The fight is simply about freedom. I don't think it's logical or moral for anyone to be able to restrict another human being in anyway. Justice would of course be the only exception -- and justice is the grayest shade I know, so enter debate. I think we live in a completely backwards world thinking anything needs to be granted as a right first, rather than things starting as innate parts of freedom.
We've overcome the fight for physical survival. Now we are faced with fighting off the chains of our peers. That is in no way insulting to those still fighting for survival.
I do not disagree about the importance of freedom and blablabla, but, have you ever met anyone whose primary concern is whether they will be able to survive today, tomorrow be damned? I have.
I have as well, and it is a very powerful thing to see. It actually hurts me to know what people around the world have to struggle for.
That being said, I think you are only hurting your own reputation by getting mad that other people are fighting for a different, less primitive or dire, cause. We want people to be fighting for all of the great causes in the world, don't criticize them for not fighting the one most important to you, commend them for their effort to bring more good into the world.
I am going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume your reading comprehension is poor. Quoting oneself is usually in bad taste, but I think this situation warrants it:
> Providing aid is good and should indeed be welcome. Enshrining connectivity as a "human right" is what I take issue with.
In other words, I am not getting mad at anyone for trying to make the word a better place. What I do find annoying (to say the least) is the conflation of something that is good (Internet access) with something that is essential for human life (food, shelter and anything worthy of being called a "human right"). Fast transportation makes the world a better place, yet no reasonable person would argue cars or airplane tickets are a human right.
Personally, I do not think freedom of speech is a human right. It is a cornerstone of modern civilization, and, where we have it, we ought to protect it, but restricting freedom of speech is not at the same level of "wrong" as systematically allowing people to die.
then you have a different definition of "right" than most of the rest of us.
If systematically allowing people to die is a wrong, then everyone is guilty of an original sin, given that to date no one has found a way to prevent death.
I admit I expressed myself terribly. What I meant is "systematically allowing people to die of non-natural causes". This excludes dying of illness or old age.
The fight is simply about freedom. I don't think it's logical or moral for anyone to be able to restrict another human being in anyway. Justice would of course be the only exception -- and justice is the grayest shade I know, so enter debate. I think we live in a completely backwards world thinking anything needs to be granted as a right first, rather than things starting as innate parts of freedom.
We've overcome the fight for physical survival. Now we are faced with fighting off the chains of our peers. That is in no way insulting to those still fighting for survival.