4 ms·

> The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will

by puglr 5y ago

> The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. It occurs to me that this same argument can be used against anything that ought to be enshrined at the UN as a human right. An obvious example being loving who you want without regard to sex or gender.

abduhl 5y ago
Take the right you just proposed. Why is it limited to a “who”? Why is it linked to sex or gender? Is this a singular love or is polygamy a human right? Does love need to be reciprocated? What’s the fundamental human right? Shouldn’t we be worried that these so-called human rights are being newly discovered relatively recently?
- puglr 5y ago
  > Why is it limited to a “who”? "Who" implies a human. The topic is human rights. I'm not sure I follow what this particular question is trying to get at. > Why is it linked to sex or gender? Pro answer: It isn't. We've known this since prehistoric times. Con answer: Because only a man and a woman can create a new human life on their own. > Is this a singular love or is polygamy a human right? Age differences would have made for a better example here. But my answer would be that this question is that it frankly doesn't matter for my example. I.e., one does not need to answer the question of "how many people should we allow someone to marry" to answer the question of "should people be allowed to marry someone with the same genitals as themselves". Indeed, our global reality reflects that. > What’s the fundamental human right? What I previously stated: "loving who you want without regard to sex or gender". Notice that it does not say "without regard to singular vs plural love" or "without regard to reciprocation" or anything else. > Shouldn’t we be worried that these so-called human rights are being newly discovered relatively recently? That's... how it works. We (or at least Western society) don't enshrine rights into laws and constitutions until we realize something we ought to be allowed to do freely is being unduly infringed upon. That's a process that doesn't stop. We should be worried when we stop "discovering" new rights, not the other way around. Humanity has yet to produce a generation that "has it all figured out" with respect to fundamental rights, and there is no reason to assume we ever will.
  - abduhl 5y ago
    You’ve missed the point of my post: the right you proposed has arbitrary limits which don’t seem to be justifiable under any logical framework and defending the position is untenable. Why are these limits here? If an authoritarian regime prefers to say take away or add a limit (“well the real human right is a right to love and I want to love as many people as I can with or without their consent”) then how do we morally justify denying their interpretation of a poorly developed human right while trying to advance our own interpretation? We should be worried about certain societies “discovering” new rights and attempting to impose them on the rest of the world who may or may not share that viewpoint. This is true of “enlightened” societies like in the West just as much as other societies.

by puglr 5y ago

abduhl 5y ago

Take the right you just proposed. Why is it limited to a “who”? Why is it linked to sex or gender? Is this a singular love or is polygamy a human right? Does love need to be reciprocated? What’s the fundamental human right? Shouldn’t we be worried that these so-called human rights are being newly discovered relatively recently?

puglr 5y ago
> Why is it limited to a “who”? "Who" implies a human. The topic is human rights. I'm not sure I follow what this particular question is trying to get at. > Why is it linked to sex or gender? Pro answer: It isn't. We've known this since prehistoric times. Con answer: Because only a man and a woman can create a new human life on their own. > Is this a singular love or is polygamy a human right? Age differences would have made for a better example here. But my answer would be that this question is that it frankly doesn't matter for my example. I.e., one does not need to answer the question of "how many people should we allow someone to marry" to answer the question of "should people be allowed to marry someone with the same genitals as themselves". Indeed, our global reality reflects that. > What’s the fundamental human right? What I previously stated: "loving who you want without regard to sex or gender". Notice that it does not say "without regard to singular vs plural love" or "without regard to reciprocation" or anything else. > Shouldn’t we be worried that these so-called human rights are being newly discovered relatively recently? That's... how it works. We (or at least Western society) don't enshrine rights into laws and constitutions until we realize something we ought to be allowed to do freely is being unduly infringed upon. That's a process that doesn't stop. We should be worried when we stop "discovering" new rights, not the other way around. Humanity has yet to produce a generation that "has it all figured out" with respect to fundamental rights, and there is no reason to assume we ever will.
- abduhl 5y ago
  You’ve missed the point of my post: the right you proposed has arbitrary limits which don’t seem to be justifiable under any logical framework and defending the position is untenable. Why are these limits here? If an authoritarian regime prefers to say take away or add a limit (“well the real human right is a right to love and I want to love as many people as I can with or without their consent”) then how do we morally justify denying their interpretation of a poorly developed human right while trying to advance our own interpretation? We should be worried about certain societies “discovering” new rights and attempting to impose them on the rest of the world who may or may not share that viewpoint. This is true of “enlightened” societies like in the West just as much as other societies.