Quote (Santara @ 24 Apr 2020 15:30)

So let's use Anne Frank as the example. She goes into hiding with her family because they expect to be persecuted (the extent of the persecution may, or may not be known). She's able to go into hiding because her family approaches another family and presents their concern and the other family believes they deserve their right to life. Is there not now also an expectation that their right to life is respected, while simultaneously not respected by the legal powers? Yes.

Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 24 2020 01:21pm)

Reasonable is subjective. Then again Santara is trying to define rights, at your request (and Skinned's), based on human history, all forms of governance, and hypothetical what/ifs. so using subjective benchmarks takes an already insanely hard task and makes it impossible.

this is generally the reason for a philosophical divide between natural rights and other categories of rights. because while they're not perfectly objective on paper or in practice, they have been present and respected a large enough amount of time that we can consider them nearly standard for humans. since before we even had societies we had an idea of personal property, etc.

trying to perfectly define rights in all contexts is like defining art or pornography, its only a worthwhile practice for it's own argumentative sake. not to actually create objective ideas from.

Quote (Surfpunk @ Apr 25 2020 11:28am)