You're viewing part of a thread.
Ok, prosecute all eight billion of us for the murder of the seventy million that died last year, see how that works out for you.
What are you even talking about now?
Positive Vs. Negative rights, we've been talking about it this entire time. Saying "You can't murder him" is different from "You can't let him die"
Again- Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It cannot be any clearer. I'll even show you the relevant article. It's very concise:
Maybe you are not in one of the 48 of 58 UN member states in existence at the time that voted in favor of it. Note that there were no votes against it.
If so, I'm sorry your country does not care about basic human rights.
Then why does the UN let 60 million people die each year?
Are you seriously asking why the UN is unable to defy biological and medical science?
Yes
(but only rhetorically, I'm actually asking why you belive that some hypothetical future institution will be able to)
I don't?
You seem to think that 'right to life' means 'right to defy entropy.' It doesn't.
I guess freedom speech isn't a right because people in comas don't have that ability?
The right to free speech is a negative right, in that nobody is forced to do anything to give it you.
What a UBI is asking for is the equivalent to the right to life as giving everybody a printing press is the freedom of speech.
Not necessarily a bad idea, but a very expensive one that maybe ought to wait until the planet isn't dying.
I really do not understand what you think 'right to life' means, but in most civilized parts of the world it means that the government has a duty to make sure its citizens don't die whenever possible. That is not something you have to earn as a citizen.
Why you think that's such a ridiculous position to take, I have no idea.
And also why you think you have to earn being on this Earth when you didn't ask to be put here in the first place is also beyond me. Who gets to judge who's earned enough to be given the right to live? You?