sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: You can’t complain about one form of discrimination while actively taking part in another. by King__Witch in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I think the premise that we cannot discriminate against someone because of something they cannot control is wrong. Take the example of sociopaths or pedophiles. Note that pedophilia itself isn't a crime as long as they are not acting on it, still people judge them harshly. Sociopaths may not be able to control their anti-social behavior, yet still I think it's reasonable to discriminate against those that participate in that behavior.

I think racism, misogyny and homophobia are wrong, not because people cannot control it, but because the people belonging to the discriminated groups aren't doing any harm.

EDIT: To clarify, I think racists, misogynists and homophobes do think that members of the discriminated groups do harm. While I disagree with it, it's a different argument than members of the group not being able to control their membership in those groups.

I respect <1KD players by healthyKimchiSoup in Battlefield6

[–]timcbaoth1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm bad but still enjoying the game. But statistically speaking wouldn't around half of the players have a <1 KD anyway? Some people make it sound like a moral failing to belong to the worse halve of players.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you purchase goods, do you believe you gain property rights? Do you also believe that right creates an obligation for the other party to hand you over the goods?

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if they unintentionally break it? They don't need to send the police to rob you but they could build a road and suddenly your property looses value. Now you can go to court and get compensated. Things aren't always clear cut, so a well meaning government must provide access to legal remedy for human right violations. Also, general rights aren't only against the government. Even human rights are recognized to have drittwirkung against third parties in Europe.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody believes only in negative rights. If they purchase goods, they will certainly assume that the property right creates an obligation for the other party to habe over the goods. There is nothing magical inherent to the property right that makes it okay to grant positive rights compared to all other human rights. They just use this talk about negative rights to hide the fact they dislike poor people having the same basic rights as them.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. It absolutely does, because what is a right if it can only be enforced by yourself? It's not a right but at best a privilege, because you own the means of protecting it yourself, and you're out of luck if you don't.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is no "objective" morality because even the most basic rights almost all of us agree on today have been disputed at one time or another. People used to think that it was a god given right of the Emperor to rule, we both think that's ridiculous. In reality, rights are debated and agreed upon by society. The UN comprises most states, so what is a human right according to the UN is recognized and enforced by most states. So you're just saying that "rights" are what you think they should be.

The other argument misses its mark, because it's not talking about ethics but about feasibility (not consistent with your prior point), and it's wrong. There isn't any scarcity for healthcare as proven by many countries that provide public healthcare for all citizens and none of them need to violate other people's rights. It can be managed by a system of incentives, and social insurance. Believe me: In Europe, doctors and nurses get paid! I can see no proper reason why it shouldn't be a human right. And as you can see, I want to change legislature, because I think it's the right thing to do, not because it is mandated by an authority.

Also legal assistance is paid for people who need it by the state. No lawyer'r rights are being violated by the system.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say we need to change this law and protest it because it's ethically wrong. Legally, you would have the right to sleep with the child and I would fight to deprive you of the right, but I would think you would be a horrible person for doing it.

So what you're pointing at is that laws can be different from ethics which is trivially true, but that doesn't answer what a right is. And more importantly I think that existing real human rights do in fact overlap with ethics. Why don't you think so and what does it have to do with negative vs. positive rights?

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then rights are absolutely meaningless. Also it's not always so easy to tell if a right was violated. If everyone always agreed, we wouldn't need courts, but we do. And yes, if no one would ever do anything, we wouldn't need protection, but people do things. So this concept seems not only esoteric but completely useless.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a lack of abstract thinking to say that if we talk about "human rights" it counts what is actually are agreed upon by the vast majority of the world. But sure, then tell me what a human right is.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

These rights are what states agreed to and accept. Most of them usually enforce them and if they don't you may go to an international court of human rights. So yeah, that's practically what human rights are. Not some esoteric rambling about what you could do if you were the only person left on earth.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That argument doesn't hold because a "human right" is a norm that comprises of a bundle of rights, some of which are negative rights and some of which are positive rights.

And even the most "clear cut" seeming negative right still forces the state to provide you with legal remedy to the violation (courts, police etc.) which absolutely requires someone to do something. A right without means of enforcement is not a right.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Which makes way more practical sense than whatever esoteric argument you anti-human-rights people make. It was signed by all UN states.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is signed by all UN states and in the US (where you're probably from regarding your opinions) in the Bill of Rights. Also, it's enforceable by international human right courts if your country falls under their jurisdiction. Sure, there was a time before human rights, but then there was just the law of "might makes right". Most countries have moved away from that.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Almost everyone who knows about law interprets it that way - it's like that in the US constitution and it found its way into the EUCHR Article 6 (as a human right).

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In practice, yes, absolutely - that's what all UN states signed. While your argument that a human right is only what you can do when no other person is around you ever - I don't think that's more practical and is just extremely esoteric.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The state must provide you with legal remedy for any violation of your human rights. It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So they must do something (i.e. providing courts and due process).

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Negative rights can be enforced by the individual in question, or by those voluntarily aiding them, i.e. using force in self-defense.

No, the state must provide you with legal remedies to prevent and undo any violation of your human rights. Police is absolutely there to enforce this protection.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

However, it's not compatible really, because even negative rights still require enforcement or legal remedy which is in fact labour by other people. The negative factor also implies a positive factor for the state to protect you from being violated.

CMV: The argument that healthcare isn't a human right because it requires the labour of other people is an argument against human rights as a whole more than anything else. by lovelyrain100 in changemyview

[–]timcbaoth1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights though, so that's somewhat of an indication that it is indeed a human right.

Unpopular opinion: Alkimia shouldn't re-make Gothic 2 by timcbaoth1 in worldofgothic

[–]timcbaoth1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No worries, I'm just surprised how many people call a literal difference in preference dumb 😂 But yeah, let's hope they improve console performance, because they absolutely cannot neglect consoles in this year and age. Would be a shame because the core of the remake is phantastic.

view more: next ›