At 04:46 PM 6/15/01 +0300 Charlie Bell wrote:
>> Glad you feel that way about people's personal e-mails.
>
>I don't, usually, but that's the second time you've tried to take stuff
>offlist that is as valid here. It's underhand, and I can't stand it. That's
>not a personal e-mail, if you're just carrying straight on as if it was
>on-list, with no more to add, and no personal content.
No, I was clearing up with you what your views on the issue actually are,
before I carried on further on-list with potentially mistaken views of what
your positions really are.
>> >> Characterizing America as unfit to sit on the UNHCHR,
>> >> and as being a "not-so-good democracy."
>> >
>> >That's how you read me. I didn't say the first, I said that
>> America has no
>> >more right than anybody else. As I have repeatedly explained to you.
>>
>> Untrue. You did say the first on Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:58::
>> "Anyway, while the US refuses to even discuss abolition of the
>> death penalty,
>> she has no place on a human rights commission."
>
>Yes. And??? Can you not see that? I said nothing about any other countries,
>because we were discussing America.
Not only were we discussing America, however, we were *also* discussing
membership on the UNHCHR. If I am to take your position seriously, then
it would lead to the conclusion that *no* country is fit to sit on the
UNHCHR - and that's just simply not a useful position. Indeed, such a
position would pretty much lead to anarchy, as you could never justify the
existence of police, or governments, etc. - because all of them would be
imperfect in their upholding and respecting of the Law.
>> There is nothing in the above that implies you are simply arguing that
>> America and Iraq and Cambodia and Turkey have as much right as
>> anybody else
>> to sit on the UNHCHR. In the above, you are specifically singling out
>> America.
>
>Are you this pig-headed in real-life, or just behind your monitor? We were
>TALKING ABOUT AMERICA. Why would I suddenly mention those other countries in
>a discussion about America? ANY country that refuses to even discuss the
>death penalty has no place discussing human rights, but we were discussing
>America. It's the refusal to discuss the issue I take umbrage with.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. The United States has a
very vigorous debate on the death penalty. It is in on the all the TV news
shows and TV news magazines, its in our newspapers and print magazines, and
its discussed around our water coolers. Unfortunately, the 30% of us that
oppose the death penalty have a really hard time gaining traction against
the 70% of Americans that support it. Indeed, for a position that is held
by only 30% of Americans, I think that death penalty abolition gets an
amazingly good hearing in the US.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Compassionate conservatism is the way to reconcile the two most vital
conservative intellectual traditions: libertarianism & Catholic social
thought."
-Michael Gerson, advisor to George W. Bush
