[Georgelemental]

Human rights are human, that's why they're called "human rights." If they were cultural, they would be called "cultural rights." Some people claim that food and housing are "human rights"; those people are factually wrong because food and housing are limited resources that require time and effort to obtain. (In contrast, speaking one's mind is something anyone can just do; it's an intrinsic property of being human.)

[drowsspa]

"Factually wrong" oh yeah, I'm being factual and logical and those others are being ideological and political.

[Georgelemental]

Yes, this is in fact one of the few cases where a philosopical question has clear-cut, empirically verifiable right and wrong answers.

(Merry Christmas btw)

[drowsspa]

Of course, like I said, libertarianism is empirically verifiably right. Got it.

[Georgelemental]

I don't consider myself a libertarian. "Food and shelter are limited resources" is empirically verifiable.

[drowsspa]

That is a fact. Where your ideology enters the argument is when you say that implies they're not human rights.

[waffleiron]

The view that only negative rights are human rights is not a given and quite libertarian. For example education is often seen as a human right and is a positive right.

Human rights depend on what one values and that’s different for different groups. It’s crazy to think that the way a certain country/person/ideology think about rights is the only correct way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

[Georgelemental]

Once again, the universality of human rights is implied by their name, "human rights." If the government of Slevobia wants to provide healthcare to all Slevobian citizens, more power to them; but healthcare is then a "right of Slevobian citizens," not a "human right."