we should take away yours
what is the argument against the existence of human rights?
He owns a fedora and thinks his thoughts are groundbreaking/revolutionary new developments
a lack of things resmeslbing humans. Germans, somalians, swedes...
rapefugee crisis happens
apparently it's now a human right to migrate to any country you want for any reason according to leftards
they literally call you an enemy of human rights if you disagree with that notion
Cut the jargon
the existence of non-whites
Actually Andean villages are more peaceful and crimeless compared to european villages.
Its an imposition on everyone to demand that everyone deserves a respectful disposition
what the fuck, I hate white people now
Do you have a source on that?
In a cosmological model that presumes that all things that exist are physical objects and physical forces (material monism: all is one substance, the substance is matter), non-concrete things like "rights" aren't real things, just fiction like "spirit".
If you go with social constructivism or social contract theory or epistemological pragmatism or something like those things you can say "Yeah, they are made up, but people believe in them and act on these beliefs in ways that have tangible effects (the social contract is enforced) and thus these abstractions are useful enough that we may as well treat them as if they are real". Or something. I mixed several models in here but they come together kinda coherently, I think I pinpointed where they intersect on the matter of human rights.
Human rights should've just stayed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Ifit wasn't for autists ruining the idea of human rights by adding shit like freedom to travel or freedom of religion, the world would be better off.
Prove me wrong
That they don't exist naturally.
Human rights are just feel good bullshit.
liberty without freedoms
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
How is worshiping your god of choice not a part of liberty?
That’s the thing though. Freedom of religion doesn’t just mean worshiping the God you choose. It’s interpreted to mean that the government cannot have any religion.
So then what does that imply for the common citizen?
it has always been interpreted as and written for, the protection against the accusation of heresy between churches.
Agree with everything except being against the freedom to travel because what if said government took away the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and you want to get away from that regime?
Don't complain about the Holocaust or the Great Purge.
*shits in your mouth*
prohibitions against bad behaviors didn’t exist until someone thought up human rights
people have innate rights without a god or a state
is it actually real? no.
are we much much better off acting like it is? yes. it's very easy for you to balk at it from your desk
What's happening is a group of people are trying to discredit another notion of the Enlightenment for their own political purposes. That's all this thread is doing.
I’m trying to discredit it because I don’t believe in it.
good thing nobody needs to give a shit about what you think, huh?
Because there is only one God, and he not not want you to rape little kids. Yet, thanks to freedom of religion, Catholics and Muslims get to rape little boys and girls respectively with impunity because "hurr everyone has the right to believe what they want"
Heretics should be burned at the stake. At least Muslim countries got that right
implying children have the right to not be raped
besides you would burn first
it's not jargon you nigger
point out to me where rights exist
'materialism' is jargon, shithead.
point out to me where rights exist
For me, it's like religion. It's not about whether natural rights exist -- it's about the benefits of their existence.
there's nothing real backing rights. they are an invention of the mind. If I have the power to violate your "rights" to my benefit, there's nothing stopping me.
Except your mortality. If you're too weak willed for that, you can pretend God exists and use religion as a crutch.
I will stop you, or others who believe they have moral duty to stop you will do so.
Well if i can't beat them, I wouldn't have the power to.
there is a moral duty to protect your rights
again, nothing real backing this. even if you just replace rights with "privilege" or "self-interest" there's still nothing obliging me to protect either. I can, but I have no duty to.
Don't you think the organism--the person--wants to be alive? If there wasn't an inherent desire to exist, people wouldn't have nerves or the necessary neural capacity to detect threats to their being.
There is no such thing as a human outside of a society. There is no such thing as a "right" outside of a precise political system.
To try to abstract both those things and universalize them is therefore based on very faulty premises.
right to own proprierty should end too
Well according to your own principles I can just stab you in the ass with a carving knife because I don't give a shit about edgelords on Azerbaidjani Donkey Fucking Stables.
Human rights are a subjective top-down enforced set of requirements that people are forced to observe like a religious dogma. They are based on sentimentalism and reaction against historical events without clear thought and consideration. They allow the neo-liberal globalist hegemony to crush any nation-state that dares to go their own way and adopt their own moral/economic/political system under the guise of humanitarian compassion. Although they practice hypocritical double standards with their cherished human rights, when they punish a vanquished enemy for committing the same acts the victor deployed to achieve said victory.
the burden of proof is on those who belief in human rights to demonstrate that human rights exist, which is impossible.
Basically the argument is not that things such as "freedom of thought, right to life, etc" are wrong (the critics actually agree that freedom of thought and the other fundamental rights are good) but that the concept of "human rights" lacks a philosophical basis.
So, Human Rights are in practice "whatever UN bureaucrats think they are". And we end up with some bizarre stuff such as some people saying "abortion is a human right". And when shit like this happens, this strengthen the arguments of the people making this argument.
They are based on sentimentalism and reaction against historical events
Wrong, they are based on human nature. Go fuck yourself leftypol
A soft and sheltered lifestyle has led me and my peers to be giant fucking bitches so that means everyone has always been just like me and I am correct.
rights are a spook
rights are a spook, but without this spook all the betas on Veeky Forums would be having their boypussies creamed by big dominant Chads
chink bugmen are threatened by the fact that westerners achieved more in the span of a few centuries than they ever did in millenia so they shitpost about how human rights are degenerate and weak.
It doesn't exist in a meaningful sense, tangible or abstract. Right of might is the only real "right", since all the others in practice lean on might to exist.
You could argue that you're entitled to something based on contractual obligations or the like, but the idea of universal, innate entitlements seems useless. It's preferable to think in terms of knowing what people generally want, what they can have and go from there.
Put it another away, do you really have a right to live, or is it the fact that murder is illegal that keeps you alive? You can argue the right to live is why murder is illegal, but what happens when someone murders you anyway, or worse, if it's a cop that murders you? Clearly what matters is the force of law's ability and willingness to deter violence and guarantee safety, not if you have a "right" to live, so human rights are just feel-good rhetorical fluff; the empty calories of philosophy.
liking sam hyde
you have the mind of a 12 year old
I agree, I think it would be beneficial if we revoked OP's rights ASAP.