• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Water not recognized as a human right

Water not recognized as human right in forum statement

The U.S. blocked the "right" amendment because it wants water to eventually become a commodity. The U.S. is currently experiencing forseeable water shortages across the board. Under NAFTA, it could legally begin transferring water from the Great Lakes (shared by Canada) to other area of the U.S., even via corporate means, for resale.

Say hello to the future of corporatism.

Water? Hey, LIFE is not even recognized as a human right, where have you been?
 
Now that is slick. I'd like to see that.

Will you get to visit the build if it goes through?

Of course, even if it doesn't go through which is a hassle within itself I am planning on visiting up there.
 
One cannot live without water.



Seriously think about the question...


There is a drought, relistically only 40% of the local population can quench there thirst. (like in africa with some of thoughs droughts)


If one lives where there is not enough water. How does one exercise thier "right" to water?
 
Seriously think about the question...


There is a drought, relistically only 40% of the local population can quench there thirst. (like in africa with some of thoughs droughts)


If one lives where there is not enough water. How does one exercise thier "right" to water?

DSC02044.jpg
 
I am sure most water isn't even wasted by people drinking it, most water is probably used in toilets, showers, sprinklers and other things that use gallons and gallons of the stuff wastefully. California is probably on average with the whole US with water consumption per household, it is just they have so many households in general and such lack of water, that maybe instead of asking for water in other areas of United States, they should limit even more the use of sprinkler water and how much water can go to each house. Have a water meter, and when you are running dangerously low a person comes to your house to explain to you the importance of conserving your water and ask what you are doing wrong to waste the stuff.
 
I am sure most water isn't even wasted by people drinking it, most water is probably used in toilets, showers, sprinklers and other things that use gallons and gallons of the stuff wastefully. California is probably on average with the whole US with water consumption per household, it is just they have so many households in general and such lack of water, that maybe instead of asking for water in other areas of United States, they should limit even more the use of sprinkler water and how much water can go to each house. Have a water meter, and when you are running dangerously low a person comes to your house to explain to you the importance of conserving your water and ask what you are doing wrong to waste the stuff.

So much water goes to waste on grass and front lawns.

I don't understand the draw of watering grass, it seems to be an exercise in futility.
 
Everyone has a right to have access to air. See what happens if you deny someone their access to air. You get charged with murder. Air is is pretty much easily accessed from everywhere and therefore it is not a commodity anywhere.

Water, on the other hand, is something everyone has a right to access, but since it is not like air, and cannot be accessed everywhere, that access may be hindered by the choices of the people. If one wants unhindered access to water, they must CHOOSE to live by a lake, stream, river, or place where they can dig themselves a productive well.

But if you want someone to bring water to you so that you have easy access, regardless of where you live, then that is not a right, and water then becomes a commodity.
 
But if you want someone to bring water to you so that you have easy access, regardless of where you live, then that is not a right, and water then becomes a commodity.
Too many people equate having a right to x means that they have a right to have x provided to them w/o having to pay for it.

Except when x = guns, of course.
 
Too many people equate having a right to x means that they have a right to have x provided to them w/o having to pay for it.

Except when x = guns, of course.

Therein lies the problem. People don't realize that they almost always have a choice in matters. If I want unfettered access to free water, I could easily walk over to the river near my house with some tubs, purify, filter and boil the water, and bam, loads of fresh water for me. If I want it to come form my tap, I gotta pay.
 
Everyone has a right to have access to air. See what happens if you deny someone their access to air. You get charged with murder.

What is this nonsense?

No no, if my kid and I are out on a boat in the ocean, and I decide that my kid is inconvenient and so kick him off, and he looses his access to air when he goes under water, it's not my fault he drowned.

His relationship to me and my boat was parasitic anyway, and since it's my boat, it's my choice.

Honestly, Tucker, I thought you were Pro-Choice. I guess I was wrong.
 
What is this nonsense?

No no, if my kid and I are out on a boat in the ocean, and I decide that my kid is inconvenient and so kick him off, and he looses his access to air when he goes under water, it's not my fault he drowned.

His relationship to me and my boat was parasitic anyway, and since it's my boat, it's my choice.

Honestly, Tucker, I thought you were Pro-Choice. I guess I was wrong.

The difference is your kid is not parasitic as you can give him to someone else.

Someone the is pregnant cannot hand off the kid to someone else.

Your stupid analysis is noted and noted as idiotic as a religious whore.
 
Someone the is pregnant cannot hand off the kid to someone else.

Well, if they're pregnant it's not a kid, it's a fetus.

Once the fetus officially becomes a kid, it most certainly can be handed off to someone else, whether by adoption, abandonment or sold into slavery or human trafficking.

So much for your analysis. :doh
 
Well, if they're pregnant it's not a kid, it's a fetus.

Once the fetus officially becomes a kid, it most certainly can be handed off to someone else, whether by adoption, abandonment or sold into slavery or human trafficking.

So much for your analysis. :doh

Oh I'm sorry I guess I have to go sesame street for you I'm sorry, didn't realize your limited capacity for thought.

Here we go, someone who is born can be passed off easilty whether by adoption or family member. A fetus cannot, so it is not the same.

Is that easier for you to understand or do you need crayon?
 
Oh I'm sorry I guess I have to go sesame street for you I'm sorry, didn't realize your limited capacity for thought.

Here we go, someone who is born can be passed off easilty whether by adoption or family member. A fetus cannot, so it is not the same.

Is that easier for you to understand or do you need crayon?

So if nobody will take my kid I can kill him. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind :)
 
So if nobody will take my kid I can kill him. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind :)

No once your kid is born you can get the state to take him.

They will.

Any other questions Sherlock Homes? LOL
Are you really that dense Bullet D? Is that a gangster name lol?

Maybe you can pull a gat and put a cap in my ass eh? lol.

gimme a break
 
Last edited:
No once your kid is born you can get the state to take him.

They will.

Any other questions Sherlock Homes? LOL

And in the absence of the state it's okay to kill him? Keep your parental advice to yourself, Watson.

In Jerry's scenario, he might be in international waters. You mean you'd force him to drive several hours back to shore, wait in line, fill out all that paperwork, etc. to give up his kid to the state? That could take like, nine months... It's much more convenient just to throw him overboard. It is his boat.
 
Last edited:
The difference is your kid is not parasitic as you can give him to someone else.

Really? Well he's consuming my nautical resources against my will, you better come get him because I'm on the bridge checking the radar and I don't see any other vessels.

Someone the is pregnant cannot hand off the kid to someone else.

And they have every right to summarily kick that kid off the boat in the middle of the ocian.

Your stupid analysis is noted and noted as idiotic as a religious whore.

w00t!!

Could you please post the entire list of "notes"? I would very much like to see where I rank against others :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Well you should be, your lines of rational here are Epic Fail.



No you keep 'em, you need to practice stayin' inside the lines.

None of which refutes what I said, EPIC fail on your part.
 
Really? Well he's consuming my nautical resources against my will, you better come get him because I'm on the bridge checking the radar and I don't see any other vessels.

Give him to the state then. A pregnant woman cannot do that.


And they have every right to summarily kick that kid off the boat in the middle of the ocian.

Shouldn't have brought him on the boat then, epic fail on your part.
 
Back
Top Bottom