Is the USA uncivilised?

[Warren Dew]

It's not a lack of commitment at all. The objection is to the specific language in these "conventions" that all contain provisions that violate the constitutional rights of US citizens, or they contain provisions that are otherwise not acceptable to the US.

Exactly. We've got a whole bill of rights in our constitution, and some of the provisions in these conventions would violate some of the rights our citizens - but apparent not most European citizens - have.

[Seth]

Seth

I see great irony here.

The USA will not ratify agreements that guarantee the rights of women, disabled, children, and prevent torture, despite most other nations doing so. However, uniquely, they create a "right" for their citizens to have weapons for committing murder, and thereby guarantee a major murder rate. Funny.......

The USA already has strong laws that guarantee all the matters you allude to. It doesn't need to sign anything with anybody else.

And the right to keep and bear arms is not "created" by the USA, it's created by the personal, individual humanity of each person when they come into being. Our laws merely codify and protect the free exercise of that right against government infringement.

Nor do our laws authorize people to have "weapons for committing murder." In fact it's expressly illegal for anyone to possess a firearm of any kind if they have any intent to commit murder. The right to keep and bear arms is in part for personal defense against criminals who might victimize the individual, not for murder.

Of course you know this and you're just trolling...

[Seth]

I think it's pretty well documented that there is a genetic component to some violent tendencies,

Is there? Last I heard the "warrior" gene theory had been debunked. But I could be misremembering.

I didn't say there was a "warrior" gene, I said that some violent tendencies have a genetic basis. It may merely be a genetic defect in a particular individual. This is as opposed to a learned behavior.

[Blind groper]

On genetics and violence.

Interesting article in the latest New Scientist on neurobiology. Rather destroys any belief in such genes. Definitely the belief that violence is genetic is unsupported by empirical evidence. It may still be true, of course, but the evidence is lacking.

To Seth

I do not want to again get into a gun argument with you, only to have the same old set of bullshit thrown back at me. However, on international agreements on human rights, you are not being very rational. If the USA is serious about human rights, it will ratify the international agreements on human rights. If nothing else, this sets a good example for other countries. There is no rational reason for the USA to refuse.

[laklak]

We're serious about our rights, that's for sure, including that pesky right to keep and bear. What the rest of the world does is not our problem, let them sort it out for themselves, we're not their parents.

[Blind groper]

Laklak

That is almost funny.
The USA interferes in the activities of other countries pretty much at will, and has been known to describe itself as the world's policeman. Personally, I would be most happy for the USA to leave other nations to their own devices. Ecstatic, in fact. But it doesn't.

[laklak]

Once in a while we agree on something, BG. The U.S. needs to leave everybody the fuck alone. Pull all troops out of foreign bases, pull the carrier groups back and stick them maybe 500 miles off the coast, and let the rest of the world do whatever they want to. The only caveat is we won't be coming to anyone's aid if the Chinese suddenly decide Japan looks like a tasty morsel or Putin thinks Iran and Iraq might make a nice addition to the Greater Russian Empire. He can finally get that centerpiece of Russian foreign policy for the last 500 years, a year round warm water port.

[pErvinalia]

I would seriously disagree that we are one of the most violent animal species on the planet. We learn to live together under conditions that would drive other species into a frenzy.

Ever been in a crowded elevator? Experiments with crowding rats to a far lower level than that results in them attacking each other. We merely smile, and otherwise ignore those crowding us to a level intolerable to other species.

Chimps are way more violent than us.

Yep. So not only did MM miss the actual point, he was also wrong.

[pErvinalia]

I think it's pretty well documented that there is a genetic component to some violent tendencies,

Is there? Last I heard the "warrior" gene theory had been debunked. But I could be misremembering.

I didn't say there was a "warrior" gene, I said that some violent tendencies have a genetic basis. It may merely be a genetic defect in a particular individual. This is as opposed to a learned behavior.

I'm still not certain about that. But I'd thought I just quote this anyway, so MM could see what the point being made actually was.

[pErvinalia]

Once in a while we agree on something, BG. The U.S. needs to leave everybody the fuck alone. Pull all troops out of foreign bases, pull the carrier groups back and stick them maybe 500 miles off the coast, and let the rest of the world do whatever they want to. The only caveat is we won't be coming to anyone's aid if the Chinese suddenly decide Japan looks like a tasty morsel or Putin thinks Iran and Iraq might make a nice addition to the Greater Russian Empire. He can finally get that centerpiece of Russian foreign policy for the last 500 years, a year round warm water port.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. There is a moderate centre to this issue. Neither extreme is particularly rational.

[JimC]

Once in a while we agree on something, BG. The U.S. needs to leave everybody the fuck alone. Pull all troops out of foreign bases, pull the carrier groups back and stick them maybe 500 miles off the coast, and let the rest of the world do whatever they want to. The only caveat is we won't be coming to anyone's aid if the Chinese suddenly decide Japan looks like a tasty morsel or Putin thinks Iran and Iraq might make a nice addition to the Greater Russian Empire. He can finally get that centerpiece of Russian foreign policy for the last 500 years, a year round warm water port.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. There is a moderate centre to this issue. Neither extreme is particularly rational.

Agreed. The US, for example, has a serious and legitimate interest in free trade via the world's oceans. It is helping both itself and all other nations involved in such trade if it has a naval presence in the world's oceans to support that.

The major problem has been boots on ground in foreign parts supporting one side or another in very murky circumstances indeed...

[mistermack]

I would seriously disagree that we are one of the most violent animal species on the planet. We learn to live together under conditions that would drive other species into a frenzy.

Ever been in a crowded elevator? Experiments with crowding rats to a far lower level than that results in them attacking each other. We merely smile, and otherwise ignore those crowding us to a level intolerable to other species.

Chimps are way more violent than us.

Naaah, I would disagree with that. You are quoting the effects of years and years of conditioning by parents and educators. And that's the result of a modern civilised culture that's been built up over thousands of years.

It's not an inherited characteristic of the human species. In any case, the rats in a confined space is a false situation, which they they haven't evolved a response to. If they do attack each other, it's out of fear, rather than deliberate malice, and it's not likely to happen like that in the wild. And humans react much the same, when they are scared.
In the Kenyan shopping mall attack, some men were trampling over women and children, to escape.

Chimps are pretty violent, but before modern civilization happened, we were much worse.
And occasionally still are.

[Warren Dew]

Once in a while we agree on something, BG. The U.S. needs to leave everybody the fuck alone. Pull all troops out of foreign bases, pull the carrier groups back and stick them maybe 500 miles off the coast, and let the rest of the world do whatever they want to. The only caveat is we won't be coming to anyone's aid if the Chinese suddenly decide Japan looks like a tasty morsel or Putin thinks Iran and Iraq might make a nice addition to the Greater Russian Empire. He can finally get that centerpiece of Russian foreign policy for the last 500 years, a year round warm water port.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. There is a moderate centre to this issue. Neither extreme is particularly rational.

Agreed. The US, for example, has a serious and legitimate interest in free trade via the world's oceans. It is helping both itself and all other nations involved in such trade if it has a naval presence in the world's oceans to support that.

I agree. However, it's not the U.S. that describes this role as "the world's policeman", it's overseas nations that object to it.

[Tyrannical]

it is important to weed those people out of the gene pool.

A racist AND a eugenicist. Who'd have thought?

Well, it would be the strange to be one and not the other, don't you think?

[Seth]

I do not want to again get into a gun argument with you, only to have the same old set of bullshit thrown back at me.

Then give up your same old bullshit claims. Any time you make them, or allude to them, I'm going to refute them. Get used to it.

However, on international agreements on human rights, you are not being very rational. If the USA is serious about human rights, it will ratify the international agreements on human rights. If nothing else, this sets a good example for other countries. There is no rational reason for the USA to refuse.

Yes, there is. It's called "national sovereignty." If good examples are needed, every other country on earth should FIRST adopt the U.S. Constitution as their founding document. When you do that, then we can talk about allowing you to control me by international treaty.