The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
I disagree that the family is the fundamental group unit of society.
Article 25.2
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
I feel discriminated that motherhood and not fatherhood are entitled to special care.
In the broad term I very much favour them. But when you actually read up on it a lot, like I have, the broad term loses its meaning and I always wonder what people actually mean by it when they say it.
Human rights are things that a person has simply by existing, referring to them as granted through legal or constitutional processes is backwards. It essentially cheapens the concept of human rights, which is a totally valid criticism.
The lack of force of law is, because the charter is basically meaningless. A country can agree to it and ignore it without any real consequences.
Do you mind saying which ones?
Article 16.3
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
I disagree that the family is the fundamental group unit of society.
Article 25.2
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
I feel discriminated that motherhood and not fatherhood are entitled to special care.
Fair enough. Sounds like you favour the idea of human rights but disagree on some specific conceptions of exactly what those rights are?
In the broad term I very much favour them. But when you actually read up on it a lot, like I have, the broad term loses its meaning and I always wonder what people actually mean by it when they say it.
Yeah, that’s fair enough. Similar to Foucault’s critique, IIRC.
Not OP, but there’s a handful of things that can be found problematic dependingon your beliefs.
You oppose human right because you oppose human rights? But you also oppose them because they are not really rights?
It sounds like your position would necessitate a bit more explanation.
Human rights are things that a person has simply by existing, referring to them as granted through legal or constitutional processes is backwards. It essentially cheapens the concept of human rights, which is a totally valid criticism.
The lack of force of law is, because the charter is basically meaningless. A country can agree to it and ignore it without any real consequences.
Ah yes, that was the explanation I needed. Thanks.