I think you can tell a lot about how rigorous and committed someone's belief in a human right is by how quickly they are able to name people who they think could or should have that right taken away.
Like "X is a universal human right. (This doesn't include Y people though)"
Either you think X isn't actually a human right, or you think Y aren't people.
Some folks really did go straight to the replies to prove me right.
On the other hand, no right is absolute. What you are usually looking at is a balance of rights.
Typically, an attacker's right to life can be overridden by the victim's right to self-defenseâbut only if the attacker poses a credible threat to the victim's life. The moment the attacker is neutralized as a threat and still alive, they again have the right to life (and to due process) no matter how heinous the attack was.
(And once you scale up to entire societies and countries, it gets a lot more messyânot because rights cease to exist, but because the framework that hopefully ensures that the victim can stop swinging and still get continued protection either doesn't exist, or is part of the problem.)
So, sometimes people do reveal that they think X isn't a human right or Y aren't people, but sometimes they simply reveal that Z is a human right, too, and it matters more in the given situation because A, B and C, while X (and Y) only have condition D on their side.
And that's how you can have people who disagree on some pretty major moral issues without either side being evil.
Plus deciding that someone who disagrees with you on X meaning they don't agree that human rights should be a thing....is the best way to fool yourself into violating their human rights. Sometimes people are doing the 'Leopards shouldn't eat my face' thing. Sometimes people are pointing out the leopards are loose and eating people's faces. Sometimes it's just a Bengal cat and while people shouldn't be encouraging it to nibble their face either....still not a leopard.
