What's Sup Forums instance on human rights?

What's Sup Forums instance on human rights?

Other urls found in this thread:

soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/crooked-hillary
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

They don't exist.

/thread

This right here.

Might is right. Human rights are spooks

That is some outstanding graphic design. Only thing I can say is that the edges on the fingers/feathers give it a less welcoming look. Wish they had put more effort into the font, also.

I hate when people are screaming about human rights. It's BS.
Fuck human rights
I'll give you a right, I'll give you a left.
And I'll give you a kick to the fucking head.

That's what I think about human rights.

...

>2016
>still believing the human rights meme

Not trolling, but apart from the whole ONU gibberish/"let's welcome refugeeeess" mantra, don't you think that human rights should be understood as as basic things - do not cause harm to others?

And so, if someone violated this, the person should not be considered human anymore?

its a doggy dog world user

You have exactly three rights as a human.

1. Be alive.

2. Be free to do what you choose as long as it doesn't infringe on the this or the previous right for others.

3. Benefit, or suffer, for your actions as a result of your freedom.

Anyone else who claims to have any more is fucking delusional at best.

a bit too (((coincidental))) for my english classes in high school to have been the only ones that mention globalization, human rights and equality as a topic
a bit too (((coincidental))) for it to be the EU to have been the main sponsor of moldova's education ministry post-2009 coup
human rights is a meme that the jews use to push for multiculti
and this is a slide/jidf thread, fuck you

rights only exist where a soldier with a gun can't enforce it. As such, rights only exist in civilization.

To call them human rights implies everyone is entitled to them.


>They aren't.

can*

Are you kidding its like when you were fingerpainting in kindergarten before Thanksgiving holiday, making Turkeys with your handprints.

The fuck? I thought Sup Forums was pro free speech but this thread makes me think otherwise.

Human rights, they are for whites.

Fuck browns.

>TECHNIQUES FOR DILUTION, MISDIRECTION, AND CONTROL OF AN INTERNET FORUM
>
>3: TOPIC DILUTION
>
>Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding, it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a "RESOURCE BURN". By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (e.g. trolling) the forum readers there are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is enough, the readers will STOP RESEARCHING AND SLIP INTO A "GOSSIP MODE". In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are, the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the "psychological capabilities" and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to "drive the wedge".
...
>Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become
>U N C O N T R O L L E D.

I believe in human rights for people like me. Reasonable people should have these rights but shit of the world... sorry

soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/crooked-hillary

Survival of the fittest

Jewish scam

The American bill of rights seems damn near like a gold standard of human rights.
The human rights act, on the other hand, is a piece of utter shit.

For fucks sake, now you goyims think that I'm trying to disrupt the board? Here I thought it was about freedom of speech.

*guys

pro free speech doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. This isn't a college class where there is only one "right" view.

Spooks.

I just meant that I thought Sup Forums was pro free speech not that everyone in the world was. If Sup Forums isn't pro free speech it should be, this website wouldn't even exist if not for free speech. Sup Forums would not be what it is today if not for free speech. Freedom of speech is literally the only thing that gives Sup Forums any power.

>You have exactly three rights as a human.
no faggot, you have no rights

if i am stronger, smarter, and have a bigger army than you, i'm going to fucking kill you and enslave your family because i can

Human rights are a social construct created by white males.

.
No no it's not about that. The fact that people respond to meme threads instead of actual productive ones is used by shills on anonymous forums to disrupt any sort of coordinated direction. It's sound bullshity but that's how propaganda is spread if you've ever read Sun Tzu's Art of War. So the more threads like this that are low quality but high consumption you choose to participate in the lower the quality of the entire board. The shill thing isn't a meme.

>Inb4 jewish tricks from the shillary team

Peasant.

So anyways tldr

Sage you flaming faggot I hope you neck yourself

You can literally write w/e you want on this board. So long as it is not a death threat, cp, or "spreading terrorism".

This is probably one of the only "mainstream" places to write pro nat soc opinions.

Yep, and it is all because of the concept of freedom of speech. There is no way in hell any society that did not value free speech would allow this website to exist. Freedom of speech also means that anyone has a right to speak freely so it is surprising that so many people on Sup Forums do not believe people have this right. It makes me think they are willfully ignoring the truth that Sup Forums can't exist without the right to free speech existing for everyone.

it's a privilege granted to us by liberal democracy, secured at the grace of our government, you fucking retard

there are no such things as rights

What are you brabbling about, mate?

Not really, because we have the second amendment. The second amendment makes all the other rights actual rights. If the government chose to ignore our right to free speech then we could rebel against them using force.

...

Okay, I get it rights "don't exist" because they are just a social construct maaaaan. Fuck off, rights are obviously social constructs but they are created because any society without those basic rights is a shithole that shouldn't exist.

But the whole point of the second amendment is that rights exist where force enables them. If you lived in a country where the government will kill you for expressing an anti government position, your "right" doesn't mean shit.

>being this blue pilled

it's a bill of privileges granted to you by the current gang of thugs in charge, which can be taken away from by vote by the lowest common denominator who is subject the influence of the (((media))) and (((facebook)))

They're only needed in third world 'developing' shitholes, in first world western countries human rights are merely a tool used by the elite to curtail justice in favour of their leftist equality agenda.

some opinions are dangerous. Our country is going to shit. I used to be a libertarian. I realized that some ideas and some practices, while not actively dangerous to society, promote instability. Instability ruins societies.

A strong nation-state, leader, and family are essential to national prosperity.

I think Heinlein had it right in starship troopers, a good and noble concept, but people seem to think its a law of nature.

what a "shithole" is is relative

francoist spain had virtually 0 crime, 0 unemployment, and was the second fastest growest economy in the last half of the 20th century (after japan)

of course if you were a communist or criticized the government or church, you would be dragged out into the street and shot

...

No international organization should be allowed to dictate the internal matters of a country

Basically this. Ultimately, humans only have the rights their governments give them or, more importantly, the rights citizens demand their government give to them. This is why it's so stupid that people want to give up their right to protect themselves via the second amendment. Aside from that, there is literally NOTHING to defend you from the government taking away all the rights we were granted when the constitution was written.

That's not how it works, rights are something that are innate. You always have a right to believe what you want and say what you want. If a government locks you up for saying something they disagree with they are infringing on your right. Just think about when you are alone in your own mind, all of those thoughts are your own and nobody else can touch them. When you speak only you can decide what comes out of your mouth. Just because someone locks you up for what you said doesn't mean you can't say it. That's why it is a right, because it is an unquestionably human trait to think freely and speak freely. Any society that denies this is doomed to fail.

No state should be allowed too kill his population.

...

You are really desperate for (You)'s aren't you?

>And so, if someone violated this, the person should not be considered human anymore?
Well the Jews violate them all the time and get away with them.

>current year
>being a literal Alinsky shill

It must suck to live in a world where truth is dictated by the majority.

They should apply to everyone but Muslims, and maybe niggers

I do not believe that rights should exist outside of or above what is granted by the state. We are mere animals struggling to survive, yet in our larger communities our utilitarian value gives us a better sense of humanity. Simply abandoning the state is debasing one's self and lowering their humanity, returning to animal nature. Abide by the social contract, or you do not deserve or are eligible for human rights.

No, I'm just low-efforting my response to babby's first contact with natural law.

You're conflating "freedoms" with "rights." Rights are a legal term. Freedom is not. One has the freedom to do X, Y, and Z regardless of whether their government allows it or not, but one only has the right to do something if their government allows it. This is why we can say that you are free to go and kill a man, but you do not have the right to do so (i.e the government will arrest you afterwards).

There are no human rights, we are governed by the laws of nature and of man, not the fancies of fleeting compassion. The only right a human has should be taken with his hands and mind, expecting anything given is a curse that dooms smart able people to drunken deaths. I will show no compassion or love to another human for the sake of his humanity should I ever gain power as to not insult him and not weaken him.

can anyone tell me why the U.N. puts countries with well known abysmal human rights policies on the council for human rights? Is U.N. logic counter to any sane common sense logic?

Democrats want human right for everyone but babies. They demand to abort innocent children

You don't have any actual arguments

It's not strictly legal, it can be ethical too. That was my point, that even if you don't legally have those rights you still have them. Being able to think and speak freely is different from being able to kill another person. It is impossible for a human being to not think and speaking is a natural function that humans carry out as natural as eating or drinking. Killing other humans isn't necessarily natural. I don't think you can compare the two.

>You don't have any actual arguments

Neither do you, why do you think I'm just posting pictures?

That should be the people's right to decide. If people want the death penalty, for example, that should be a responsibility of the state

I'm, of course, considering a democratic state of government
If the international community has any right to play world police is another question
You've seen what happened in the Arab Spring

>Humans have no inherent rights
>Anyone who says otherwise is a delusional utopian
>Rights can be temporarily secured though violent rebellion
>Rights will be slowly removed unless they are actively defended though the treat of force
>There is a point where too many rights have been secured and they begin to conflict, leading to societal collapse or civil war
>There is a societal equilibrium where citizens have the optimal amount of rights without requiring too many resources to sustain.