4 ms·

> I don’t think it’s silly to suggest that maybe all humans should have the same protections against their rights being violated. Don't different countries hav

by vageli 7y ago

> I don’t think it’s silly to suggest that maybe all humans should have the same protections against their rights being violated. Don't different countries have different views of rights? What happens when those rights are at odds? For example, Turkish people can't speak ill against their governments [0]. This contrasts with countries that have fewer restrictions on speech, like America. So I think the main issue is, how can all humans have the same protections if different jurisdictions protect different things? Or is "protections" here more about procedural rights? [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_(Turkish_Penal_Code) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_(Turkish_Penal_C...

colonwqbang 7y ago
What is your argument here? The fact that human rights are not respected in all countries doesn't mean that humans don't have rights.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  It means that we can't agree on the list to begin with, and it's not always cut and dry.
  - jammygit 7y ago
    I’m sure the people didn’t get together in a referendum and decide to be not-allowed to criticize the government. That’s not a matter of not agreeing, it’s a matter of being told
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      And in between tyranny and the right of free speech (which not even all modern countries agree on I would add) there's a whole lot of gray. For example, is healthcare a right? How about voting for felons?
jolmg 7y ago
> Don't different countries have different views of rights? And so they would apply their views in their own jurisdiction. > What happens when those rights are at odds? Whichever jurisdiction you stand in correspond to the rights that prevail for you. The way I see it, a country says what the rights of people/humans are, and they defend those beliefs in their own jurisdiction, where they have the absolute power to. > So I think the main issue is, how can all humans have the same protections if different jurisdictions protect different things? I think baddox's comment does not necessarily imply all humans in the world. I interpreted it as all humans in a given jurisdiction.
- vageli 7y ago
  > I think baddox's comment does not necessarily imply all humans in the world. I interpreted it as all humans in a given jurisdiction. Ah I had not thought of it in this way but that makes sense. I can't disagree that all people in a single jurisdiction should be afforded the same procedural rights (I couch it in procedural rights because substantive rights are stripped from felons for example in many jurisdictions).

by vageli 7y ago

colonwqbang 7y ago

What is your argument here? The fact that human rights are not respected in all countries doesn't mean that humans don't have rights.

EpicEng 7y ago
It means that we can't agree on the list to begin with, and it's not always cut and dry.
- jammygit 7y ago
  I’m sure the people didn’t get together in a referendum and decide to be not-allowed to criticize the government. That’s not a matter of not agreeing, it’s a matter of being told
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    And in between tyranny and the right of free speech (which not even all modern countries agree on I would add) there's a whole lot of gray. For example, is healthcare a right? How about voting for felons?

jolmg 7y ago

> Don't different countries have different views of rights? And so they would apply their views in their own jurisdiction. > What happens when those rights are at odds? Whichever jurisdiction you stand in correspond to the rights that prevail for you. The way I see it, a country says what the rights of people/humans are, and they defend those beliefs in their own jurisdiction, where they have the absolute power to. > So I think the main issue is, how can all humans have the same protections if different jurisdictions protect different things? I think baddox's comment does not necessarily imply all humans in the world. I interpreted it as all humans in a given jurisdiction.

vageli 7y ago
> I think baddox's comment does not necessarily imply all humans in the world. I interpreted it as all humans in a given jurisdiction. Ah I had not thought of it in this way but that makes sense. I can't disagree that all people in a single jurisdiction should be afforded the same procedural rights (I couch it in procedural rights because substantive rights are stripped from felons for example in many jurisdictions).