ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works

Posts

6

Comments

2,199

Joined

2 yr. ago

The president doesn't get to change the constitution, or amend it. Congress doesn't even have that power, the most they can do is present it to the states.

What you're doing is arguing that a non-binding statement or a treaty that the US isn't a party to is somehow a better source for morality and defining what constitutes a human right than decency or thinking for yourself.
Don't outsource your conscience to dead guys from the 40s.

If someone was born here, they can be one of us. Both constitutionally and morally. The UN and Trump have fuck all to do with morality. Kicking someone out of their home because of where their parents are from is wrong.

As for the lawsuit.... Where would they sue? On what possible grounds do you think that would even get a hearing? Who do you think would enforce the ruling?
The US has signed no treaty agreeing to not make people stateless.
What possible standing would anyone have to argue in court that a country denied them citizenship, particularly if, as you say, no one has a right to citizenship in any particular country? Or is jus soli citizenship a right but only if you don't have any other option?

I understand the legal theory of human rights perfectly well, thanks though.

What you seem to be missing is that legality isn't the end of morality, but an agreeable approximation endorsed by a government.
The universal declaration of human rights isn't even that. It doesn't carry the weight of law.

It seems that you're arguing that no one should be denied a nationality, but that no one needs to grant you one. So your right to a nationality can be violated by... No one? Someone has to let you in, but no one in specific is responsible, and you can be stripped of it as long as it's not arbitrary. You have the right to change it, but not to anything in particular. Is that about right?
This is of course ignoring the provision against exile, protection of freedom of movement and residence, or the right to return to your homeland. Although you seem to believe that a right to return to your homeland has no basis in where your homeland actually is.

Interesting. Maybe using a document weighed to be inoffensive to powerful nations shouldn't be taken as the highpoint of morality. It's almost like any statement that might create the connotation of "moral obligation" is couched in layers of exceptions or vagueness.

Did you know the Holocaust was perfectly legal? And, since you say we didn't even have human rights before then, just the whim of the ruler, it wasn't even a human rights violation to gas children and burn their bodies!
Perfectly legal, and hence perfectly moral. Right?

People who can't see the distinction between morality and legality are disgusting.

The freedom to not be kicked out of your home and sent to a foreign land because of who your parents happened to be is as much a right or construct as the right to speech, belief, or any other codified right.
Hence why if that's not a right, then there are really none of significance.

Rights are not bestowed by governments, international declarations, or treaties.

Arguing that a sovereign nations laws contradicting something makes it not a human right is a powerfully slippery slope.

The rights of people matter more than those of nations.

I think it's telling that you only consider something a human right if there's a law protecting it.
Do you think there were no human rights before 1948?

The universal declaration on human rights is the set of rights that a good number of nations could agree on. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not an exhaustive or definitive list.

Before you start accusing people of ignorance or being intentionally obtuse, you might consider that you're actually full of shit on the concept of morality.

"I'm not arguing anything" they say, arguing that it's not a human right.

Get the fuck out of here with your double think.
Portugal and Sweden not respecting a human right doesn't make it not a human right. Given how gleefully so much of Europe seems to be to deny people who have lived in the country for generations citizenship, to restrict their freedom or religion, or to just watch them fucking drown, I'm not super keen for the US to use Europe as a role model for human rights regarding citizenship.

Again, if taking someone from the only home they've ever known to live someplace they've never been, don't speak the language, and have no citizenship isn't a human rights violation, then nothing that matters is.
I don't give a shit if Sweden says it's fine.

The only moral way to fix the falling birthrate is to outlaw contraception and abortion, increase economic desperation to create a surge of underemployed young men, and increase the amount of anti-woman rhetoric and policy in popular culture and government.
You see, an increase in unemployment leads to an increase in baseline crime statistics, and an increase in dehumanizing and hateful attitudes towards women increases the rate of rape, which is now harder to prosecute. Devoid of any options, the birth rate rises and in many cases women are forced by implicit circumstances to limit their lives in ways they would not otherwise choose.
It's a tactic explored by the Romanians, but it didn't pan out. Clearly they allowed too many exceptions for maternal well-being, birth defects, rape and incest.

Says who? The UN? A treaty the US didn't sign?

The constitution says people born here are citizens and they've decided to pretend it doesn't. Why would an organization they want to withdraw from or a treaty they don't recognize get more weight?

And what's the stateless person going to do if they're wronged? Sue?

You're arguing that people don't have the right to live where they were born and have lived their entire lives.
If that's not a human right, than basically nothing is.

Also, "only" north and south america? That's not a trivial portion of the world that you can just "only" away.

The police have gotten very effective at quashing effective movements, and we've had decades of concerted effort to make it more difficult to organize and to get people to actually oppose the concept of effective resistance in their own favor.
People with power don't want people threatening to destabilize that power. People who set media narratives need access to people with power, and so they don't want to convey those destabilizing factors positively.
This makes people view them negatively, if they even see them at all.

America has never had a culling of the rich and powerful. The closest we got was when we decided to exchange a rich and powerful person far away for a few closer to home.
As such, there's no weight given to the morale of anyone who isn't rich and powerful.
Reporters, politicians and businesses people have never had to put their heads in the scale when making choices.

Android kinda has that. There's call screen where the phone asks why you're calling and the user can follow along, potentially pressing a button to prompt for more details, to pickup, or to send the caller to voicemail.

It's integrated into the spam blocking. Usually spam calls just don't say anything so it hangs up on them, so I don't actually know how it would handle a human telemarketer.

I can read why you're calling in 3 seconds and it takes no mental energy if I don't care. If I talk to you I need to use significantly more mental energy and it's more disruptive to anything I was focusing on. The people I least want to talk to are the most likely to call, and are the ones who will be the least direct about why they're calling and waste the most of my time.

Not wanting to talk to you on the phone is not the same as not communicating. The vast majority of phone calls are basically someone saying "stop what you're doing, what I want to talk to you about is more important" and they're wrong.

Yes. The most charitable interpretation is that people have forgotten the lessons of the 1900s and think that a replay of Herbert Hoover is a good idea.

Last time it took a few decades and destroying countless lives to fix. Hopefully the cost is lower this time.

Of sorts indeed. For a lot of people the military is the only option we give as a way out of difficult circumstances, and the educational grants and such are potentially their only way see a better future.
It's rough but it's unfortunately the best path our society has seen fit to build.
God forbid we invest in underserved communities or provide general education grants.

Well, clearly the court only said that the three judges in question had to stop issuing nationwide injunctions, right? The others haven't done anything yet, and since each case has to be tried independently....

So fucking stupid. And a clear signal that they're going to start deporting citizens now, since even though I can show my birth certificate, I can't show my parents, or my parents parents and so on. Trace it back far enough and everyone will run into an ancestor that they can't prove the citizenship of. "Oops, your citizenship is actually invalid! We're sending you to a central American prison".

This isn't the best or most popular way to do it, but: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/install

There is a way built into windows to deploy and use Linux from inside windows.

It's not the most pure experience, but it's a way to make sure you have something like a feel for how some parts work before jumping in any deeper.

A bootable USB stick is another way to try before you commit. Only reason I might suggest starting with trying it the other way first is in case you run into issues connecting to the Internet or something you won't feel totally lost. Having to keep rebooting back into windows if you have a problem can be frustrating, so getting a little familiarity with a safety line can help feel more confident.

Issues with a USB boot are increasingly uncommon, as an aside. Biggest issue is likely to be that USB is slow, so things might take a few moments longer to start.

From there, you should be pretty comfortable doing basic stuff after a little playing around. Not deep mastery, but a sense of "here are my settings", "my files go here", "here's how I fiddle with wifi", "here's how I change my desktop stuff". At that point a dual boot should work out, since you'll be able to use the system to find out how to do new things with the system, and also use it for whatever, in a general sense.

If it's working out, you should find yourself popping back into windows less and less.

Genes do play a role in dental health. Water flouridation very effectively does a better job providing better results to more people with great reliability. That's backed by a huge amount of data.

1. people do have different teeth.
2. are you sure? Keep in mind that the most common reason to not flouridate water is because natural flouride levels are sufficient.

If insurance companies had their way we'd have universal healthcare and mandatory private insurance that was allowed to deny claims freely.
They get $800 a month, and replace their entire claims department with a system that automatically denies claims and forwards the bill to the government. You're legally obligated to receive preventative care and live a long and productive life to maximize the number of payments you make to them.
Obviously dental, vision, skin, bones, organs and mental health are an additional $250 a month each, mandatory, and provide no coverage.

It's absolutely abhorrent behavior. The absolute most I would expect out of the teacher is a friendly confirmation that the student wasn't sitting because they just zoned out. Even that kinda seems like a waste of time.

No, I think it's saying that opensuse breeds Linux distros, and is trying to get Debian and arch to rub cloacas.

Also, opensuse once bit off a little chunk of someone's ear.