First, my response wasn't meant as argument, it was meant as inquiry. With his "citation needed" rayiner questioned the notion that privacy against foreign governments was a right, someone pointed at UDHR, rayiner gave some grounds UDHR shouldn't be used for that. My question was accepting that premise (here); it was not intended as a statement that we have to use UDHR if he failed to come up with something better.
Second, you should be entirely aware that not every participant on this site is obligated to hold the views of the majority.
The question about Article 27 is interesting. It's poor to focus only on the second part of it, though. The entirety reads:
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the
cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and
to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the
moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he
is the author.
I would say I agree with it, but point out that nothing in the UDHR specifies mechanism, and I think that our systems which purport to be implementation of part (2) overreach in ways that interfere with (1) (and/or just generally suck). As it happens, I don't think piracy is a great way of dealing with that overreach, but what we're seeing in that debate is the tension between people wanting to protect a particular (possibly aggressive) interpretation of one right and those wishing to reclaim a particular (possibly aggressive) interpretation of another.
Sorry, I wrote poorly. My objection is to the "flight to abstraction" that always seems to happen on threads like this: you have a specific critique of the UDHR that we can actually get our heads around, and instead of pursuing it, the thread pivots to an abstraction that no productive discussion can occur around. I could just as productively suggest a universal right to hair coloring products.
rayiner responded to "people have a right to not be indiscriminately surveilled by every country that they don't live in" with "[citation needed]", which would seem to indicate that this should not simply be a moral position one would individually hold but should be backed up by some source. This would imply either the existence of appropriate sources or the non-existence of human rights (or at least human rights we have so far discovered). Demanding that we find sources he deems acceptable, without any insight into what he deems acceptable, may be good rhetoric but is not productive conversation, and I reject your characterization of my prompt for more clarity as the unproductive act in the discussion.
Edited to add:
You really think arguing about arbitrary other clauses of the UDHR would be less of a rabbit hole than trying to pin down what the participants in the discussion mean when they say people do or don't have rights?
First, my response wasn't meant as argument, it was meant as inquiry. With his "citation needed" rayiner questioned the notion that privacy against foreign governments was a right, someone pointed at UDHR, rayiner gave some grounds UDHR shouldn't be used for that. My question was accepting that premise (here); it was not intended as a statement that we have to use UDHR if he failed to come up with something better.
Second, you should be entirely aware that not every participant on this site is obligated to hold the views of the majority.
The question about Article 27 is interesting. It's poor to focus only on the second part of it, though. The entirety reads:
I would say I agree with it, but point out that nothing in the UDHR specifies mechanism, and I think that our systems which purport to be implementation of part (2) overreach in ways that interfere with (1) (and/or just generally suck). As it happens, I don't think piracy is a great way of dealing with that overreach, but what we're seeing in that debate is the tension between people wanting to protect a particular (possibly aggressive) interpretation of one right and those wishing to reclaim a particular (possibly aggressive) interpretation of another.