Basic Human Rights

[henry quirk]

Lace, are we gettin' along? I hope so.

Seems that way at the moment. I like it when we do.

[Sculptor]

Let me tell you how it works.

Please do.

Once upon a time there were no rights.
Kings decided that they had the right to rule, but other people got the idea that others might be able to have rights too.
There was much struggle.
And in the places that such struggles were successful people acquired rights.
Then the UN write the UDHR this gave anyone on earth the chance to pressure their governments, and for signoatories to pressure other countries.
If you are luckly enough to live in a signatory state, you have legal redress to maintain the rights listed. If you do not then you have to pressure your government to sign up.

That is indeed a story that deserves to start with "once upon a time." And like all fairy tales, it should end with, "and they lived happily ever after."

But your story has massive holes in it, such as the first mention of "rights," and how it was ever conceived, and on what basis it was legitimized, and why people came to believe in them, and from where the UN got them...and why we ought to believe in them now. And that's just a start.

Your objections are not relevant.
Details are just details. You can talk about Magna Carta, Hebaus Corpus, 1689 Bill of Rights, ad nauseaum, but essentially my point holds.

And you still have not said anything of substance.
So what is your problem?

[Immanuel Can]

Details are just details.

The origin and definition of the term are just "details"?

[RCSaunders]

Or you can just fuck off!

So this is how one who believes in rights deals with anyone who disagrees with them. Good to know.

[RCSaunders]

A right is a claim, a gambit to establish a justification to act in a certian way, which others customarily agree with.
My reservation is that the UDHR of the UN is all very well - but useless without support and sanctions.

What kind of sanctions do you recommend?

[commonsense]

A right is a claim, a gambit to establish a justification to act in a certian way, which others customarily agree with.
My reservation is that the UDHR of the UN is all very well - but useless without support and sanctions.

What kind of sanctions do you recommend?

The need for sanctions, or enforcement, of any kind underscores the fact that so called rights are nothing more than power plays conducted in such a way as to afford so called rights to the one with the most power. It’s power, not rights.

[RCSaunders]

A right is a claim, a gambit to establish a justification to act in a certian way, which others customarily agree with.
My reservation is that the UDHR of the UN is all very well - but useless without support and sanctions.

What kind of sanctions do you recommend?

The need for sanctions, or enforcement, of any kind underscores the fact that so called rights are nothing more than power plays conducted in such a way as to afford so called rights to the one with the most power. It’s power, not rights.

Yes, of course, and the reason for my question. I really would like to know what Sculptor's answer would be.

[Sculptor]

Details are just details.

The origin and definition of the term are just "details"?

No the details of the history are just details.

And you still have not said anything of substance.

[Sculptor]

Or you can just fuck off!

So this is how one who believes in rights deals with anyone who disagrees with them. Good to know.

And you can still fuck off

[Sculptor]

A right is a claim, a gambit to establish a justification to act in a certian way, which others customarily agree with.
My reservation is that the UDHR of the UN is all very well - but useless without support and sanctions.

What kind of sanctions do you recommend?

Please refer to the post I made some moments ago.

[Immanuel Can]

Details are just details.

The origin and definition of the term are just "details"?

No the details of the history are just details.

Ah...history is just another "detail."

I wonder if there are any contrary facts you don't merely relegate to the "detail" ashcan.

[Sculptor]

The origin and definition of the term are just "details"?

No the details of the history are just details.

Ah...history is just another "detail."

I wonder if there are any contrary facts you don't merely relegate to the "detail" ashcan.

I wonder if you ever have anything of significance to say.

[Sculptor]

What kind of sanctions do you recommend?

The need for sanctions, or enforcement, of any kind underscores the fact that so called rights are nothing more than power plays conducted in such a way as to afford so called rights to the one with the most power. It’s power, not rights.

Yes, of course, and the reason for my question. I really would like to know what Sculptor's answer would be.

Perhaps you should not have been so silly

[Sculptor]

I think what RC is saying is that like "laws, customs, rites and norms," rights are just things made up by particular societies. Consequently, they are just as changeable, ignorable and eliminable as the former. I don't think he's claiming they don't exist as fictions...just that they are fictions.

That's right.

I agree. Humans are making up all sorts of things... and then forgetting (maybe), and thinking it existed before (or independently of) themselves.

It's not that making-up stuff is bad -- it's just that we have more options when we realize we're making it up, and that it's not cast in stone.

Indeed. But from the resistence I have had with this idea you would think it was rocket science.

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder if you ever have anything of significance to say.

Well, I would say that you don't know what rights are...and I would say the gap in your (historical, conceptual and etymological) understanding and your readiness to consider data is "significant."

Will that do?