in technicality you dont own the rights to your account

it belongs to whatever service you made your account on

so... if you post a video there ... your own creation... is theirs not yours

?

typically in the terms you give them free copyright rights to the video to do as please but you still own the video

exactly

you are entitled to your own content

but you agreed to the tos that the company can use your content at any time without your consent

hm ok

it should be treated almost the same as bank acc in my opinion

preety much

but there is no garuntee if the company goes under

just watched @Timcast video on 2nd channel, Is "Healthcare is a Human Right?". Tim is right because you dont have a "right" *to somebody else's labor!*

human rights are best thought of as in the "negative" that is somebody else doesn't have the right to try and prohibit you from seeking healthcare (think "shall not be infringed"). on the other hand, "positive" rights are more coercive that require somebody else's labor to provide something to you and require the act of compelling by force of human action on some level or another

our entire US bill of rights are based on NEGATIVE rights ... that is the govt SHALL NOT do this and and that to you.... get it? they are meant to protect your natural rights from being infringed upon by others

/\

That video actually opened up my perspective on it

Hell, I think even Crowder could agree with that without changing any meaningful position.

To say something is a Human Right is to say that it is something the government cannot deny you.

In that regard, the implications of 'Healthcare' being a human right is right next to the right to self-defense in importance and truthfulness.

You have the right to seek the healthcare you need. The Government should not stop you from looking out for your own best interest in terms of health.

The real difference that needs to be emphasized in the debate is, 'Who is responsible for that right?'

Who is responsible for making good on rights?

Because if the Government has to supply someone healthcare, they should also supply them with means of self-defense.

Both exist for the preservation of one's self.

right, just like the right to self-defense can be considered a "human right" too .... ppl dont really tend to think of "the right to" healthcare, education, housing, etc that way though, as they think they are entitled to have those services provided to them, but just remember that bottom line... *nobody has an inherent right to somebody else's labor*

Mmhmm!

I never gave much though on human rights topic, at most thought something like the housing is stupid to demand but that's about it. This makes quite sense to me.

if health care is a human right then it actually says national heath services cannot be mandatory

the government cant force you to take their healthcare

you have a right to decide your healthcare

This is what I absolutely agree with, too.

It strikes me as covert linguistic warfare.

holy shit

if healthcare is a human right

unfortunately, that is also the route we are going in California for example with mandatory [forced] vaccinations, etc bcuz that is really just a healthcare procedure. "you have a right to decide your healthcare" .... agreed. and the more choices, the better!

then people havea right to choose what they see as the right healthcare

and thus

anti vaxxers are protected

Oh, shit.

I swear tim raising a kid on nothing but essential oils and tofu is healthy