Merged Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[Poem]

'Please' not necessary, nor a citation from me. It is not up to me to prove a negative.

That isn't proving a negative. They either do or do not automatically adopt such international law.

In any case - proving a negative is not impossible (unless it's a universal one).

UNCRC appears to be legally binding in the Netherlands..

Why didn't you say so before?

Not much in the way of proving your claim.
I'm guessing if there were others, you would be trotting them out.

I'll have a look.

 

[theprestige]

Provide a citation that contradicts the citation I provided.

.......please.

This has already been addressed. The citation you provided contradicts your claim. Netherlands law is binding on the Netherlands. The UNCRC only becomes binding on the Netherlands only if the Netherlands ratifies it into Netherlands law.

There is no legal obligation on the Netherlands, to ratify treaties into Netherlands law.

 

[Poem]

This has already been addressed. The citation you provided contradicts your claim. Netherlands law is binding on the Netherlands. The UNCRC only becomes binding on the Netherlands only if the Netherlands ratifies it into Netherlands law.

There is no legal obligation on the Netherlands, to ratify treaties into Netherlands law.

My point stands: as soon as they ratified, it automatically became incorporated into Dutch law.

 

[theprestige]

My point stands: as soon as they ratified, it automatically became incorporated into Dutch law.

Yes, that's how ratifying something into national law works. The UNCRC had no binding power over them until they chose to implement it in their self binding national laws.

The UNCRC itself is not binding on anyone. That's why everyone had to choose to make it a part of their self binding domestic laws. That's why the US isn't bound by it.

 

[Poem]

Yes, that's how ratifying something into national law works. The UNCRC had no binding power over them until they chose to implement it in their self binding national laws.

The UNCRC itself is not binding on anyone. That's why everyone had to choose to make it a part of their self binding domestic laws. That's why the US isn't bound by it.

Ratifying is a legal obligation to uphold children's rights as set out in the UNCRC.

 

[Poem]

That's why the US isn't bound by it.

....and the US allows underage marriage in many states..................

 

[theprestige]

Ratifying is a legal obligation to uphold children's rights as set out in the UNCRC.

Only on the ratifier. The UNCRC isn't binding on anyone who doesn't choose to ratify it.

And let's not forget that most countries have worse CSA records than the US, even though they ratified your worthless treaty. Once Pakistan ratified your precious UNCRC, it stopped having any moral weight at all.

It baffles me, that you would still appeal to this disingenuous, hypocritical, morally bankrupt document.

 

[theprestige]

....and the US allows underage marriage in many states..................

Cool. Now do UNCRC signatory Pakistan.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why didn't you say so before?

It was implied in #3037

 

[Poem]

Only on the ratifier. The UNCRC isn't binding on anyone who doesn't choose to ratify it.

Every country has....bar one.

And let's not forget that most countries have worse CSA records than the US

Correct.

, even though they ratified your worthless treaty. Once Pakistan ratified your precious UNCRC, it stopped having any moral weight at all.

It baffles me, that you would still appeal to this disingenuous, hypocritical, morally bankrupt document.

Unless you're arguing that a blanket ban on porn is the only way to satisfy the mandate of the UNCRC, this is a red herring. Everyone here already agrees that the state has some responsibility to regulate access to pornography. Everyone here agrees that aged-based restrictions on access make sense. Everyone here already agrees with the principles outlined in the UNCRC.
..............................................

 

[Skeptical Greg]

My point stands: as soon as they ratified, it automatically became incorporated into Dutch law.

So much for Dutch law.

The Netherlands ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) but has been criticized by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child for failing to fully implement it, particularly regarding child poverty, homelessness, the best interests of the child, and asylum-seeking children. The Netherlands has been subject to legal challenges for violating a child's right to a nationality and faces ongoing scrutiny over its policies for vulnerable children.

 

[theprestige]

Every country has....bar one.

So? That still doesn't make the treaty automatically binding.

Also, it's possible to agree with the principles described in a treaty, and still consider the treaty itself to be worthless, hypocritical virtue signaling in the reality of its implementation.

 

[Poem]

Also, it's possible to agree with the principles described in a treaty, and still consider the treaty itself to be worthless, hypocritical virtue signaling in the reality of its implementation.

Its:
Disingenuous, hypocritical and morally bankrupt document - but you agree with it's principles?

Which principles aren't morally bankrupt TP?

 

[Poem]

So much for Dutch law.

You mean the pornographers rights continue to take precedence over children's? What do you think this thread is all about?

What proportion of those involved (those with the power to effect change in favour of children's rights) are consuming porn would you say?

 

[Joe Random]

And just how many people saw Goody Proctor dancing with the devil, but did nothing about it?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You mean the pornographers rights continue to take precedence over children's? What do you think this thread is all about?

What proportion of those involved (those with the power to effect change in favour of children's rights) are consuming porn would you say?

You were carrying on about how significant the Dutch ratification of the UNCRC is, and I pointed to a story about how meaningless it is.
Your reply did not address the significance of the article.
You don't even read what anyone else has to say. You are just a soap box preacher, spouting your rhetorical agenda..

 

[theprestige]

Its:
Disingenuous, hypocritical and morally bankrupt document - but you agree with it's principles?

It's possible to agree with an idea, and disagree with how it's implemented. That's what I'm doing here.

Which principles aren't morally bankrupt TP?

All of them.

But I believe this will continue to be a point of confusion for you, and I'd rather not get stuck on it.

Let's move on: How do you justify calling for a global ban on all porn (however defined), given that:
- You know it won't be effective.
- It would be a drastic infringement on the right of free expression.

 

[acbytesla]

Poem is tilting at windmills. He hasn't demonstrated that porn is specifically harmful. Or that the world wants a ban. Or that a ban is likely to be effective in any way.

 

[theprestige]

Poem is tilting at windmills. He hasn't demonstrated that porn is specifically harmful. Or that the world wants a ban. Or that a ban is likely to be effective in any way.

He's admitted that the ban won't be effective.

 

[acbytesla]

He's admitted that the ban won't be effective.

I know. And still Don Quixote tilts.