3 ms·

That’s a good point. Perhaps I’m combining two different things - freedom of speech and truth. Thanks for pointing that out. With Jamal aside, would you consid

That’s a good point. Perhaps I’m combining two different things - freedom of speech and truth. Thanks for pointing that out. With Jamal aside, would you consider addressing the more general question of truth as a right?

aaron695 6y ago
You don't have a right to know my medial records. So no, truth is not a human right. If I know a zero day in your product you have no right to that knowledge. You have no right to access newspapers for free. You have no right to the truth. Certainly not a basic human right. If your question is really the right to not be lied to, have fun with all the religions you'd have to restrict, except the correct one. Plus you'd have to kill Santa.
- desertraven 6y ago
  I must say I appreciate your direct delivery, and concise points (sorry Santa). How do you suppose we determine what basic human rights are? Or is the question too vague? Keeping the same spirit of your comment, but applying it to food: You don’t have a right to my food. You have no right to food for free. Both these statements seem quite true in today’s world. Can we go further and say food/water isn’t a human right? I hope this isn’t interpreted as putting words in your mouth. I’m just curious where you stand with regard to more ‘mainstream’ human rights.
  - aaron695 6y ago
    I admit I find it hard to understand what is a basic human right. I think probably because it's a PR term where the implementation can't match the description. > You have no right to food for free. If it's a basic human right then I think you do. > You don’t have a right to my food. This I also think is true so you hit a contradiction. In practice it's making sure people have enough to eat the best you can. The practical application of what I think you want is freedom of speech and low censorship. But it will include falsehoods. It also avoids the discussion of what is truth, which is impossible.
    - desertraven 6y ago
      Could you expand on the impossibility of discussing truth?
barbacoa 6y ago
Jamal was not a journalist. He was an opinion piece writer for the wapo. He was also working for the Qatar government to undermine saudi interests. It's alleged that Qatar was sending him outlines of what articles to publish and paying him to do so. Not that he deserved what happened or that Saudi Arabia isn't terrible for killing him but I wouldn't put him on some alter as a journalistic martyr.

aaron695 6y ago

You don't have a right to know my medial records. So no, truth is not a human right. If I know a zero day in your product you have no right to that knowledge. You have no right to access newspapers for free. You have no right to the truth. Certainly not a basic human right. If your question is really the right to not be lied to, have fun with all the religions you'd have to restrict, except the correct one. Plus you'd have to kill Santa.

desertraven 6y ago
I must say I appreciate your direct delivery, and concise points (sorry Santa). How do you suppose we determine what basic human rights are? Or is the question too vague? Keeping the same spirit of your comment, but applying it to food: You don’t have a right to my food. You have no right to food for free. Both these statements seem quite true in today’s world. Can we go further and say food/water isn’t a human right? I hope this isn’t interpreted as putting words in your mouth. I’m just curious where you stand with regard to more ‘mainstream’ human rights.
- aaron695 6y ago
  I admit I find it hard to understand what is a basic human right. I think probably because it's a PR term where the implementation can't match the description. > You have no right to food for free. If it's a basic human right then I think you do. > You don’t have a right to my food. This I also think is true so you hit a contradiction. In practice it's making sure people have enough to eat the best you can. The practical application of what I think you want is freedom of speech and low censorship. But it will include falsehoods. It also avoids the discussion of what is truth, which is impossible.
  - desertraven 6y ago
    Could you expand on the impossibility of discussing truth?

barbacoa 6y ago

Jamal was not a journalist. He was an opinion piece writer for the wapo. He was also working for the Qatar government to undermine saudi interests. It's alleged that Qatar was sending him outlines of what articles to publish and paying him to do so. Not that he deserved what happened or that Saudi Arabia isn't terrible for killing him but I wouldn't put him on some alter as a journalistic martyr.