[catnaroek]

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.

[dnautics]

is the freedom of speech essential for human life? Because usually that's considered to be a right.

[catnaroek]

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.

[dnautics]

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.

[catnaroek]

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.

[dnautics]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature