Are human rights a real thing or are they a meme created to lessen

Just as real as laws. They exist if you can enforce them.

File: 1337297846825.jpg (24KB, 387x461px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 387x461px

>My studies
>frogposter
>human rights
>a meme

>>412826
I had no other pictures saved except porn, sorry

They're privileges created to increase support for the regime. Not that that's wrong, no government has legitimacy unless it can protect its citizens.

>>412818
"Human rights" implies something intrinsic to all humans, which is patently false, since humans can deprive other humans of these "rights" quite easily.

"Rights" are merely privileges that are guaranteed to a weaker power by a stronger power.

> a meme created to lessen the power of the government
Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

>>412855
>not sure what you mean
>"you can't do that, I have rights!"

>>412851
Basically this. "Human rights" themselves may not actually exist, but it's rather a concept that basically states that the people of a nation have to be contempt with the government otherwise they will replace it.

>>412862
The government/stronger entity decides what those rights are though. I guess if you're arguing that the government limits its own power, that's reasonable.

Human rights are a collective agreement that the civilized world has come up with. In theory it means that anyone who benefits from human rights is obligated to help those without them to get them.

Human rights can impossibly be enforced because everything is swiped under the rug, however, if you get pinned for breaking them it's over. I don't know what degree of corruption there is if someone not wanted in prison forever is actually caught though, could potentially be a problem.

File: the stirner effect.png (246KB, 599x540px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 599x540px

>Human """""""""""""rights"""""""""""""

Human rights are rights only so long as the people can protect and uphold them. Otherwise they are just privileges afforded to the people by the government when it is convenient to them.

In other words, rights are as socially constructed as the patriarchy, but real as you can make them

There are rights; they are not innate, but granted by the state.

>>412818
>Are human rights a real thing or are they a meme created to lessen the power of the government?
How are memes not real when human cultures are real?

Also you want to look up "rights discourse" and "enlightement individuation".

when I hear human rights being referred to as inherent or natural, my eyes glaze over and a muffled "retard" slips my sneering face at a near unconscious level

no, there is no such thing

>>413581
Inhering rights don't need to be transhistorical. One can say that the bourgeois enlightenment individual has inherent rights in that they inhere in the prior concept, and that the prior concept is in fact produced by the inherence of rights.

Human rights are granted to you under the protection of the state, they are not intrinsic because they need an enforcing body in order to be protected and preserved.

but the modern concept of human rights is not really anything related to lessening the power of the government or any wider conspiracy, it's mostly a reaction to the horrors humans have done to other humans in the early 20th century. From shooting 40,000 prisoners of war and throwing them in a ditch in the Katyn forest, to overworking an entire ethnic group to death from overworking in factories, almost any rational thinking person could tell you that such atrocities need to be curbed and the state should make the effort to protect people from such tragedies befalling them again.

overall the modern concept of human rights and the mutually agreed enforcement of those rights by all nations has been a good thing for the world, ensuring the safety of your people should be one of the primary goals of a state by default anyway.

>>412846
you should've posted the porn then

>>412878
>The government/stronger entity decides what those rights are though

The government is seldom really "stronger" than the people, though, its force is just centralized.

>I guess if you're arguing that the government limits its own power, that's reasonable.

It does, but it does so in response to pressure from the masses, not just benevolence.

Rights are an abstraction, so how this question is answered is dependent on how your system of metaphysics treats abstractions in terms of their ontological status. What does it mean for an abstraction to be 'real'? Does it mean that you can look around you and point to it manifesting in the world around you? Or does it mean that the abstraction in question is a functioning description of things?

All "rights" you have are political rights granted by your polity. There are no intrinsic human rights.