ITT: Phrases that trigger you

How does human rights trigger you snowflake?

I get the rest of the list because they are bullshit contentions usually filled with bullshit arguments.

But human rights is a fairly simple phrase without alot of ambiguity like "free society" which is a minefield because of the "free".

Humans (not an abstract qualifier)
Rights (also not as abstract as rights only apply to humans)

There are no rights that apply to non humans.
There are no non-humans that have rights.

Seems to be a fixed and exclusive set without too many holes and strings.

>>2577808
>"x was just a bad as y"
Hell, just include moralism of any sort.

Also:
>Why couldn't [complex group of factions] have just done [stupidly unworkable "solution"]? They'd have won the war!
>>2577859
What a pleb.

>capitalism

I fucking hate seeing this word because all that follows it is either an insane marxist blaming all of the world's ills on it or a lolbertarian worshipping it as a concept and claiming it is joined at the hip with things like liberty or freedom of speech. I recoil at the sight of it honestly.

> "freedom of speech"
> "freedom of religion"
> "freedom of movement"
> "nation of immigrants"
> "affirmative action"
> "positive right"

>>2577859
>There are no non-humans that have rights.
Wrong, in the Netherlands there are a lot of animal rights

File: harald hårdråde shiggy.png (119KB, 415x412px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 415x412px

>>2577859
Human rights are triggering for many reasons. They did not exist historically. They are pointless unless someone is upholding them. They are based on the very lowest common trait of people, the fact that they are "humans", thus it is based on mere fecundity, you can be a retarded baby murdering pygmy with 60 IQ, or a well educated professor with a PHD and you'd have the same "human rights". The "human rights" are not balanced with any "human duties", which is why people today act like they are entitled to everything and anything merely for existing. The upholders of "human rights" try to enforce them in other countries than their own, and often use them as excuses to intervene in other nations internal affairs, clearly using the "rights" as a counterfeit casus belli. Further more, the upholders of "human rights" are the illegitimate, inter-national organization known as the UN, a body of shady rulers that no one has elected and who were not sanctioned to rule by any legitimate process. Human rights were not present up until recently in the history of the world, and for a good reason, if you went back in time to the medieval age and told anyone that you had a "right" to anything, you would be laughed at, but proponents of human rights today will look back on history and moralize, and say that "This or that person violated human rights!" oblivious to their own ignorance.

>>2578111
Do you have an alternate conceptualization of the human rights that you want to share?

Or do you believe there simply no value to the concept, and that humans are intrinsically no different than inanimate objects or non sentient beings? What is the basis of law supposed to be if not mutual defense of basic rights to property, life, self governance?

File: drrrrrrrrrrrrrrngg gnnngnnnnnn.png (193KB, 591x448px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 591x448px

>>2577859
>snowflake
wow you really showed the "esjaydubyah cuhk maine streem meteor KEKH CHKH DEUS VULT CUHK"

damn

>>2578046
Animals don't have rights. Legally they are protected objects, they can't be subjects of law.

File: IMG_0731.png (40KB, 475x433px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 475x433px

>>2578111
Rights have existed for centuries even if limited to certain people, and even then, through assimilation you could earn a couple of them; I agree with the interventionism, but you can't really believe what you state, unless you wish you lived in a society with limited rights

>>2578531
>lives in a civilization completely legally and historically based on rights of man taking eons to develop and be put to paper... Hurt Durr Human Rights are dumb because they don't exist. Spook Hurr Durr

(((class conflict)))

File: 16123248_1810387725894985_334848256125173760_n.jpg (38KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x480px

>"common good"

>>2578111
You're a dumb faggot retard.

File: yes.png (4KB, 411x276px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 411x276px

>>2578484
>Or do you believe there simply no value to the concept, and that humans are intrinsically no different than inanimate objects or non sentient beings? What is the basis of law supposed to be if not mutual defense of basic rights to property, life, self governance?

>>2578496
t.riggered

File: Can't be doin' with it.jpg (88KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 700x700px

>>2577808
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire

Mere words can not trigger a real freethinker like me.

>>2578496
lol, hi there redddit, get lost on the way to /r/enoughtrumpspam?

>evolution is a fact
>god doesn't exist
>x is a spook
>morals are relative
>dude religion is just used to control ppl xDD
>did jesus really exist?

>>2581600
>evolution is a fact
>god doesn't exist
>morals are relative
>dude religion is just used to control ppl xDD
These are all true though.

File: 5u69LPe.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>2577808
Dumb Americans like >>2581600 right here

>>2581600
>>evolution is a fact
this is true.

>>god doesn't exist
>x is a spook
>morals are relative
>dude religion is just used to control ppl xDD
>did jesus really exist?
these are all cancer.

File: max.png (94KB, 348x437px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 348x437px

>>2581600

Spooky

>>2581604
> dude religion is just used to control ppl xDD
Nah, religion is much more than that, even if God is fictional entity.

> national mentality

> left
> right

>>2577808
>how
>why

Biggest redflags here on /his/&humanities

>>2577808
>looks dont matter
>*anything* personality *anything*
>well, but
>I disagree, but respect your opinion
>as *some irrelevant category* I

>>2581640
I'm not American, try again.

>>2581711

Fat American.

File: ultra_angry_pepe.jpg (140KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 680x680px

>>2581709
This

>>2577808
You're another right wing edgelord, OP. We get it.

>>2578484
the basis of law is that people recognize in their specific, non-universal context that it would probably better if physical force didn't have to be used so much so they agree to a certain contextual code to bring it down

but the code is based on the society in question, not a universal one, and there can very well not be a code

>>2581709
>I disagree, but respect your opinion

You must be a really argumentative and sensitive person if this triggers you. Intelligent people can come to different conclusions, and not everyone has the energy for perpetual shouting matches against sweaty neckbeards with a chip on their shoulder. Grow up.

>>2582137
You are another cuck who cant make arguments, but chicken out by any sight of muh le "right-wingers"

>>2582140
>>2582150
>muh not everything is black and white meme

>>2582163
School must be out, because the board is filled with dumbasses like you today.

>>2577877

IMO we should just throw out words like "socialism" or "capitalism". Does anyone even agree on a definition at this point? They are hopelessly loaded. We should get rid of them and just start talking about who owns what and where the money comes from and goes.

>>2582173
Universities (nothing more than some liberal studies) must be out, because the board is filled with lefty numales like you today.

> Rome fell because of *that one reason*

>>2582154
Yeah OP was making so many quality arguments by listing shit that triggers him, he should write for Cracked.

>>2582163
>if I add "muh" and call things memes it discredits them

Okey dokey

>2582199
You tell em Cletus. Them learnin fags are gay n shit. Smart ppl get their worldview from the internet.

>>2582199
>He thinks everyone who goes to Uni is a leftist
Man, that is just sad.

>>2577808
> "x was just a bad as y"
>"They fought for [abstract concept]"
> "right side of history"
yeah I get those would be triggering (though I like to argue that the first argument wouldn't exist without your hypocrisy)

> "free country"
> "free society"
> "human rights"
you only say that because you are not on the receiving end. If you were you would be crying nonstop about "muh freedoms"

>>2578111
leave it to a medievalfag to not into civilization

>>2578034
please don't post anymore

>>2577808
spot the /pol/dittor

>>2582154
>cuck
back to the containment board with you
>>>/pol/

>>2581711
>third worlder

> "x was just a bad as y"
if you put capitalism in the same standards you have for communism you would declare them both tyrant-breeding murderous ideologies

>"They fought for [abstract concept]"
if they said that they fought for that concept then there's no reason to deny it without evidence since it's their perspective
if you say that they did without them saying anything about it, then yes it's bullshit until proven otherwise

> "right side of history"
you don't see any Carthaginians these days

> "free country"
you're just mad because your country isn't free

> "free society"
your just mad because your country won't allow you to do anything

> "human rights"
your just mad because your being tortured to death because the local lord accused you of stealing bread so he can rape your wife.

File: Yplh18u.png (26KB, 527x409px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 527x409px

>>2581709

>>2577859
>There are no rights that apply to non humans.
>There are no non-humans that have rights.
That's not what human rights means dumbass. Human rights is an ideology like any else. They just attach the word "human" to it in order to mystfy it and pretend that this particular ideology is not an ideology but is inherent to humans, and therefore opposing it means opposing the human race as a whole and being declared public enemy number one, or worse yet risk the power structure revoke your status as a "human" (and therefore permitting themselves to do anything they want with you). Which is a very clever, albeit perverse tactic.

File: Napoleon.jpg (7KB, 174x290px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 174x290px

>>2581709
>looks dont matter

>this is a 10/10 according to anon

>>2577859
> There are no rights that apply to non humans.
> he doesn't know about corporations

>>2581709
>I disagree, but respect your opinion
what if you actually do not agree to it but it still brought you some new insight that you can't help but admire anyway?

human rights are a dangerous concept because saying your ideology is grounded upon them means that people who don't agree with you will be evil from your perspective, and society surely won't be healthy if you have to share it as an equal with those whom you consider evil and vice versa

the only moral system in a world where "human rights" is a system is a global dictatorship where people have absolutely no say in how they're governed; a world without human rights can be a bunch of small nations who can disagree on things and where the people can vote and make decisions for themselves. i'd prefer the latter, to be quite honest.

most of the times I'm only triggered by arguments that can work but are usually said by people that have no right to say them

such as:
>redpill
>muh feelings
>morality is subjective
>leave "x" alone

>>2581680
really those words are just worthless at this point

>"right-wing in America is liberal capitalism which isn't the right-wing in other countries"
>"nor is it the right-wing in the past"
>"nor will it probably be in the future"

then why call it right? just call it libertarian and be done with it
>b-but libertarians are socially left
but we only talk about economics when we mention them so fuck it

File: DELET.jpg (204KB, 900x973px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 900x973px

>democracy is the most moral form of government
>republics are exactly the same as democracies
>Christianity created the "dark ages"
>real x has never been tried
>x nations are the good guys in x war

>>2582563
really, we ought to be describing people using their actual philosophies rather than "positions".

something like:
libertarian: someone who believes the world ought to be governed solely by market forces
liberal: someone who believes the world ought to be governed by what experts and the educated think
communist: someone who believes the world ought to be governed according to the needs of the worker
progressive: someone who believes that the world ought to be governed by those formerly oppressed
theocrat: someone who thinks the world ought to be governed by God
fascist: someone who believes individual communities should govern themselves how they think best

that would be actually sensible. alas, current political discourse teaches people to turn their brains off and start screeching when they hear people call themselves "communist" or "fascist".

File: dark-ages.jpg (77KB, 478x355px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 478x355px

>>2582596
> Christianity created the "dark ages"
You can't argue with facts.

>>2582187
I thought the world would have gotten rid of it in the 20th century, because after all we have neoliberalism, not pure Adam Smith capitalism, the mix between a state controlled economy and a free market.

It's as if people would still be calling this the Medieval/Prehistoric whatever age.

The economy is neoliberalism and the government is the Welfare state which is rather "socialist" too, I guess making it black and white is much easier.

>>2582607
>someone who believes the world ought to be governed by what experts and the educated think

that Technocracy

>>2582631
i'm describing "liberal" to mean the clinton/blair/merkel ideology that calls itself "centrist" currently. that's what they call themselves, so they can keep the name.

>>2582596
>democracy is the most moral form of government
relatively speaking yes I'm sure your theoretical government is quite possibly more moral maybe, but we are a history board
>republics are exactly the same as democracies
true
>Christianity created the "dark ages"
triggering because they used "dark ages" wrongly jury's still out on their influence on the fall of west Rome
>real x has never been tried
simply saying that it's x doesn't make it x otherwise North Korea would be recognized as a democracy
>x nations are the good guys in x war
true

>>2582187
they are very broad general terms

economist just use the word "free" and "command" economies which means the exact same though

File: 4h5djs6c5ymy.jpg (97KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 600x800px

>>2582608
A random graph isnt an argument. During the "dark ages" alot of scientific progress was made.

File: absolutely disgusting.jpg (1MB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5000x5000px

>>2582647
>there is something intrinsically moral about putting an issue up to a popular vote

think about times people voted to do horrible things

also, jumping on the human rights train
>"because I am a human, I have rights"
>I have a gun pointed at you and no one is coming to help you or stop me, I say you no longer have rights
>"well I'll do what you say but I totally still have them because I'm still a human :^)"

>>2583868
I believe the fact that the population having control of their own fate is intrinsically moral.

Even if they get screwed over it's at least it's them that's doing it and not just some edgy princeling.

also democracies and republics are almost required to have rule of law which in itself is not only intrinsically moral but also prevents your government from being an inconsistent arbitrary shithole

>If a person can violate your rights that means you don't have any
under that logic no one has rights

>fascism is right-wing and capitalist
god, i hate that, we are third position!

File: 1488328704319.png (135KB, 576x481px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 576x481px

>The United States is a democracy
>A republic is just a watered down democracy
>All Africans are black
>Germany didn't really start WWI
>Cahokia was a Native American state society
>Mesopotamia was a single civilization
>Hannibal was a skilled strategist
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to end WWII
>Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire
>The Belkans aren't responsible for the Circum-Pacific War
>4chan isn't an anime/manga site

That's just off the top of my head

>>2584923
>under that logic no one has rights
yep