How come...

[Sea Dangles]

TDF is right, these looney libs can think of any reason to turn an insensitive comment into racism. They are really trying to turn our society into Whoville. Too bad the grinch is still around,and if you don't like him, you must be a racist. If Ryan disagrees Spence, what is his future looking like? You truly have a one dimensional outlook which is why you don't see the whole picture.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Trump's popularity is about to soar

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Trump's popularity is about to soar

Why?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What should I address? I posted comments from the leading GOP Official Paul Ryan...the only topic here is what he said about the judge.. how is Ryan wrong in his conclusion or I Beside not agreeing with your View?

I explicitly explained how Ryan was wrong. I stuck to that part of your topic. But you did not respond to my explanation. Was that because you disagreed with my view? I disagreed with your view and responded to it by stating why I though it was wrong. You did not respond to that.

So when trump uses his words to slander someones character
you dont find it devious.. But when others push back against Trump its devious Slander attacking his character ...read you loud and clear

I explicitly stated that what I thought was devious was the intentional misuse of the word "racism" in place of ethnicity or nationality. And I pointed out why that use, or any such misuse of words was not only incorrect but devious and a corruption of language which also makes it difficult to even have a discussion. You responded to none of that.

As far as your Trump "uses his words to slander someone's character" goes, I don't recall him trying to deviously misuse words. When he called something or someone stupid, or lying, or crooked, or whatever name-calling he resorted to, he used the correct diction to convey what those words actually mean in order to cast exactly what those words mean onto someone's character. He wasn't being sly, tricky, or devious. He wasn't corrupting language. Whether it was slander or not, is up to you to decide. I said a few times now that I don't like him . . . or, I should say, I don't like the persona he creates. If I were to meet and associate with him, I might feel otherwise. He is reputed to be quite different than the image he creates. Many of those who personally know him say he is actually polite, kind, generous, and respectful.

As far as your "when others push back against Trump," a great deal of his comments are push backs. So, I take it that those comments are OK with you because he was pushing back against others?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

Anyway, how can a political organization which does not display an understanding of "equitable" agree on a common definition?

Originally Posted by spence

You have a convention.

A convention of folks who hate each other and would gladly see others wiped off the face of the earth agreeing on an equitable definition? Really?


Quote:

Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

TDF fixed the UN definition quite well. And quite correctly.

You don't see the built-in contradictions with that definition? To begin with, it separates race from "colour, descent, or national, or ethnic origin." The structure of that definition separates thus makes different all those disparate categories. If they all had a common characteristic which could be grouped under an all inclusive word which is not one of the listed but separate and different categories, that might make sense. But to use the adjectival form of one of the categories "racial," makes one wonder what happened to all the other words. Is "ethnic" not really ethnic but really "racial"? Same for "colour, descent, national." What is race? Is race "racial" as well? What does race have in common with the other categories that makes it "racial"? Does the UN define "race"? Does it define "colour," "descent," "national," "ethnic"? If all those words can be defined as "race," then lets get rid of the clutter and replace them all with "race."

It seems, also, that the umbrella of categories is big enough to include everyone and every category of harmful discrimination in the public arena. Is there a person you know that doesn't fit into one or more of the "racial" categories defined in the UN definition of racial discrimination? No matter what a discriminator may say that her reason for discrimination is, since everybody fits into the UN definition of what racial is, and discrimination is defined as that "which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life", it can be construed that ultimately, all discrimination is racial.

How about, instead of trying to make words mean what they don't, the UN decrees that nobody shall be denied any of those things that it says racial discrimination would deny them.

Why is it necessary to basically make all discrimination "racial"? Why must all harmful discrimination in public life be labeled "racial" discrimination? Because the UN is illiterate? Because it is stupid? Because it is sly as a fox and uses the most inflammatory, fear laden, word to cow the world into submission? Because it is made up largely of little, comparatively backward nations who want unrestricted access to the big guys stuff?

I have suspicions, but don't really know. Except that the UN is not really united. It is composed of opposing, often warring, factions who infest it with their prejudices and contradictory desires. Any definition of a word it concocts is bound to be opaque enough to satisfy its bigoted, discriminatory, members.

United Nations has a nice ring to it. It seems like a good idea. But I prefer national sovereignty to a one world government. Star Trek was a fun series. It took human foibles into outer space. And united us against what was supposed to be "the other," but was really humanity wearing a different mask. And it assumed a unity back on earth. Well, we still don't have that unity here. And we don't have a Captain Kirk to put it all together for us. The mask is off here and the wars involve humans, are bloody, continuous, and not relegated to the dust bin of history by the UN. I prefer the US. And I cringe at the thought of being under the command of the UN or any other World Government.

Sounds like Paul Ryan is pretty right.

Hardly.