upvote

points

by ceejayoz16 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby 0x3f15 hours ago|
[-]
You're taking a strangely ethnocentric view here. I don't take the founding fathers' writings as a form of scripture. Those are but bare assertions.
reply
upvoteby ceejayoz15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You're taking a strangely US-centric view here.

This has nothing to do with the founding fathers. The Ancient Greeks talked about natural law. The UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 193 countries have ratified at least parts of it.

Again, I beg you to at least read a paragraph or two off Wikipedia.

reply
upvoteby 0x3f15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The specific term 'inalienable' is heavily associated with the founding of the US. The others are different things but not very different in substance, i.e. ultimately some guy claimed these are universal rights. Wikipedia is not going to make appeal to authority work any better as an argument, I'm afraid.
reply
upvoteby ceejayoz15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Clear ignorance again.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

> Preamble

> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...

reply
upvoteby 0x3f15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Is the US not in the UN now or something? The whole UNUDHR was an Eleanor Roosevelt project. She literally drafted the documents! At least look it up before being rude. You need to get the knowledge before applying the sass.
reply
upvoteby ceejayoz15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"An American helped convince 193 countries of something, therefore it's invalid" is a take, I suppose.
reply
upvoteby 0x3f15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Well this was really just a sub-argument about whether 'inalienable' is an Americanism, which it is. The real point about 'natural' rights, or whatever term you've switched to using, is that they're simply assertions. Not supported by anything else. Doesn't really matter who is asserting them. The argument takes the same form, and is equally bunk.
reply
upvoteby ceejayoz10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> whatever term you've switched to using

They're synonyms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_right goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right.... This happens a lot in English.

"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable..."

> is that they're simply assertions

So's "we don't have natural rights".

reply
upvoteby 0x3f9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> So's "we don't have natural rights".

That's the null hypothesis. There are no teapots orbiting the sun, either.

reply
upvoteby ceejayoz9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
How fascinating it is that your opinion is the only one not requiring support.

I think I will take feedback from someone who’s heard of a thesaurus.

reply