not pretend that border police confiscating the journalists' possessions they don't really have the explicit right to confiscate is particularly unique to any country; it's absolutely not. This is an internationally common thing and it is very much a sign of the times. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-border-agent-journalist-propaganda-ben-watson-a9144306.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-border-... https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/journalists-detained-border-told-turn-over-devices-confidential-source-info https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/journ...
Detrytus 3y ago
Human rights are overrated.
- Ylpertnodi 3y ago
  Privileges ok?

> Why do you care about human rights? I dunno, perhaps the same reason Winston Churchill cared about them.

by jarym 3y ago

> Why do you care about human rights? I dunno, perhaps the same reason Winston Churchill cared about them.

Which is presumably a reference to: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-european-convention-human-rights https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-european-convent...

corobo 3y ago

Not sure India and Ireland would agree with the idea Churchill cared about human rights :x https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767 "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" - Winston Churchill

SpaceManNabs 3y ago
> Not sure India and Ireland India in the Modi era is pretty inspired by Churchill.
skippyboxedhero 3y ago
He was referring to the use of tear gas in order to disperse crowds (rather than using violence)...that section of the memorandum tends not to be quoted (and Britain only used gases in warfare after Germany began using it indiscriminately in WW1). It is quite bizarre to imply that pre-colonial India was a haven for human rights but that Britain, the country with the most advanced legal system and which had recognised the notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier, did not.
- corobo 3y ago
  I made no comment about Britain. I was talking about Winston Churchill, the singular person. That is your infer, not my imply.
  - skippyboxedhero 3y ago
    You don't understand what inference is. Merely stating that you didn't mean to infer it isn't relevant.
    - corobo 3y ago
      When a statement is made by me, you would be inferring and I would be implying. In this case though I am saying I did not imply what you inferred. My comment is regarding the individual, not the country he was in charge of.
      - skippyboxedhero 3y ago
        > When a statement is made by me, you would be inferring and I would be implying. Correct, you have just explained that you don't understand what inference is.
        corobo 3y ago
        I'm open to being wrong mate, any chance you could correct me rather than just say I don't know? That's kinda super tedious. I even went to a dictionary and asked chatgippity to double check lmao. Whatever you're implying, I'm unable to infer :)
        RoyalHenOil 3y ago
        I'm just an onlooker here, but you have been misunderstanding/misusing the word "infer" in this thread. So let's put that word aside and focus on understanding what the person above you is trying to communicate. They made an accusation against Churchill, and you responded with a defense of Britain. This reveals that you misinterpreted their comment. They wish to correct your musunderstanding and make it clear that they were not talking about Britain, only Churchill.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  > It is quite bizarre to imply that pre-colonial India was a haven for human rights but that Britain, the country with the most advanced legal system and which had recognised the notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier, did not. Pop quiz: How long did it take the United States to recognize the human rights of those born into slavery? People are selectively blind about who the human rights apply to all the time, it's nothing new whatsoever.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    [flagged]
- p_j_w 3y ago
  >He was referring to the use of tear gas in order to disperse crowds (rather than using violence) 1. Tear gas is still violence. 2. He called them uncivilized tribes. That's shitty regardless of context.
  - burnished 3y ago
    1) The context of poisoned gas is now clearly one where the implication is murder, and not the slew of effects from tear gas. Big difference and worth pointing out considering the bar was never 'is an action violent or not' 2) sure, not relevant here though
    - corobo 3y ago
      In fairness I picked the quote specifically because of the "uncivilised tribes" bit and we got distracted by the gas bit. It was quite relevant.
      - burnished 3y ago
        Oh thank you, I did indeed get distracted.
- smcl 3y ago
  > the most advanced legal system and which had recognised the notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier One which didn't seem to care too much about lives of its Indian subjects apparently.
- frabbit 3y ago
  I think you are demeaning any valid position you may hold by your contortions over Churchill's well-known and repeatedly documented racism and imperialism. But maybe that's the fashion nowadays among sophisticated thinkers?: " I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year. 2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church. On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open cities was regarded as forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a question of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for women."* https://archives.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html https://archives.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html
- ben_w 3y ago
  > notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier Yeah, no. Magna Carta wasn't recognition of _human_ rights (we still had literal slaves and also separately serfdom), it was basically a bunch feudal lords insisting that the courts which the King owned personally treat any case against the King himself with the same regards as any other defendant. Both sides reneged very quickly, leading to one of the many English Civil Wars that UK history lessons completely ignore because it's not as exciting as Cromwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barons%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barons%27_War

Karellen 3y ago

Um, because I'm human? What a bizarre question. Like... what?

bemusedthrow75 3y ago
It's just a question, designed to provoke a response that might be useful. Border officials the world over are like this. They have broad leeway to assume everyone is a threat, and to provoke, inconvenience, belittle and annoy them until they are satisfied. Obtuse, trollish rudeness is but one tool in the toolbox. -- Responding more generally rather than specifically to your point, if you'll forgive me: I am inclined to believe that while our British border officials are wholly embarrassing, the situation is no worse than it is in every single western democracy. Let us all not pretend that border police confiscating the journalists' possessions they don't really have the explicit right to confiscate is particularly unique to any country; it's absolutely not. This is an internationally common thing and it is very much a sign of the times. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-border-agent-journalist-propaganda-ben-watson-a9144306.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-border-... https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/journalists-detained-border-told-turn-over-devices-confidential-source-info https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/journ...

Detrytus 3y ago

Human rights are overrated.

Ylpertnodi 3y ago
Privileges ok?