3 ms·

Of course I do, even under a Human Right violating regime. Human Rights transcend local authorities. And this authority would be both wrong and illegitimate if

Of course I do, even under a Human Right violating regime. Human Rights transcend local authorities. And this authority would be both wrong and illegitimate if it has endorsed those Rights by ratifying a treaty that defines them, and somehow doesn't "belive" in them as you put it.

chrisseaton 5y ago
This is a bizarre kind of double-think. If someone the other side of the world tells you that you have the right to freedom of religion, but the authority you live under disagrees, and the people on the other side of the world don't do anything about it, then in what sense do you have the right? You don't - it's meaningless. If I say I have decided that you have the universal inalienable right to beer, but where you live doesn't agree, and I don't do anything about it either, then have I really given you that right? Of course not. I think what you're saying is that you think people should have these rights. Great. But they don't in practice, and so they aren't universal.
- sheepdestroyer 5y ago
  The concept is not new, 232 years old now, it shouldn't be that strange to you. The vocation of tyrants is to have their head cut at some point, more or less figuratively.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    This whole thread started with you giving an example of how people don't actually have these rights. So even you know they aren't actually universal or inalienable. 232 years of pretending people have rights that they demonstrably do not have.
    - sheepdestroyer 5y ago
      You still continue to say that people having their rights violated means they don't exist. That's a demonstrably false and illogical statement. It's because people inherently have rights that they fight for them, and others take their side. Hence events like the French Revolution, the Abolition of slavery, or the Civil Rights Movement.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        > You still continue to say that people having their rights violated means they don't exist. Yes. What is the meaning of a right that nobody enforces? It's just an aspiration, a wish, something you'd like to have or other people would like you to have. If nobody's enforcing it, it's not really a right. By definition. > Hence events like the French Revolution, the Abolition of slavery, or the Civil Rights Movement. These were fights to create rights. They didn't have them before.

chrisseaton 5y ago

This is a bizarre kind of double-think. If someone the other side of the world tells you that you have the right to freedom of religion, but the authority you live under disagrees, and the people on the other side of the world don't do anything about it, then in what sense do you have the right? You don't - it's meaningless. If I say I have decided that you have the universal inalienable right to beer, but where you live doesn't agree, and I don't do anything about it either, then have I really given you that right? Of course not. I think what you're saying is that you think people should have these rights. Great. But they don't in practice, and so they aren't universal.

sheepdestroyer 5y ago
The concept is not new, 232 years old now, it shouldn't be that strange to you. The vocation of tyrants is to have their head cut at some point, more or less figuratively.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  This whole thread started with you giving an example of how people don't actually have these rights. So even you know they aren't actually universal or inalienable. 232 years of pretending people have rights that they demonstrably do not have.
  - sheepdestroyer 5y ago
    You still continue to say that people having their rights violated means they don't exist. That's a demonstrably false and illogical statement. It's because people inherently have rights that they fight for them, and others take their side. Hence events like the French Revolution, the Abolition of slavery, or the Civil Rights Movement.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > You still continue to say that people having their rights violated means they don't exist. Yes. What is the meaning of a right that nobody enforces? It's just an aspiration, a wish, something you'd like to have or other people would like you to have. If nobody's enforcing it, it's not really a right. By definition. > Hence events like the French Revolution, the Abolition of slavery, or the Civil Rights Movement. These were fights to create rights. They didn't have them before.