3 ms·

None of those are rights inherent to a human being. As can be showcased by almost every non-democratic government of every civilization in history. If you inve

None of those are rights inherent to a human being. As can be showcased by almost every non-democratic government of every civilization in history. If you invented it,it's a right you're enforcing on your own initiative. Human rights are self-evident and widely accepted across cultural boundaries. Which why they are universally accepted as human rights. The criteria here is ability for the majority of humans to agree that after obsetvation if historical practices against modern context something can be considered a right a person enjoys just for being human. Freedom of speech is a right you enjoy for living in a country that allows it. It's not a right you attained for being a human but because some people signed the bill of rights (for americans).

jupp0r 7y ago
Sorry, you are plain wrong. Article 12 and 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter [1]: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Just because some countries happen do have "historical practices" of violating human rights doesn't mean they have a right to keep violating them. [1] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
- badrabbit 7y ago
  You are wrong in your understanding as well. The human rights charter is not legally binding and it was signed by only 48 of the initial UN members. It merely reflects the beleiefs of some UN memebers at the time. I think in the end,if national sovreignity means anything at all then human rights is defined by each nation's laws. For example, if Germany invaded the US to liberate americans from lack of universal healthcare which they as a nation consider to be a human right for americans are they justified? If you believe so then yes what mozilla did is alright. My argument is,for it to be a human right,you need historical precedence and universal (not a mere majority) acceptance. It is a right you attain simply for being human and nothing more. Let me take it a step further,if a prisoner's privacy is taken away (which is the case in every prison) then is that person's human right beinf violated every day? If so,please let's talk about that because you lose privacy for being arrested even without a trial or conviction!

jupp0r 7y ago

Sorry, you are plain wrong. Article 12 and 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter [1]: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Just because some countries happen do have "historical practices" of violating human rights doesn't mean they have a right to keep violating them. [1] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

badrabbit 7y ago
You are wrong in your understanding as well. The human rights charter is not legally binding and it was signed by only 48 of the initial UN members. It merely reflects the beleiefs of some UN memebers at the time. I think in the end,if national sovreignity means anything at all then human rights is defined by each nation's laws. For example, if Germany invaded the US to liberate americans from lack of universal healthcare which they as a nation consider to be a human right for americans are they justified? If you believe so then yes what mozilla did is alright. My argument is,for it to be a human right,you need historical precedence and universal (not a mere majority) acceptance. It is a right you attain simply for being human and nothing more. Let me take it a step further,if a prisoner's privacy is taken away (which is the case in every prison) then is that person's human right beinf violated every day? If so,please let's talk about that because you lose privacy for being arrested even without a trial or conviction!