What do robots think of human rights?
Not particular issues or swj bullshit, but the concept that all humans are equal in rights, deserve protection from violence and intrusion and some sort of social protection if needed?
I think it's a good philosophical construct but extremely artificial and that it can't really go anywhere further than it already has.
>>28254141
If someone can not survive of their own devices, I do not think that they should be kept alive by society.
the concept appears artificial because it is only necessary to consider within the context of our already highly artificial civilised societies
natural, prehistoric man has no need for the idea of human rights because there is no state which can take it away from him
but you are correct, they are artifical, and as such every culture/society has a different interpretation of which rights are inalienable and which are legitimately within state control
eg even in north korea or the islamic caliphate the state does not interfere with certain human prerogatives such as what you cook for dinner or who you fuck
and even freer societies have limits to your individual autonomy such as conscription or public nudity laws
but you can draw a very clear correlation between the amount of human rights/freedoms a society enjoys and its overall prosperity, make of that what you will
>>28254400
what does that mean though?
no police?
>>28254423
Try fucking another man, see what IS thinks of that. Or try having sex with someone that isn't your husband...
>>28254575
you are inanely nitpicking my examples rather than addressing my overall point, i'm not going to argue with you about the extent of sexual freedom within the islamic state
