That’s a declaration of human rights, not a philosophical logical demonstration of why we are endowed with rights. The person was pointing out the silliness of your original question.
They literally said “Actually it is a human right”, referring to the right of a nation to join a particular military alliance. They are the ones defending that, not me.
It might be a language issue. You asked for a source that nations have a right (some would argue a ‘human’ right) to join alliances:
Actually that is a human right
Source?
So the question asking for a source on ‘human rights’ is kinda nonsensical, that’s why they responded the way they did. You can’t provide a source for ‘human rights’. That’s a philosophical / metaphysical question. There is no official source for human rights hence why the question makes no sense.
On another note, are you the guy I was discussing a while back about conscription in Ukraine? Can’t remember. Hope you are all right if you are.
are you the guy I was discussing a while back about conscription in Ukraine?
No, but thanks for the good wishes anyway
So the question asking for a source on ‘human rights’ is kinda nonsensical, that’s why they responded the way they did.
The question would be nonsensical when brought up randomly, not when brought up in the context of asking someone who claimed “joining a particular military alliance is a human right” . I wouldn’t be asking that question if they didn’t say “actually it is a human right to join a military alliance”. When categorically affirming what is and what isn’t a human right, in my opinion, it’s understood that this would be the consensus of some international organization, or some resolution signed by almost every country on earth. Of course there’s dissent, and discussion is good, but saying that “joining a military alliance is a human right” is extremely fringe and, frankly, the first time I’ve seen it, so I’d like to see where they got that from.
That’s a declaration of human rights, not a philosophical logical demonstration of why we are endowed with rights. The person was pointing out the silliness of your original question.
They literally said “Actually it is a human right”, referring to the right of a nation to join a particular military alliance. They are the ones defending that, not me.
It might be a language issue. You asked for a source that nations have a right (some would argue a ‘human’ right) to join alliances:
So the question asking for a source on ‘human rights’ is kinda nonsensical, that’s why they responded the way they did. You can’t provide a source for ‘human rights’. That’s a philosophical / metaphysical question. There is no official source for human rights hence why the question makes no sense.
On another note, are you the guy I was discussing a while back about conscription in Ukraine? Can’t remember. Hope you are all right if you are.
No, but thanks for the good wishes anyway
The question would be nonsensical when brought up randomly, not when brought up in the context of asking someone who claimed “joining a particular military alliance is a human right” . I wouldn’t be asking that question if they didn’t say “actually it is a human right to join a military alliance”. When categorically affirming what is and what isn’t a human right, in my opinion, it’s understood that this would be the consensus of some international organization, or some resolution signed by almost every country on earth. Of course there’s dissent, and discussion is good, but saying that “joining a military alliance is a human right” is extremely fringe and, frankly, the first time I’ve seen it, so I’d like to see where they got that from.
Yea I agree. It’s a strange way to phrase it