Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

Then what would you call rights, Nikov? Haven't you yourself defended your right to bear arms before? Are you saying arming yourself is a bigger right than educating yourself?

I do have a right to bear arms. I do not have a right to an education. So yes.

I don't see internet access ever becoming a right, and with a complete lack of reasons being presented why it should be, sincerely doubt it will ever.

Remember, saying something is a right because the UN says it is a right is an appeal to authority, not a reason for it to be a right.

[Ninteen45]

Then what would you call rights, Nikov? Haven't you yourself defended your right to bear arms before? Are you saying arming yourself is a bigger right than educating yourself?

I do have a right to bear arms. I do not have a right to an education. So yes.

You have no rights at all.

By your logic, anything given to you is not a right.

The air given off my plants, the fresh water given by condensation/whoever puts it in the taps, the GUNS given to you for your money in exchange.

[scriver]

You still haven't said why it is a right, Nikov, or what your definition of "rights" are.

[Nikov]

No, I have the right to keep and bear arms. Coming into possession of them is my own matter, but my right to keep and bear them cannot be taken away. This is not the same as saying "the right to a house" or "the right to a job". To fulfill these obligations a house or job must be given to the citizen by the state, because the state has just guaranteed its citizens houses and jobs by declaring it a right. Needless to say, the UN is not a state, and the notion they can give starving Kenyans the right to internet access when they struggle with subsistance farming would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

[GlyphGryph]

I do have a right to bear arms. I do not have a right to an education. So yes.

Actually, you DO have a right to education. Enshrined in law in all 50 states (constitutional law in most of them, I believe).

Anyways, your denial of the propriety of a right to internet access is laughable. It is not being defined as "the state providing internet" but as a limitation against the state taking it away - exactly the same as your weapons situation.

[Leafsnail]

Remember, saying something is a right because the UN says it is a right is an appeal to authority, not a reason for it to be a right.

...Uh, no.  Not at all.

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights defines what a right is for the UN, whether or not you agree with it.  So if the laws violate the UDHR, then the UN is correct in declaring them in violation of human rights.

Unless you're arguing that "These are human rights but they shouldn't be"... in which case, well, I'd say there are pretty good reasons for "innocent until proven guilty" and "don't arbitrarily silence people".

No, I have the right to keep and bear arms. Coming into possession of them is my own matter, but my right to keep and bear them cannot be taken away. This is not the same as saying "the right to a house" or "the right to a job". To fulfill these obligations a house or job must be given to the citizen by the state, because the state has just guaranteed its citizens houses and jobs by declaring it a right. Needless to say, the UN is not a state, and the notion they can give starving Kenyans the right to internet access when they struggle with subsistance farming would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

There's an amazing double think going on here.  The UN is saying that people can't be cut off from accessing the internet.  In other words, it's in exactly the same boat as your right to keep and bear arms (the right to purchase and access the internet).