2 ms·
> By their very concept, they are unconditional and inalienable. That is just the theoretical approach. The fact that someone says that human rights are uncond
by phoe-krk 2y ago
> By their very concept, they are unconditional and inalienable.
That is just the theoretical approach. The fact that someone says that human rights are unconditional and inalienable does not mean that they are so in practice.
It is the execution of those human rights, including prevention, education, and punishment, that makes them seem unconditional and inalienable. How do you execute human rights or facilitate their execution in a situation, where they are neither unconditional nor inalienable in practice?
- layer8 2y agoHaving a right and receiving justice are two different things. The point is that you can’t say that something is a human right and at the same time define conditions upon which they don’t apply to some human(s), which the GP comment tried to do.
- phoe-krk 2y agoI understand the second paragraph, but: > Having a right and receiving justice are two different things. That doesn't yet make sense to me. What good is a right if it stays theoretical, without an ability to execute that right in practice? Or, in other words, if a person has a right but there are no ways to execute that right, how is this situation practically different from that person not having a right at all?