[ultimafan]

That's a very cynical viewpoint and one that's not very easy to convince people of. I don't think it's a very moral stance to take either because it can be used to justify immoral stances. There have always been actions in human society that are held as reprehensible regardless of time or culture that would seem to imply the opposite (or at least that the majority of people who live or have lived at the very least believe in the opposite being true)

[munksbeer]

It might not be to people's liking, but unfortunately it's just the truth. Human's have had what we would now consider absolutely awful "moral codes" throughout history. The only real truth is "might makes right".

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

[fennecbutt]

It's a realistic view point. I'm gay and I don't delude myself on the fact it can be dangerous to express that in public. No matter "how far we've come" "we don't need pride parades anymore" etc.

[ultimafan]

Sorry, didn't see your response until today. But I'd argue that those two truths aren't incompatible with one another. Something can be an innate human right and also perceived poorly within a given culture at that moment in time. Someone not respecting a human right doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist. It's just being infringed. "Individual human rights don't exist" seems like a defeatist statement to me and also (looking at religion) doesn't seem to be one believed in by the majority of humans throughout history (though the nature of what is and isn't a right is probably what is usually argued about). There are some things that seem to be universally frowned upon in just about every culture (like unjustified, by their definition of unjustified, murder, rape, etc.) The idea of human rights should be sacred and inarguable because the alternative leaves room for pushback against them.

[munksbeer]

There is no innate human right. It is man made. And it changes all the time.