| |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | America = literally the whole world and everyone in it so QED inalienable rights exist Well I wouldn't call it a strong argument... Nonetheless the goalposts were never shifted. The question was always 'should'. So I'm very confused by your confusion. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | What proof, exactly, would you accept for "should"? Should is an opinion. You're welcome to feel "slavery should be legal". I'm welcome to (and should) think you're insane for holding that opinion. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Should is an opinion. Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. In fact if we're talking about the US slavery _is_ legal in certain contexts. So it's definitely not inalienable. Only in the context of voluntary agreements between private citizens. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. You should read up on what "inalienable rights" are about. Even the first couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia will suffice. They get violated all the time and need constant protecting. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 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. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 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. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 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... | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 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. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | "An American helped convince 193 countries of something, therefore it's invalid" is a take, I suppose. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 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. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
