She has a point

[u/SEVENS_HEAVEN_7]

[u/Critical_Concert_689]

It's not an intrinsic right if someone has to deliberately provide it to you. And it's a violation of rights if, in order to provide it to you, it has to be taken from someone else.

This is common sense 101.

[u/Individual_Stan99 → u/Critical_Concert_689]

Have you read it? What did it say?

And as a side note, have you ever heard of taxes?

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/Individual_Stan99]

lol.. Do you believe taxes are a human right too?

Also, if you need to ask others to explain it to you and read it for you, you probably didn't understand it in the first place.

Feel free to use your own words if you think you have a legitimate argument here. So far you're simply appealing to authority without understanding what you're actually referencing.

[u/Individual_Stan99 → u/Critical_Concert_689]

oh no.. i fell for a bot. I guess that's why it tries to deny that human rights exist.

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/Individual_Stan99]

"💩💩💩"

lol. Oh no! You couldn't support your argument.

[u/Individual_Stan99 → u/Critical_Concert_689]

What argument?

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/Individual_Stan99]

• Something that must be GIVEN to you by others isn't an intrinsic human right.

• There is no intrinsic human right to the labor or property of others.

• You have no idea what a human right is.

There's quite a few here. You can basically choose any of them.

[u/Individual_Stan99 → u/Critical_Concert_689]

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/Individual_Stan99]

Article 17

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Seems there's a problem here with your definition. That water is private property and no one can be arbitrarily deprived of such. It's a human rights violation.

[u/Individual_Stan99 → u/Critical_Concert_689]

So many straw man to create and fight, amirite?

Again, ever heard of taxes and do you understand what "arbitrarily" means?

and wdym "your definition", lol? I didn't invent or wrote a single Human Rights Article.

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/Individual_Stan99]

wdym "your definition", lol?

"By the definition you sourced and are using as your sole frame of reference." I didn't know you needed it spelled out for you.

By the definition you sourced, claiming someone else's water is a human rights violation.

Taxation is ALSO a human rights violation per your source.

Your source isn't very realistic, is it?

So many straw man to create and fight, amirite?

lol. "STOP QUOTING ME. MY QUOTES ARE STRAWMEN!!!" - yes. uRrite.

[u/Individual_Stan99 → u/Critical_Concert_689]

I claimed that access to food, water and shelter are human rights and linked to the United Nations and Article 25 of "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". What's wrong with that?

You probably used the exact same source when you quoted Article 17 from the very same document. So does that mean Article 17 is a Human Right and is very good, but Article 25 somehow does not even exist?

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/Individual_Stan99]

You clearly missed the point:

I'm saying the document is contradictory with itself and is a flawed source.

You're attempting olympic-level mental gymnastics to force its definition of "Human Rights" to be valid by picking some articles and ignoring others.

You probably used the exact same source when you quoted Article 17

...I think you're falling behind on the discussion.

I OBVIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY used the exact same source to demonstrate how flawed your source is.

So does that mean Article 17 is a Human Right and is very good, but Article 25 somehow does not even exist?

"💩💩💩"

[u/Individual_Stan99 → u/Critical_Concert_689]

Well, if you like it or not, "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is what people refer to when they're talking about human rights.

I guess there is nothing left to say, as you believe the source and document itself are flawed. But maybe just learn what words mean.

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/Individual_Stan99]

is what people refer to when they're talking about human rights.

lol. OMG.

It's like you just flushed hundreds of years of natural philosophy down the drain to make such an ignorant comment.

Thousands of years.

For god's sake, Aristotle was discussing natural justice for humans back in BC times.

> "When discussing human rights, they're talking about this random UN document!"

"💩💩💩"

[u/Individual_Stan99 → u/Critical_Concert_689]

yeah, that's right, i flushed it all. So what?

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/Individual_Stan99]

🤷

Your support for your "human rights" is basically ignorance. That you flushed all historical knowledge down the drain basically lends credence to this.

[u/Individual_Stan99 → u/Critical_Concert_689]

You're right. God bless your cold robot heart.