Rights are something that the society you live in and contribute to, grants you!
There are no inherent human rights to be had! Even being alive is a happening not a right! You’re born because your parents fucked, there was nothing special about it!
L.E. I see a lot of snowflakes are bothered by what I said, good. Maybe you start thinking once about what you have, instead of whining about what you would like!
Let’s not forget that the only reason states exist is to serve those within them. If that state should fail to serve its people sufficiently, it’s been common throughout history that they’ve been dismantled by the people.
You are correct about natural rights. They are fought for. Many rights, such as workers’ rights, were strongly fought for and founded on blood (pretty much all of them in fact). However, when talking about rights, one remember the original meaning of the word: that which is morally good or honorable. The legal entitlement is preceded by the philosophical definition. In a just society legal rights should reflect moral rights as closely as possible.
Housing is necessary for life, and so depriving an individual of housing when housing is unutilized is equatable to murder, an injustice. This is why the post communicates that housing is a human right.
Corect, but if the state is or isn’t serving those within, is a decision to be taken by the same individuals. Up to now those who are considering this are a small subset of the citizens which agrregate in underground forums and not actively trying to change the society and have a positive impact.
Housing is necessary for life but it was never a right in that society. Also necessary for life are water, clothing, food, medical assistance, etc. None of them are rights of the people within that society. It may not correct but it is what it is.
The real problem is that the orphans need a crushing machine themselves so that they could prevent to be crushed. We must protect the second crushing amendment.
IDK why people are downvoting my post. That’s literally what that is.
I visited a talk with Peter Singer in Washington, D.C. a few years ago where people applauded a guy who had considered joining an NGO and decided to become an investment broker and donate to Effective Altruism instead. 🤔
Funny thing that, European countries haven’t lasted nearly as long as the US on average: revolutions, conquest, coups. Only a couple of monarchies and even those had some big changes in the way the government is structured like with constitutional changes. The US, though, has a ton of new laws but is fundamentally unchanged.
Somebody gave me Strangers and I loved it! Never before had I read anything like it, completely clueless over halfway into the book about what’s going on. Bizarre clues throughout, good characters. Then when you find out what’s going on it’s so far fetched but somehow believable. The next Koontz book I read was Watchers and it was the exact same formula. Bizarre clues, kept in the dark, far fetched premise. I think I read another (long time ago) and it was similar. Don’t get me wrong it’s a good formula but if all of his books are like that then I can see why people poke fun
Shame his animated show deal fell through (or simply never took off) but yeah I don’t know if I want to pay for something that appears to not have been updated since May
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.