How do you reconcile you complaint about complaining about the tourist ban with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says people have the right to freedom of movement within the borders of each state?
Does that Declaration give you an inalienable right to do anything you please? I doubt it. As the old saying goes, your freedom stops where someone else’s freedom starts.
Or in Seinfeld speak, “we live in a society!!!”
Have to consider others not just oneself. That’s the price of freedom and being responsible about it.
What do you think that human rights rule is supposed to mean then? By your definition, the (more older) Chinese way of restricting mobility between provinces according to hukou would be OK because you can just bypass the forbidden provinces.
I'm talking about doublerabbit, not India. Doublerabbit apparently doesn't like human rights, which is his right, but it's possible he actually holds contradictory opinions and doesn't realize it.
Or what you and others might believe are human rights are not believed by them to be human rights. Human rights are not, in fact, universal, otherwise there would be no disagreement; and either way, no human right is endless and unlimited especially when it impinges on another's rights.
Oh god what's wrong with you people? Can nobody just be direct and say "I don't accept the UDHR and I believe this other thing that's incompatible with it"? Or "I believe the meaning of that article of UDHR is this other thing and here's some reasons or examples".
Or in Seinfeld speak, “we live in a society!!!”
Have to consider others not just oneself. That’s the price of freedom and being responsible about it.
The alternative is a nanny state or anarchy.