4 ms·

People care because they read the thing and thought it sounded like a bunch of good ideas to implement in their own neck of the woods. Some politician brings it

by ratww 5y ago

People care because they read the thing and thought it sounded like a bunch of good ideas to implement in their own neck of the woods. Some politician brings it home a copy and tries to make law, representatives vote. That's it. People routinely suggest new human rights and some people agree and others disagree. There is no higher court or secret world parliament deciding your life. You asked "How do rights become true or false?". Well, by becoming new laws in individual countries.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
Returning to the post, if Tor is claiming "Privacy Is A Human Right", and Facebook (hypothetically) responds "No It Isn't", can either party be said to be correct? If neither is correct (or both simultaneously), is it even a meaningful statement about the world to declare a human right like Tor does?
- ratww 5y ago
  > can either party be said to be correct Yes. Tor is correct and Facebook is wrong. I said it. Other people might say otherwise, but I'll say they're wrong. (and they are) In societies it is normal to have disagreements. What people do is discuss the issue and potentially reach an agreement. Maybe this will become a law somewhere. Maybe it will go into the Universal Declaration, and most countries will implement it. Maybe not. After becoming a law, people will either follow it or not. If they sort of break the law, a judge or peers will decide if they need punishment. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Who knows. Life is not a computer program or math equation. Life is a bit hard.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    If you say the sky is blue, or that water is wet, or that rock is hard, or that ice is cold, and so forth; I can agree with you because I can use my senses and they tell me the same thing you were telling me. If you tell me the angular sum of a triangle is 180 degrees, I cannot see it directly with my senses, but I can construct a simple proof with pen and paper that shows me it cannot be any other way than what you told me. How do you experience the truth of the human right to privacy?
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      What if I then draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere with an angle sum of 270 degrees? All you're saying here is that we've agreed on a principle that implies what you're saying is true. This is the exact same as what the other commenter is saying.
    - ratww 5y ago
      That's a very misleading question. You are comparing law and social constructs with natural science or math equation results. That's not how the world works. Societies are much more complex than that. I can try to convince you that this is right, if that's what you're asking. But no, there won't be a math equation or an scientific measurement that proves that it is correct. Because we're humans, not numbers or bits.
      - marginalia_nu 5y ago
        Right, but the only things I have access to are the things I can experience. I am of a slight empiricist bent, so if I am to be convinced about something, it needs to at least be related to those sorts of things I have experienced or can experience. I can't touch something like a social contract or an ideological standpoint, I don't know where it is are or how long it's been there, when it happened, how intense it is, whether it has any properties, whether it was caused or can cause; these things don't appear to be like anything that in any sense can be said to exist. If these things are gods, then for the sake of this conversation let's call my position an agnostic one. Society is complex, but even complex things are built from the parts we can see and touch, and since our senses are the only means we have for interacting with the world, even impossibly complex things must somehow be relatable back to them (unless there is some additional channel in which knowledge enters our minds?). If something is so nebulous that it is completely built from things we can't experience in any way other than being told about them, then how can they be said to exist at all, how could we tell this tale apart from complete fiction?
        ido66667 5y ago
        If you are looking for a proven moral system, there are none. The whole idea of human rights is a product of a certain culture (western europe and its dependencies) just like the Quran or the Bible. You can't really prove something is a human rights, much like you can't prove human rights are the 'correct' moral framework. So it's all opinions really.
- numpad0 5y ago
  My answer will be "not immediately, but I state that I understand that the history has proven the former to be correct, and I fully believe our collective will and the future continues to prove that". Feel free to call BS on it. Kinda is. Ultimately it's the human might that supports rights.
memling 5y ago
> Well, by becoming new laws in individual countries. Can a country create a right for more living space for some of its citizens?

by ratww 5y ago

marginalia_nu 5y ago

Returning to the post, if Tor is claiming "Privacy Is A Human Right", and Facebook (hypothetically) responds "No It Isn't", can either party be said to be correct? If neither is correct (or both simultaneously), is it even a meaningful statement about the world to declare a human right like Tor does?

ratww 5y ago
> can either party be said to be correct Yes. Tor is correct and Facebook is wrong. I said it. Other people might say otherwise, but I'll say they're wrong. (and they are) In societies it is normal to have disagreements. What people do is discuss the issue and potentially reach an agreement. Maybe this will become a law somewhere. Maybe it will go into the Universal Declaration, and most countries will implement it. Maybe not. After becoming a law, people will either follow it or not. If they sort of break the law, a judge or peers will decide if they need punishment. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Who knows. Life is not a computer program or math equation. Life is a bit hard.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  If you say the sky is blue, or that water is wet, or that rock is hard, or that ice is cold, and so forth; I can agree with you because I can use my senses and they tell me the same thing you were telling me. If you tell me the angular sum of a triangle is 180 degrees, I cannot see it directly with my senses, but I can construct a simple proof with pen and paper that shows me it cannot be any other way than what you told me. How do you experience the truth of the human right to privacy?
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    What if I then draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere with an angle sum of 270 degrees? All you're saying here is that we've agreed on a principle that implies what you're saying is true. This is the exact same as what the other commenter is saying.
  - ratww 5y ago
    That's a very misleading question. You are comparing law and social constructs with natural science or math equation results. That's not how the world works. Societies are much more complex than that. I can try to convince you that this is right, if that's what you're asking. But no, there won't be a math equation or an scientific measurement that proves that it is correct. Because we're humans, not numbers or bits.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      Right, but the only things I have access to are the things I can experience. I am of a slight empiricist bent, so if I am to be convinced about something, it needs to at least be related to those sorts of things I have experienced or can experience. I can't touch something like a social contract or an ideological standpoint, I don't know where it is are or how long it's been there, when it happened, how intense it is, whether it has any properties, whether it was caused or can cause; these things don't appear to be like anything that in any sense can be said to exist. If these things are gods, then for the sake of this conversation let's call my position an agnostic one. Society is complex, but even complex things are built from the parts we can see and touch, and since our senses are the only means we have for interacting with the world, even impossibly complex things must somehow be relatable back to them (unless there is some additional channel in which knowledge enters our minds?). If something is so nebulous that it is completely built from things we can't experience in any way other than being told about them, then how can they be said to exist at all, how could we tell this tale apart from complete fiction?
      - ido66667 5y ago
        If you are looking for a proven moral system, there are none. The whole idea of human rights is a product of a certain culture (western europe and its dependencies) just like the Quran or the Bible. You can't really prove something is a human rights, much like you can't prove human rights are the 'correct' moral framework. So it's all opinions really.
numpad0 5y ago
My answer will be "not immediately, but I state that I understand that the history has proven the former to be correct, and I fully believe our collective will and the future continues to prove that". Feel free to call BS on it. Kinda is. Ultimately it's the human might that supports rights.

memling 5y ago

> Well, by becoming new laws in individual countries. Can a country create a right for more living space for some of its citizens?