3 ms·

This is absurd bordering on trolling. That isn't the "whole point of rights" (maybe this is what you believe, but that's an opinion, don't present it as a fact)

by latch 6y ago

This is absurd bordering on trolling. That isn't the "whole point of rights" (maybe this is what you believe, but that's an opinion, don't present it as a fact). At best, a right is a societal norm. They're almost always conditional and complex - if for no other reason than, without conditions, some rights cannot co-exist. A strong commitment to human rights doesn't mean rights are non-conditional, so you're moving the goalpost to make a slippery slope argument. Anyways, laws are what can stop these things from happening. Yes, some laws go hand-in-hand with human(e.g. universal suffrage), some don't (e.g, conflicts of interest laws)

logicchains 6y ago
>This is absurd bordering on trolling. That isn't the "whole point of rights" (maybe this is what you believe, but that's an opinion, don't present it as a fact). From the first line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/): "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" Note the word "inalienable". Or if you don't like the UN, there's the US declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The whole point of countries having a supreme court and constitution is to enforce the unconditionality of such rights. Yes it's a political position held by some nowadays that human rights are just a legal fiction granted by the government or "society", but that's not how the nation's founders saw it.
- falcolas 6y ago
  The freedom of speech is provided for by both the UN human rights declaration, and an amendment to the constitution - yet there are still some forms of speech which are illegal. Individual rights can (and IMO should) be abridged when it impedes on the greater good.

by latch 6y ago

logicchains 6y ago

>This is absurd bordering on trolling. That isn't the "whole point of rights" (maybe this is what you believe, but that's an opinion, don't present it as a fact). From the first line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/): "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" Note the word "inalienable". Or if you don't like the UN, there's the US declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The whole point of countries having a supreme court and constitution is to enforce the unconditionality of such rights. Yes it's a political position held by some nowadays that human rights are just a legal fiction granted by the government or "society", but that's not how the nation's founders saw it.

falcolas 6y ago
The freedom of speech is provided for by both the UN human rights declaration, and an amendment to the constitution - yet there are still some forms of speech which are illegal. Individual rights can (and IMO should) be abridged when it impedes on the greater good.