3 ms·

There's nothing new about the practice. It becoming a human right would certainly be new. That's like saying backhanding your kid is a human right. Every human

by sejje 11mo ago

There's nothing new about the practice. It becoming a human right would certainly be new. That's like saying backhanding your kid is a human right. Every human on the planet practiced it forever.

oregano 11mo ago
[flagged]
- knollimar 11mo ago
  Their point is doing a thing for a long time doesn't enshrine it as a right. The comment before could have said "should be a human right". imo it's very frustrating having people say "thing I want is a right". What gives them that right? Are all laws not violation of rights if you extend that
  - overfeed 11mo ago
    They are completely ignoring the context of this whole thread, which exists because the highest court in the land (Kenyan land, that is) has affirmed that right. Ggp's is as absurd as a North Korean commenting on a SCOTUS ruling on the right to a fair trial by saying "This is a new human right I didn't even know I had."
    - sejje 11mo ago
      The rights of particular countries' citizens aren't usually construed with 'human rights.' I believe 'human rights' is of UN origin. The rights of US citizens, for instance, don't currently apply to the folks getting deported. It's a big controversial point, but of course the rights of the constitution aren't guaranteed to some guy in France. Human rights aren't those. In this case, Kenyan citizens gained a right, not humans.
      - overfeed 11mo ago
        > Human rights aren't those. What are they, then? If you can name one, I'll find you a jurisdiction where that right is not respected. Your (incorrect, IMO) definition of human rights based on the lowest common denominator whittles them down to nothing. Fundamentally I suspect what you and I are calling "human rights" is not the same thing at all.
  - biophysboy 11mo ago
    All rights now encoded in law were originally moral claims.
    - knollimar 11mo ago
      And before they were rights encoded in law were they rights? I feel it makes your claim weaker to go from "should have" to "is a right" if there's any doubt in it. There's strong "we have a right to ancillary thing" arguments you can make that rely on a right, but those rely on that right being a given, not the premise
      - biophysboy 11mo ago
        When somebody says "X is a right", that does not necessarily mean they think the case is closed and the discussion is over. It can also mean that they are making an assertion, which frames the discussion for the follow-up questions that you are now making.
red-iron-pine 11mo ago
[flagged]
krapp 11mo ago
It makes more sense as a human right than the four freedoms of Free Software, tbh. Agriculture is absolutely critical to the survival of our species and civilization. Being able to edit and copy software code really isn't.
- sejje 11mo ago
  The freedoms of software aren't a human right, either. I do think we should protect the ability to run your own code, via the law, but again, not a human right.

by sejje 11mo ago

There's nothing new about the practice. It becoming a human right would certainly be new. That's like saying backhanding your kid is a human right. Every human on the planet practiced it forever.

oregano 11mo ago

[flagged]

knollimar 11mo ago
Their point is doing a thing for a long time doesn't enshrine it as a right. The comment before could have said "should be a human right". imo it's very frustrating having people say "thing I want is a right". What gives them that right? Are all laws not violation of rights if you extend that
- overfeed 11mo ago
  They are completely ignoring the context of this whole thread, which exists because the highest court in the land (Kenyan land, that is) has affirmed that right. Ggp's is as absurd as a North Korean commenting on a SCOTUS ruling on the right to a fair trial by saying "This is a new human right I didn't even know I had."
  - sejje 11mo ago
    The rights of particular countries' citizens aren't usually construed with 'human rights.' I believe 'human rights' is of UN origin. The rights of US citizens, for instance, don't currently apply to the folks getting deported. It's a big controversial point, but of course the rights of the constitution aren't guaranteed to some guy in France. Human rights aren't those. In this case, Kenyan citizens gained a right, not humans.
    - overfeed 11mo ago
      > Human rights aren't those. What are they, then? If you can name one, I'll find you a jurisdiction where that right is not respected. Your (incorrect, IMO) definition of human rights based on the lowest common denominator whittles them down to nothing. Fundamentally I suspect what you and I are calling "human rights" is not the same thing at all.
- biophysboy 11mo ago
  All rights now encoded in law were originally moral claims.
  - knollimar 11mo ago
    And before they were rights encoded in law were they rights? I feel it makes your claim weaker to go from "should have" to "is a right" if there's any doubt in it. There's strong "we have a right to ancillary thing" arguments you can make that rely on a right, but those rely on that right being a given, not the premise
    - biophysboy 11mo ago
      When somebody says "X is a right", that does not necessarily mean they think the case is closed and the discussion is over. It can also mean that they are making an assertion, which frames the discussion for the follow-up questions that you are now making.

red-iron-pine 11mo ago

[flagged]

krapp 11mo ago

It makes more sense as a human right than the four freedoms of Free Software, tbh. Agriculture is absolutely critical to the survival of our species and civilization. Being able to edit and copy software code really isn't.

sejje 11mo ago
The freedoms of software aren't a human right, either. I do think we should protect the ability to run your own code, via the law, but again, not a human right.