Unicorn It’s ok I’m on 500mgs of fukitol shirt and sport tank
- 5.3 oz., pre-shrunk 100% cotton
- Dark Heather is 50/50 cotton/polyester
- Sport Grey is 90/10 cotton/polyester
- Double-needle stitched neckline, bottom hem and sleeves
- Seven-eighths inch seamless collar
- Shoulder-to-shoulder taping
I think “evolving definitions” has to do with greater timelines. A micro-example: Not too long ago women had less rights (i.e. husband can legally rape wife). Unicorn It’s ok I’m on 500mgs of fukitol. Morals evolve over decades thus, human rights definitions evolve as well
New Unicorn It’s ok I’m on 500mgs of fukitol items!
Rights do not evolve, privileges do. Which, is what they say at the beginning of the video, but then later switch their theory of rights to privileges. Of course human rights are still not privileges. The thing is we can’t clearly identify them, even though they’ve always been there. Unicorn It’s ok I’m on 500mgs of fukitol. It’s a matter of recognition of those rights, not of their creation. For instance: in russia those who are being judge of a crime can (and will) be put behind bars even when when in the court room (depending on the crimes). That harms their human dignity, recognized in most developed countries, but even though russia doesnt recognise it, it doesnt mean that their human dignity doesnt exist. It’s a matter of recognition, not of creating rights.
Think about it this way: it’s not that we are gaining rights, but that our perception of what a humans rights violation is grows with time and progress. 50 years ago, it was not seen as a human rights violation to rape your marital partner. The fact that it is seen as such now doesn’t mean that bodily autonomy, even inside a marriage, is a privilege. It has always been a right, we’re just recently recognizing it as such and have thus been able to define violations of it.
Get it and be cool!
What y’all are confusing is the difference between laws and behavior vs. rights. There are times when the law aligns quite well with actual rights and when that happens said law is legit. When the law runs counter to actual rights — the “universal” and “irrevocable” ones mentioned at the beginning of the video — that law (not rights — which are timeless and not subject to change) is an abomination. Also, rights exist irrespective of whether or not individual people recognize them or want to respect them. An example would be slavery. Blacks had rights that superseded whatever legal claim (privilege) the South claimed. No law can legitimately allow one person to own another — not even if created democratically.
0/5 (0 Reviews)