Human rights

>human rights

>&humanities

>human knights

>animal rights

> posts someone with access to electricity and internet

>democracy

>you can't criticize something if you are personally benefiting from it.

>It's okay to preach to others without living according to my own ideals
>Leading by example is like, for lamos xDDDDD

very typical suburbanite socialist

If I didn't have access to electricity or the internet I'd be bummed, but it wouldn't be the end of the world or a moral disgrace or anything. I'd probably try to do something to get it back, but I'd still understand the reasons behind whoever decided to turn them off and be able to joke around and have dinner with them anyway.

>"What's that dude, you think were steering the boat in the wrong direction? well why don't you lead by example and jump off the side and swim in the "correct" direction then you fucking suburbanite :P :P :P xD"
>"Excuse me great leader? You think communism maybe isn't the optimal system for all mankind after all? Well guess what, you are personally benefiting from it at this moment! This renders your criticism null and void!"

>family is slain by random passerby spree killer
>"It's totally fine since no one has a human right to life anyway, if he finds enjoyment killing people who am I to criticize him"

>OMG OMG THIS BOAT IS GOING IN THE WRONG WAY
>I'LL MAKE NO COURSE TO CORRECT IT BUT JUST REMIND YOU OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON A BASKET WEAVING FORUM BECAUSE I HAVE NO WILLPOWER OF MY OWN

>JUST REGURGITATED THEORY LOOOOOOOOL READ BOOKCHIN PRASIE MARX XDDD

>We can't possibly have law and due process without human rights.

>I'll retype what my opponent said in all caps and change the wording, that'll show him.

>NOOOOO UUUUUUUUUUUU

>HUMAN RIGHTS IS LE LIE BECAUSE LEFTY POL TOLD ME
>I HAVE NO FEELINGS OR THOUGHTS OF MY OWN
>I THINK ALL MANKIND SHOULD BE WORKER ANTS LIKE ME
>PRAISE MARX

Are you okay? Are you having a seizure? Should i call someone?

Where did this sudden campaign against human rights as a concept come from? Who's promoting this and what does it seek to accomplish? It's worrisome.

If there are no rights what gives the state the authority or legitimacy to create laws? Threats of violence? Divine Command? Carefully reasoned utilitarian arguments?

That's where it gets interesting.

>ALLCAPS MEAN LE MAD
>NOBODY COULD EVER JUST HIT THE CAPSLOCK KEY AND TYPE LOOOOOOOOOL INDIVIDUALISM IS A HARD CONCEPT TO AN ANT
>PRAISE MARX

>statism

>Human rights.

Not to mention, if no one has any rights, what is even the point of laws? Why regulate or punish any behavior at all?

Stop shitposting Kim

Warning, you're about to take the monarchism pill. Stop while you still can.

Well, monarchism is the next best thing to democracy.

I guess laws could serve as fair warning to a captive population of serfs or slaves as model behavior to seek to avoid corporal punishment.

In Latin America, human rights are only invoked when a right-wing regime kills insurgents, or when police kills criminals.

When FARC or Sendero Luminoso massacre entire villages, and thugs murder innocents, no one cares.

Human rights activists are some of the most despised people here, they are all on the payroll of George Soros NGOs and when a Duterte appears in a Latin America country they will be the first to die.

Because private delinquency has nothing to do with human rights.

More like that if that spree killer has a family of his own that he supports and he confesses to them they're not obligated to cast him out to face justice. I might try to take revenge anyway, but they aren't bound by anything more than themselves and those around them.

Because there's a general, but not universal, consensus that not having a government makes life pretty shit so people agree to some set of rules that they think there being a body to enforce those rules amongst themselves is better than there not being a body. It's not like there needs to be some set of universal, ironclad rules for all of humanity; just the welfare of some individual family, tribe, or nation is good enough justification for laws.

is also generally accurate ("corporal punishment" can come in sources other than the government itself; I shouldn't try to hoard all of the food for myself while those around me starve because they might fucking shoot me, and that can be said to be a "law" even if it isn't written down anywhere), though the civilians in a model without human rights need not be subservient.

You're arguing against human right activists, not against human rights

>I might try to take revenge anyway,

Let's say some vagrant spree killer comes to town, kills your family, then disappears into the night never to be seen again. Would you kill some other scapegoat homeless guy because it would satisfy a revenge craving? It's not like anyone has any rights, other human beings are just punching bags waiting their turn to be killed for fun.

It's an uneasy realization isn't it, that you are responsible for your own safety and prosperity in this life.

Go to Somalia and see how far claiming you deserve human rights gets you.

Its a meaningless statement only given power by nations with the power to enforce the idea.

Yeah fuck defenseless people, how dare they breath precious oxygen that I could be breathing instead, have the deathsquads round them up for televised bloodsports.

I might, but I have to realize his family, friends, or nation might turn around and try to shoot me, which I probably wouldn't want.

That's pretty much what the Romans did. And they were the most succesful empire ever.

Hmm, I wonder if it would be helpful to codify an essential sense of human dignity that people could ascribe to to facilitate this mutual withholding of random violence to promote a more secure and happy society, perhaps if there was some word we could use to summarize this concept...

Yeah, but it sure would be nice to not get self-righteous about it and think ourselves obligated to spend a great sum of resources to bring about "justice" if some other people from halfway across the planet thought differently and didn't enforce it, It would also be nice if we could entertain dissenters from within our own society who think we had the wrong sense of human dignity encoded; he's a person too, you know, and we wouldn't want him to die or want him to want us to die just because he has a different idea about that sort of thing. Is it really possible for us to have that if we pretend our own personal and mutable feelings about how life should be into absolutes binding for all people whatsoever?

Whoops, I let some of my liberal indoctrination seep in there. The real reason you don't want Mr. Dissenter to die is because he's one of your own, not just because he's a person. If you were concerned about everyone in the world at once to any real extent barring just not pissing them off enough to make them go and shoot you you would not live a happy life because your resources would be stretched too thin.

>Who
you know who

People have been realizing that liberal capitalism ain't all it's cracked up to be and have started re-examining its core tenets, "human rights" being among them.

Because human rights are being used as a vehicle by which degenerates can push their bullshit.
>Oh you don't want me to gargle 100 cocks? IT'S MY HUMAN RIGHT TO SHITLORD
call me /pol/ all you like, but it's true

Fug, Human rights is shit like not being murdered. What the fuck is all this bullshit about personal feelings?

Pretty much anything. A state justifies its existence by existing, which is exactly why stateless societies are nonsensical unfathomable fantasy based on redefining the functions and definitions of a state rather than challenging the concept.

>humanity

How is that a right? That's a personal feeling.

Not so much "threat of violence,' but overall punishment is usually how its done. This could be violence, it could be jailtime, it could be legal fines. There are no fundamental rights for existence, and there's nothing that separates "human rights" from the rights of a citizen.

>lifestylism solves anything

People are awakening to the fact that 'human rights' is liberal bourgeois ideology.

>the state calls it violence laws and that of the individual, crime
Human rights are spooky anyway. After all who grants to you?

>[muffled anarchism]

>rights

Are human rights a social construct? Of course.

They're still a good thing to have.

Go to any major urban center and try to stand in one place for a few hours.

Free will was a mistake and humans do not deserve rights.

???

the idea of human rights is by its very nature imperialist and anti-democratic. if there are only certain policies that are moral, what's the point of allowing those who don't want them a voice in how they're governed? moreover, why exactly does the ability of societies to determine what laws they want matter? everyone has the same set of universal rights, so there's no reason for any particular society to be different from any other one.

>Human rights is shit like not being murdered.
No :DDDDD dads made by nadional laws X-DDDDDD

>campaign against human rights as a concept

The campaign isn't against the concept, it is against the widely perceived notion that they are more than a concept.
People talk about "natural" or "god given" human rights, and the campaign is against that.

Human rights are a tool like ownership or mathematics or kinship, we made them because they help, and we should remind ourselves that whenever they stop being useful we should just undo them. They aren't real.

Which means human rights are subject to the whims of the powerful. If there actually are rights that we possess by virtue of our status as humans, they wouldn't be vulnerable in this way.

The powerful still have to play by the rules of the most powerful memes.
What do you think will happen if president Trump bans alcohol in the USA? Its objectively the right thing to do, but he doesn't have the power to do it. He'd get thrown out.
There is no one person on the planet with the power to ban alcohol, even though now that we don't need to use it to purge our water from bacteria its useless to us and only a poison and scourge on mankind.

Similar with "human rights". Its a potent meme, and people have to be eased into dropping it, you can't ban it.
Not that we need to do that right now, its still useful and there is no reason to try to remove it.

>so there's no reason for any particular society to be different from any other one.
and yet they are, for cultural reasons. Japan can embrace human rights and free speech yet be very different culturally. Of course some people want some new world order one government type thing but I think most people just want to see us agree on certain universal principles and then differ culturally and in other more subtle ways.

What business is it of yours that someone else sucks 100 or even 1000 cocks? As long as its in the privacy of their home and tumblr page, who cares.