Overall, weak-willed centrists are slowly losing the intraparty debate.

Hold the line, and have faith. We are in this together, and we will get through this together.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -19 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Their are valid criticisms of "human rights", and legitimate reasons to reject the concept. The biggest reason is the concept of 'human rights' is just a re-tread of the 'rights of kings', that is a justification for State violence.

When the cops crack your skull, they're protecting property rights. When the US invaded Iraq, Bush said we were protecting the freedom and human rights of Iraqi citizens. The invasion of Ukraine was justified as protecting the rights of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine.

The idea that "human rights" protect human beings is pretty dubious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 6 days ago*

    When the cops crack your skull, they’re protecting property rights.

    I'm sorry, when did property rights become human rights?

    When the US invaded Iraq, Bush said we were protecting the freedom and human rights of Iraqi citizens.

    1. No he didn't,
    2. There is literally no principle that people haven't used as casus belli for war. That doesn't mean those principles are wrong, or that the justification even makes sense. You may as well be declaring that since people still commit murder when it's illegal, there's no point to having laws.
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 6 days ago*

    That is a patently false and incorrect understanding. Human Rights is conceptually antithetical to the right of kings.

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

    Your best argument is fundamentally semantical and based on etymology that never happened.

    The invasion of Ukraine was justified as protecting the rights of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago

    Well that took a wild turn.

    Human rights supercede property rights, the rights of kings, and whatever other crazy nonsense you went on about after that.

    The rights of people to thrive in their natural environment shall not be put down upon by any other party so long as they do not inflict themselves upon the rights of others. Specifically, if a person's existence is a problem for you, that's a problem for you. Not them.

    Those with the power and authority to do violence will always impede upon the rights of others in pursuit of wealth. It's our right to do violence back.

  • source
  • parent