1. Crack annoyance squad wanted

Comment #203840 by secondsoprano on July 3, 2008 at 7:36 pm

From the ABC article posted by Michael (link above):

Yesterday, it appeared the NSW Police got wind of the plans. Mr Roberts received a call in Brisbane from a detective who identified himself as being from the World Youth Day Investigation Squad. He was then asked a series of questions.

The World Youth Day Investigation Squad???

Annoy pilgrims, face a fine

This week, it was revealed NSW Police had been given the power to arrest anyone who they believe causes annoyance or inconvenience to pilgrims during World Youth Day. Offenders risk fines of up to $5,500.

Protest groups worry about the definition of the word, 'annoying'. They fear it could lead to the confiscation of items such as placards and T-shirts bearing anti-World Youth Day slogans.

The co-convenor of Acceptance, a group for gay and lesbian Catholics that is planning to run a forum on homosexuality to coincide with the event, says he has also received a call from NSW Police.

Paul Harris says the call came after World Youth Day organisers refused to include the forum as part of the week's official festivities.

Utterly appalling laws.

The only good thing is that they have been universally condemned - the media, talkback and blogsphere are ringing with fury and ridicule, and many people who didn't really care either way are now planning to get out there and annoy as many catholics as possible.

2. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203787 by secondsoprano on July 3, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Ironically RD Net is following the well worn path of the Daily Mail - put out stories that are true, in order to outrage and reinforce your own prejudices. Its cheap and nasty but very effective

Josh, you should be ashamed of yourself. I hope you will in future follow the Clear One's lead and only publish stories that are FALSE in order order to outrage and reinforce your own prejudices.

3. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #202065 by secondsoprano on June 30, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Comment #200115 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 11:42 pm

By the way, are you now prepared to make a statement backing evolution and that there was death and natural disasters before humans?

I have asked 8 times now.

You're right Goldy - and I found the reference. I'll see your sad git and raise you a disgraceful procrastinator.

4. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200116 by secondsoprano on June 26, 2008 at 11:46 pm

So the C of E and the Baptists ... always threaten torture?

And do you seriously believe that torture often accompanies one side of a religious belief?

"If you do not believe in our god and obey our rules, you will go to hell and burn in hideous agony for all of eternity."

Sounds like threats of torture to me.

5. God hates Mars

Comment #200113 by secondsoprano on June 26, 2008 at 11:36 pm

By the way, the badastromony article omits one of the best/worst bits of the original Rob Hood article:

I have four year old kids in my church that could tell you where life originated. If people would bother to accept the fact that everything in existence is created by an omnipotent God then, we would not need to waste money searching for an answer that even small children already know

I despair. How do you respond to such idiocy? How do those four year olds have any hope when their parents and leaders clearly have the mentality of four years olds too??

6. God hates Mars

Comment #200112 by secondsoprano on June 26, 2008 at 11:33 pm

When I went into www.standfortruthonline.com I see no comments at all. Have they all been removed or am I not looking at it right?

7. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199336 by secondsoprano on June 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Al, thanks for that mate. Any time I want to know what my "real problem is, I'll be sure to ask you.


By your analogy, straight men are banned from marrying other men, so they are banned from marrying.

I am banned from marrying the person to whom I intend to commit myself in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. Hence I am banned from marrying.

My "real problem" is that the state validates some lifelong, sexually exclusive, committed relationships, and not others.

I have no wish to go down to any church or synagogue, I wish to have the same civil rights as anyone else.

And if that bothers "the rest of you", you can go f*ck yourself.

8. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199323 by secondsoprano on June 25, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Children are entitled to be born within that bond of marriage

Fine, so you won't have a problem with me and my partner marrying so our daughter can be 'legitimised' then?

Vanwall:

I can't believe so many people are sucked in by this alledged violation of rights. What exactly is being "banned"? Gay couples can have a civil union or whatever they want to call it. The only thing they are banned from doing is changing the dictionary. If a woman wants to be an "uncle" are her rights being violated because females are "banned" from unclehood?

Even if marriage was only a word in the dictionary, my rights would be still be violated, because as long as the state still regulates marriage at all (and I have some sypathy with the view that it shouldn't) it amounts to the state officially validating the view that my relationship is less valid that a comparable relationship between a man and a woman.

Of course marriage is not only a word in the dictionary. It has enormous legal and financial implications - more in some jurisdictions than others.

9. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #197761 by secondsoprano on June 22, 2008 at 3:53 pm

What a pity that tank person turned out to be a drive-by. I was hoping we might actually have conversation [or even a conversion ;)]

*sigh*

I am so naiive.

10. Rapture site sends unbelievers their last chance ... via email

Comment #196375 by secondsoprano on June 19, 2008 at 8:20 pm

If only I had no conscience, I could be (in the immortal words of Daffy) rich! Rich! Fabulously Wealthy!

Are you an athiest? Then by definition you have no conscience, because you have no moral framework, because morality comes from god, as defined by [insert name of holy book here]. Haven't you been paying attention??

Go ahead and fleece 'em.

11. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196372 by secondsoprano on June 19, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Surely this can't be true.

12. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195837 by secondsoprano on June 18, 2008 at 10:29 pm

* Applause , applause *

Fine work, irate.

13. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195124 by secondsoprano on June 17, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Don't be an apostate. It is not to late, as long as you draw breath, to turn around and praise God, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the one and only Almighty God.


Take care to not venture so far in your thoughts of folly and evil. This is not a game. It will determine where your soul will rest in eternity.
Come to Jesus Christ and praise his name. Belief, Praise, Repentance and Love will do wonders for you.

Please change your minds, please look into the truth and re-discover how awesome Jesus Christ is and what you can accomplish with Him working through you. You know, in your heart, it is true.

May God bless you and keep you.

Tank, the old "god is awesome" and "you'll burn for eternity" combo which Mr. Forrest so succinctly diagnosed is really not going to cut it here, you know. Nor are you going to get anywhere with patronising suggestions that we are "playing a game". You are going to have to do a lot better than that.

Most of the people on this site are mind-blowingly intelligent, and know more about science, theology, philosophy and practically anything else you could name than you could possibly imagine. You have an incredible opportunity here, if you hang around and keep reading, to have the same epiphany as Prof. Elgaroy and realise that truth and happiness can be found, not by embracing myths, fears and threats, but by opening your mind to logic.

I hope you are mature enough to accept the challenge, and I look forward to welcoming you to the wonderful freedom from religion, fear and indoctrination that intelligent athiesm can bring.

[Edit. P.S. - what Frankus said]

14. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #192379 by secondsoprano on June 12, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Why is it that all those foundations with "Family" in the title are usually detrimental to the kids in the families?

They are certainly detrimental to my family - they define it out of existence.

15. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192372 by secondsoprano on June 12, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Can't have a godless heathen in the house, and that includes me.

Ah. By the sounds of it, especially you ;)

16. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192369 by secondsoprano on June 12, 2008 at 10:12 pm

he knows how much alimony and child support he'd pay if he admitted atheism

I don't get it. (Am I letting the intelligent athiests' side down?)

17. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192302 by secondsoprano on June 12, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Happy 25th birthday Cartomancer :)

18. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192270 by secondsoprano on June 12, 2008 at 4:01 pm

And in other breaking news, a new study has found that grown-ups are less likely to believe in Santa Claus.

19. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191355 by secondsoprano on June 10, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Is this srsly the best they can do? How very disappointing.

20. A moral test for true believers, Rudd style

Comment #189208 by secondsoprano on June 5, 2008 at 8:00 pm

To acs -

EDIT - Damn, secondsoprano beat me to it.

... but you did it so much more succinctly :)

To Brian English -

Here, being openly religious is a bit of a politcal gamble. Sure Howard and Rudd used religion a bit. But if they come out and say the sort of shite that's considered normal in the US, they'd be in a right spot of bother.

I agree. Sure, there are still problems ($165 mill of my money to "world" youth day; tax ememptions to churches, no gay marriage etc), but in general it seems to me that Australians do not take kindly to overt religious involvement in politics. I'd say we're doing pretty well compared to the US, if what we see in the media/net can be believed.

21. A moral test for true believers, Rudd style

Comment #189194 by secondsoprano on June 5, 2008 at 6:46 pm

dr joneZ , you are right about Rudd as a shrewd politican, but the rest of your post is, with the greatest of respect, b*llsh*t.

The separation of church and state mostly works pretty well in Australia. There is the occasional clever and nasty priest/politician like Abbott, Harradine & Niele, but in general it is simply not true that "the state needs the church to mandate its law process".

Your stated example re the oath is incorrect. The Oaths Acts of all Australian jurisdictions include provision for a witness to take an oath or an affirmation, at the witness' discretion. Case law makes it clear that in every case where an oath is required, a solemn declaration is also acceptable, and the only requirement is that the oath or declaration be binding upon the declarant's conscience. There is no requirement that a bible or any other religious text be used, unless the deponent requests it.

*edited for typos

22. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165554 by secondsoprano on April 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Comment #160816 by navyjake95 on April 14, 2008 at 12:27 pm


It's been my experience (for 50 years), that people who behave like you did (in your article), do so because they're deeply afraid of Jesus.

Comment #161118 by secondsoprano on April 14, 2008 at 8:44 pm

What a peculiar thing to say. Can you give us some examples? How can an athiest possibly be afraid of something which they don't believe exists?

Hello navyjake, I see you are back. Any chance of an answer to my question?

23. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #165536 by secondsoprano on April 21, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Comment #163152 by Mitchell Gilks
I highly doubt that there are "gay genes". …. I think that the idea that is is genetic is latched unto with vigour, so they can just claim "see, it's not my fault, I can't help it. I was born this way."

I'm not a scientist, so I speak only from personal observation, but my sense is that it is at least partly genetic. (Perhaps a combination of genetic and cultural factors).

I don't say that because I want to claim that "it's not my fault" (indeed, I consider myself very fortunate to be gay) It's just that I have no sense that I chose my orientation, and neither does anyone (straight and gay) I have discussed this with. I have never heard of anyone outside the loopy religious ex-gay movement who just woke up one morning and "decided" to be straight/gay.

My sexuality is so very much a part of my being; much like being left-handed, or having brown hair; it makes sense to me that it is genetic.

Obviously I realise I could be mistaken, and that choices can be subliminal etc.

But I wanted to clear up the misconception that gays (well, this one, anyway), use genetics as an "excuse" for something negative. As you point out, it's not negative, so we don't need an "excuse".

If I could choose to be gay, I would. I just don't think I did.

24. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163065 by secondsoprano on April 18, 2008 at 12:03 am

Natural selection of any such children will not be affected by the ideology of their parents.

It is not an ideology. Take your homophobia to some other board. It is not welcome here.

25. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163057 by secondsoprano on April 17, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Get yourself a gay couple, a lesbian couple and a turkey baster. Then before you know it, you've got a baby with four parents.

... two of whom are homosexuals who have "produced offspring" in the biological sense.

26. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163056 by secondsoprano on April 17, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Never said they weren't. It's just that Male-to-male or female-to-female sex will not produce offspring.

True but irrelevant. What you said was that homosexuals would not have any offspring. This is self-evidently not true.

Take me for example: I'm homosexual, I have a child. My genes (including, for the sake of argument, my "gay" genes) are being passed on.

Homosexually orientated people have always been just as physically capable of producing offspring as bisexually and heterosexually oriented people. Whether they do that by heterosexual sex, turkey baster, etc doesn't change the fact that they are homosexual.

27. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163050 by secondsoprano on April 17, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Um, they're gay. There won't BE any offspring.

Oh for FSM sake. We did this to death already in another thread. Can someone post a link?

Homosexuality. Infertility. Totally different things. OK?

28. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162313 by secondsoprano on April 16, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Bonzai became a Rabbi too.

I read that as "Bonzai became a Rabbit".

I thought we finally had evidence for god-the-magician!

29. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161118 by secondsoprano on April 14, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Comment #160816 by navyjake95 on April 14, 2008 at 12:27 pm

It's been my experience (for 50 years), that people who behave like you did (in your article), do so because they're deeply afraid of Jesus.

What a peculiar thing to say. Can you give us some examples? How can an athiest possibly be afraid of something which they don't believe exists?

30. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161116 by secondsoprano on April 14, 2008 at 8:35 pm

So Steve, did your partner start calling you "Cobber" when he came back from Oz? :-)


Not in front of me, fortunately.

"Cobber?". Mate, the word you're searching for is "mate". The last recorded use of the word "cobber", apart from tourists, was early last century.

31. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158652 by secondsoprano on April 10, 2008 at 9:24 pm

sign: a happy and well adjusted "homosexualist"

Cue music (probably only aussies & kiwis will get this...)

we're happy homosexualists,
as bright as bright can be
we all enjoy some sodomy
for breakfast lunch and tea
our mummies say we're growing queerer every single week
because we love twisted lives
we all adore our same-sex wives
it puts a rose in each bum cheek!

32. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158644 by secondsoprano on April 10, 2008 at 9:13 pm

You Australian?

Yeah mate, howd'ya guess? Was it the gratuitously offensive anti-kiwi abuse that gave me away? ;0

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158641 by secondsoprano on April 10, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Maybe in that case Cartomancer would be happy to make you an honorary homosexualist, so you can still be in the athiest club.

Hmmm, I did go to an all boys boarding school....but I'm about 20 years too old for Cartomancer...

Well, maybe you should stick to sheep then. There'll be plenty at the orgy, I assume?

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158615 by secondsoprano on April 10, 2008 at 8:26 pm

As it is, I can't be an athiest, apparently. You see, I'm fucking gorgeous, mate. Abso-fucking-lutely gorgeous :-D

Maybe in that case Cartomancer would be happy to make you an honorary homosexualist, so you can still be in the athiest club.

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158608 by secondsoprano on April 10, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Most often, these folks suffer from a defect -- a lisp, stuttering, homosexualism, being crippled, suffering from a crippling disease, having been abused by their dads, fat bodies and ugly faces, especially.

So, if god made me a homosexualist [sic], that would mean it's his fault I don't believe in him?

36. Beware the Believers

Comment #157977 by secondsoprano on April 9, 2008 at 11:25 pm

The reason is conjecture from professors the students look up too because of their high intellectual honors.

I don't understand this. Please explain.

There isn't a lack of evidence, only a supression of evidence

Anything to support this conspiracy theory?

37. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #157880 by secondsoprano on April 9, 2008 at 4:53 pm

the cardinal said the conditions in which people had been forced to work in Catholic institutions - such as hospitals, homes and monastery gardens - had not been as bad as elsewhere

Oh, well that's alright then.

38. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #157877 by secondsoprano on April 9, 2008 at 4:48 pm

If the Democratic Party is serious about fostering a relationship with the faith community

How terribly depressing that "fostering a relationship with the faith community" is seen as an appropriate thing for a political party to do.

39. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156574 by secondsoprano on April 7, 2008 at 10:58 pm

DasSquid

I don't even know if Kevin Rudd (our current Prime Minister) is even religious!

He makes no secret of the fact that he is a committed Xtian.

But I agree with the rest of your post.

40. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154881 by secondsoprano on April 3, 2008 at 10:08 pm

ya know (ponderingly) it's weird to think that a person who is supposed to represent you in government actually wants you to be erased like a person would want cancer to be erased from their body - how odd-

Yes, it is odd. I usually manage to ignore it ... except when I remember that some of those same representatives also want my daughter's life erased, because her mother is a lesbian.

That's when it goes beyond odd, and becomes I'M GONNA TEAR THESE *#?/*@*(*&s LIMB FROM LIMB!!!

When your kids are threatened, it's hard to stay rational sometimes.


EDIT: because her mothers are lesbians [which is the point, I guess]

41. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154871 by secondsoprano on April 3, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than a few decades

Surely this is just dumb. What is "a society that totally embraces homosexuality" anyway? And even if someone was on her side, surely if they had two brain cells to rub together they'd say "Cool! Studies! I'd like to see that - which societies?".

To which the answer is "Um, well, actually there aren't any. Sorry".

Why doesn't she stick to something unfalsifiable like "God says"?

42. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154865 by secondsoprano on April 3, 2008 at 9:03 pm

Does that mean we will last slightly longer thanks to dip shits like the not so Rev Nile?

I'll take eternal damnation, thanks. If the alternative is being grateful to Fred for anything.

43. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154758 by secondsoprano on April 3, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Sydney has held an annual Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras since 1978 (it started as a protest). It goes for a month and the highlight is the big street parade which attracts 300,000 to 400,00 spectators. (This silly cow only got 1000).

So according to her "research", Australia only has a short time left! What a twit!

We're getting there, but I don't know if you can say we have "totally embraced" homosexuality. We still have 58 federal statutes enshrining discrimination, plus a fair number of state laws (eg no recognition of gay families, no gay marriage, discriminatory tax law etc), plus a few outstpoken homophobes in Parliament (eg the Rev Fred Nile), and the usual quota of idiots in the media.

But all in all we do seem to be doing a lot better than much of the world. Maybe god will smite us anyway.

EDIT: Of course there is the small point that our prime minister is a god-botherer who opposes gay marriage and supports churches having a view on economic policy. So that is a bit of worry. Can't be worse than the last one though.

44. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153693 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 8:54 pm

I'm just a tufted titmouse. I don't have the answers

You're very cute though

45. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153685 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 8:32 pm

You said:

your analogy fails because we live in a society of agreed-upon rules. A man may not beat his wife in America because its against the laws that we as a country have laid down for ourselves. Can you appreciate the difference between that and laws decided for us by people who don't even live in our country?

You have already agreed that there are "inalienable human rights". This is just another way of saying "universally agreed upon rules". You live in a society (the US) of agreed-upon rules. You also live in a broader society (the world) with universal human rights.

You are part of the US social contract: you are also part of the universal human contract.

I said:

… you seem to be denying that any international law should apply within domestic borders. My point is that this denial is contradictory to your expressed belief in universally applicable rights.

You said:

International law that isn't agreed upon by that nation! Ugh - why is this so hard to understand?

Ugh yourself: that is a definition of domestic law.

There is no point in saying a country can pick and choose the parts of international law it wants to apply: either human rights are internationally applicable (in which case they apply despite what an individual nation decides) or they aren't. You say the US should be free to ignore internationally applicable human rights. You can't have it both ways.

If an Islamic organization passed a law and then ordered the UK to follow it, what do you think would happen? You would *hopefully* tell them to jog on!

Yes, I would feel free to ignore (if that's what "jog on" means) a law passed by "an Islamic organisation" which doesn't represent me, and doesn't articulate universally applicable human rights. [I'm Australian, by the way]

You either want us to use our military for the defense of human rights or you want us to stay out of everyone's business.

No, those are not the only two options. I want you to recognise that there are internationally applicable human rights standards which EVERY NATION should be held accountable to.

If the US hasn't committed torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity etc, what is your problem in defending the charges before an international court?

If it has, what moral right does it have to say to the rest of humanity, f-off, we will torture/commit war crimes etc as much as we like, and you can't stop us?

46. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153675 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 7:51 pm

OT: who is the Frum you are waiting for?

My partner didn't want to be a called a stepmother, so my daughter calls her "frum" - combination of "mum" and "friend". I've never heard of "frum" - I thought we made it up!

47. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153647 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 6:13 pm

FF, I'm glad to say I agree with you wholeheartedly ... on this thread at least ;)

48. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153625 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 5:16 pm

What other countries want to do domestically is their own problem. I see no reason to sacrifice American lives and money to stop the domestic problems of others.

How is this different from saying "What husbands do to their wives in the privacy of their own home is their own problem. I see no reason to put police in harm's way to arrest the perpetrators of domestic violence"? Living in a society carries a responsibility to protect the weaker members of that society.

I believe in certain inalienable rights for all human beings but I would never advocate the use of force to tell others how to live. I decry human rights abuses in foreign countries but wouldn't use force to change them.

The victims of human rights abuses have their "inalienable rights" taken away from them. Your claim to believe in the existence of those rights is hollow if you are not prepared to do something to protect them.

Obviously there are questions about the best way to do this, as Dr Benway has pointed out. But you seem to be denying that any international law should apply within domestic borders. My point is that this denial is contradictory to your expressed belief in universally applicable rights.

If there are universally applicable rights, then there must be corresponding universally applicable responsibilities.

If a country be engages in something that amounts to "tyranny", why is the international community not entitled to object? Why should "domestic law" be an answer to a breach of internationally applicable human rights? And why should America be any exception?

"Object" all you want. How much as your "objection" accomplished in Africa, Asia and the Middle East?

I'm not talking about whether the UN is effective (clearly it isn't, on many fronts). I'm talking about whether, as a matter of logic and ethics, there should be a body of international law to which all nations (including the US) should be subject.

49. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153617 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Do I care about persecution in other countries? Of course I do. I abhor tyranny anywhere but I don't think that we (America) have the responsibility to defend the entire world. I recognize the rights and laws of other countries (Hell, I live in England) but I will never agree to international law superseding American law.

But you have demonstrated that you believe there are generally applicable standards of human rights. Otherwise the words "persecution" and "tyranny" have no meaning.

If there are internationally applicable standards, why should they not be internationally enforced?

If a country be engages in something that amounts to "tyranny", why is the international community not entitled to object? Why should "domestic law" be an answer to a breach of internationally applicable human rights? And why should America be any exception?

50. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153586 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 3:49 pm

I care about one thing in this world - the preservation of the US Republic. Nothing else disturbs me in the least.

And you Americans wonder why so much of the world hates you.

I don't hate you ... but I find many of you very, very disturbing.

Sorry, but I didn't sign up to die in Africa to stop some useless civil war. What other countries want to do domestically is their own problem.

I didn't ask you to die in Africa. What I find so disturbing is your assertion that because I was not born within your borders, my human rights are of no concern to you.

If it truly "does not disturb you in the least" that Chinese men are imprisoned without trial, Australian women are raped, Indonesian athiests are jailed, African children are abused, and Zimbabwean voters are tortured (but presumably you would be disturbed if the same things happened to Americans), then you are in my opinion a greatly diminished human being.

I do not ask you to die to protect my human rights. All I ask is that you recognise that I have them, even though I am not a citizen of your magnificent republic.