ricecake

Coming into a year old thread to stir shit up is basically the definition of trolling. Doing so in favor of the argument that there's a plague of men pretending to be women to take over women's sports is a conservative talking point.
Arguing that there's scientific uncertainty about how often this is coming up or if the boxer is actually a secret man is... Well I hope you're trolling, otherwise you're a bad person.

So explain to me how telling you to fuck off is "ragebait"?

Maybe one day you’ll learn that insulting other people that don’t agree with you isn’t the way

Maybe one day you'll realize that no one cares about your opinion on "the way".

That's a fair point of discussion. I stand by what I said as a valid response to the claim that government bestows a right, but no, it's not as universally agreed upon in as I implied.

I'd argue that regardless of if a right is a fiat of nature or claimed by the people, that the right is still outside the government. People have the right to this and that, and the government can choose to infringe, respect or protect them, but they didn't create the right.

I cannot face palm hard enough. You actually lack reading comprehension that hard.

That section does not imply that I think morality and the law are identical. That's me believing that you do, and making an assertion that your beliefs would lead you to the indefensible position that the Holocaust wasn't a human rights violation.
Also before I realized that you were being pedantic in ignorance, as revealed by you defending the notion that the Holocaust wasn't a human rights violation.

I choose to interpret that you're ignorant of philosophy, and now also not fluent enough in English to actually properly engage in this type of conversation, rather than think you're a person who sees nothing wrong with the Holocaust.

In summary: "human rights" are a philosophical and ethical concept discussed under that and other names for thousands of years. That concept has clear implications for the law, and so the term is also used in a legal context. Most people refer to the philosophical context because morality is above the law.

Seeing as I no longer have confidence in the ability of this discussion to go anywhere due to communication impediments, I'm done. Have a good day.

Congress can vote to propose an amendment, and then send it to the states to be voted on and ratified.
The constitution is an agreement between states creating and restricting the federal government. Federal and federated come from the same root.

You seem to be persistently missing that there's a difference between morality and a declaration.
Human rights are a question if morality. Like any moral or philosophical question people debate things and eventually come to some form of understanding, which might beget a document outlining the understanding, and possibly laws detailing actions to be taken to protect certain rights.

The universal declaration of human rights is a set of human rights people were able to agree on. That doesn't make it any less subjective or arbitrary. It also doesn't make it exhaustive or definitive.
Why not look to the American Convention on Human Rights? It's similar but slightly different to the UDHR. Provides more protection for jus soli citizenship, but also more abortion restrictions. So is bodily autonomy a human right, or is the right to life beginning at conception a human right? Even taken exclusively as a strict legal term, the set of human rights isn't without debate.

The universal declaration of human rights isn't universally recognized. Most conceptions of human rights would find them to apply even if your government rejects a UN declaration or failed to sign a treaty.
As another example, the UDHR doesn't acknowledge sexual orientation or gender identity. People try to interpret parts of it as implying them, but it's blatantly an incomplete document. And that's okay, since it's not an exhaustive list. It was drafted when people didn't agree that lgbtq rights were human rights. They were and are human rights without a piece of paper bestowing them.

Human rights are like any other morality question: subjective, and held in tension between individual beliefs and the various beliefs of society at large.

If your answer to something is to say that it's illegal, it's not unreasonable to ask which law makes it illegal, and why you think that matters when that law doesn't apply to the nation in question.

Your reading comprehension is lacking if you think I'm failing to distinguish between legality and morality.

You're failing basic comprehension that human rights are a concept that exists outside of the law. The law referring to human rights does not make the law the arbiter of human rights.

Read a book, and think about where you went wrong that you're arguing that the Holocaust wasn't a human rights violation.

I get that you think you're being pedantic about what you think is a legal term being misused. You're not. You're being an asshole about an ethics term being used properly in a context you were ignorant of.

Fuck off conservative troll.

I'm fairly certain that you either never took or utterly failed basically any civics or philosophy class.

Human rights exist outside the context of government. It's why something can be legal and still a human rights violation.

Human rights is a legal term and defined in written word.

Citation needed. That's seriously such a preposterous stance that I actually skipped reading your entire response after I got to it.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

The concept of human rights and the morality of how those with power act towards those without has been discussed under many names for millennia. It's been discussed under the name "human rights" long before we started using it as a legal term. Hint: where do you think the legal term came from?

Philosophy pertaining to the law is not that same thing as the law.

It's actually in the founding documents of our country that human rights are not defined by the legal system, and that we can only specifically enumerate a subset that we find critically important.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

This makes sense because the philosophical works that were inspirational and popular amongst the founders were those of natural rights philosophers of different sorts quite concerned with human rights in general. You can see it in how the preamble is basically a summary of them.

All that aside: being shocked that someone is discussing morality when discussing human rights is naive and a cop out for a shitty opinion.

Alright, I felt bad and went back to try reading. I got to the bit where it seems you think the US only has jus soli citizenship (speaking of needing to use the right term) instead of both "by blood" and "by soil" and stopped again. Supporting both is actually quite easy. Possession of a US birth certificate makes you a citizen. Either parent being a citizen makes you a citizen. More problems arise from "by blood" citizenship, since you need to present the child and proof of parental citizenship before someone with authority to decide if the credentials are valid. A US citizen born abroad results in quite the bundle of paperwork as well as in-person consulate visits. Being born in a US hospital it's a short form where a hospital official affirms where they were born. The rest is just vital records for statistics.

The president doesn't get to change the constitution, or amend it. Congress doesn't even have that power, the most they can do is present it to the states.

What you're doing is arguing that a non-binding statement or a treaty that the US isn't a party to is somehow a better source for morality and defining what constitutes a human right than decency or thinking for yourself.
Don't outsource your conscience to dead guys from the 40s.

If someone was born here, they can be one of us. Both constitutionally and morally. The UN and Trump have fuck all to do with morality. Kicking someone out of their home because of where their parents are from is wrong.

As for the lawsuit.... Where would they sue? On what possible grounds do you think that would even get a hearing? Who do you think would enforce the ruling?
The US has signed no treaty agreeing to not make people stateless.
What possible standing would anyone have to argue in court that a country denied them citizenship, particularly if, as you say, no one has a right to citizenship in any particular country? Or is jus soli citizenship a right but only if you don't have any other option?

I understand the legal theory of human rights perfectly well, thanks though.

What you seem to be missing is that legality isn't the end of morality, but an agreeable approximation endorsed by a government.
The universal declaration of human rights isn't even that. It doesn't carry the weight of law.

It seems that you're arguing that no one should be denied a nationality, but that no one needs to grant you one. So your right to a nationality can be violated by... No one? Someone has to let you in, but no one in specific is responsible, and you can be stripped of it as long as it's not arbitrary. You have the right to change it, but not to anything in particular. Is that about right?
This is of course ignoring the provision against exile, protection of freedom of movement and residence, or the right to return to your homeland. Although you seem to believe that a right to return to your homeland has no basis in where your homeland actually is.

Interesting. Maybe using a document weighed to be inoffensive to powerful nations shouldn't be taken as the highpoint of morality. It's almost like any statement that might create the connotation of "moral obligation" is couched in layers of exceptions or vagueness.

Did you know the Holocaust was perfectly legal? And, since you say we didn't even have human rights before then, just the whim of the ruler, it wasn't even a human rights violation to gas children and burn their bodies!
Perfectly legal, and hence perfectly moral. Right?

People who can't see the distinction between morality and legality are disgusting.

The freedom to not be kicked out of your home and sent to a foreign land because of who your parents happened to be is as much a right or construct as the right to speech, belief, or any other codified right.
Hence why if that's not a right, then there are really none of significance.

Rights are not bestowed by governments, international declarations, or treaties.

Arguing that a sovereign nations laws contradicting something makes it not a human right is a powerfully slippery slope.

The rights of people matter more than those of nations.

I think it's telling that you only consider something a human right if there's a law protecting it.
Do you think there were no human rights before 1948?

The universal declaration on human rights is the set of rights that a good number of nations could agree on. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not an exhaustive or definitive list.

Before you start accusing people of ignorance or being intentionally obtuse, you might consider that you're actually full of shit on the concept of morality.