(July 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I may not understand human rights theory.....but would this actually rescue the statement that you made and persist in? I've never put myself forward as an expert in human rights nor am I attempting to do so now....but I also don't -need- to be an expert in human rights to suggest that your statement was a massive non-sequitur. In any case, I'm fairly certain that there are competing explanations and justifications for human rights beyond what you've offered.
I've said no such thing, I simply used my right to remain silent as an example of -why- your statement was indefensible. Human rights may not be consistent or possible...but if so..it isn't for the reason(s) you've given.
You needn't - My arguments against HR were never taught to me at school, I simply researched outside the normal books. It's not a non-sequitur - It does follow that without measurable evidence Human rights don't exist, and that's it. Human rights are behind an idea of universally accepted values by Humanity - If you cannot prove those values are accepted by at least the majority of communities, it does naturally follow that there's not universal human rights - What is a human right today would be seen as ridiculous yesterday, and what is valuable right now can be forgettable in 100 years. We don't know. Those are not really "human rights", but merely legal fictional rights as we know them.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you