Shut up! I am talking about human rights here!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2013, 03:52 AM
RE: Shut up! I am talking about human rights here!
(13-06-2013 03:26 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Way to make you point using rational thought and evidence. Gold star. But how exactly is the boston marathon bombing related to a UN study of Human rights violations? My point was not that the Japanese are in the right for doing what you claim (I don't know and am not inclined to fact check right now so will let the point stand uncontested) but rather that it does not have relevance to the current discussion.

OK.

Current discussion:

A Japan delegate said they were one of the most advanced countries in human rights on a UN meeting. Others laughed. He said shut up.

[1] There is some irony.

[2] Why did others laugh at that meeting? DeepThought implied that it was because of their high officials' stupid denying of war crimes which had been already convicted, and therefore should be included in the supposedly unbiased human rights report.

[3] Momsurroundedbyboys referred to the short length of Japan's human rights report, Humakt thought that what DeepThought implied in [2] was not relevant to what Mom referred to, I disagreed, and you disagreed to my disagreement.

So, what I said is part of [3] unless you don't think that it is part of the current discussion, in which case would you please tell me what we were discussing just now?

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 10:58 AM
RE: Shut up! I am talking about human rights here!
(13-06-2013 03:52 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(13-06-2013 03:26 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Way to make you point using rational thought and evidence. Gold star. But how exactly is the boston marathon bombing related to a UN study of Human rights violations? My point was not that the Japanese are in the right for doing what you claim (I don't know and am not inclined to fact check right now so will let the point stand uncontested) but rather that it does not have relevance to the current discussion.

OK.

Current discussion:

A Japan delegate said they were one of the most advanced countries in human rights on a UN meeting. Others laughed. He said shut up.

[1] There is some irony.

[2] Why did others laugh at that meeting? DeepThought implied that it was because of their high officials' stupid denying of war crimes which had been already convicted, and therefore should be included in the supposedly unbiased human rights report.

[3] Momsurroundedbyboys referred to the short length of Japan's human rights report, Humakt thought that what DeepThought implied in [2] was not relevant to what Mom referred to, I disagreed, and you disagreed to my disagreement.

So, what I said is part of [3] unless you don't think that it is part of the current discussion, in which case would you please tell me what we were discussing just now?

Yes I misspoke, it is not the current discussion it is irrelevant to but rather the report, the original story you told did have relevance to the denial of wartime atrocities.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: