Human Rights

Who told you that? The big counter-example is the right to an education, which all nations have signed on to providing to all children with the noted exception of the USA, oddly enough.

Appeal to popularity fallacy.

While it would be unethical to withhold basic education from someone when there are sufficient resources to provide such education, that does not make it a "human right".

Article 28 of the Human Rights of the Child. We have decided that it is a human right. No quotes required. It is a human right.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

No. You changed the definition of "human right" that suited you and then claimed authority fallacy when everyone said "I don't think that's what we agreed".

Other than appeal to authority and appeal to popularity, what is the basis of a "human right" to services and provisions?

Other than adopting a non-standard definition of human rights and then claiming fallacy when people reject your narrow definition, what is the basis of it NOT being a service or provision?

The world owes you nothing more than the right to be left alone, if you're not infringing in the freedoms or liberties of others.

Is food a human right? What about dessert? What about sugar-free? What if someone thinks gluten is evil? Where do you draw the line?

What if someone is 90 years old, in good health, but they're diagnosed with a disease that will kill them within five years if it's not treated… Treatment will cost $1M.

Is it a "human right" that society pays for their treatment?

How should society factor that case against kids with cancer, and limited health care budgets?

Worse, doesn't this create a moral hazard, since people would not be concerned about keeping themselves healthy if their healthcare is a "right" that society is responsible for providing?

The world is obligated to use its capacity to save and improve lives when it has it. Access to medicine is widely considered a human right: that is a service. Fire coverage is widely considered a human right: that is a service. Famine relief - that's food - is widely considered a human right.

If you can save a life, you must do so. You might not like it, you might even decide you won't live up to your obligations when the time comes, but nonetheless, that is the responsibility of having the capacity to do better by your fellow human beings. And I'm not the only one who says so. Your narrow exclusionary selfish definition is not standard, and is a circular argument fallacy: you have no responsibilities because you say you don't have responsibilities. And that's just not true.

You're just repeating appeal to popularity fallacies, this time in the form of supporting your position with the phrase "widely considered".

How about answering my questions (which I asked above), instead of repeating fallacious arguments which I previously called out as nothing more than fallacious arguments…?

Your accusation of me using a circular argument relies on an appeal to popularity (and appeal to absolutes) fallacy: "the fact that nobody else agrees with your premise". Aside from that, your assertion is just plain wrong.

As for your answers to the questions I asked, you seem to be confusing "surplus" with "unlimited resources".

Circular argument! Your definition of human rights pre-supposes your conclusion and that invalidates your objections to the fact that nobody else agrees with your premise.

"Is food a human right?"
I've answered this.

"What about dessert?"
Do we have life-saving surplus desserts lying around? Then save lives with it, yes. They have a right to life.

"What about sugar-free? What if someone thinks gluten is evil? Where do you draw the line?"
Do we have life-saving surplus foods that people aren't allergic to? Then starving people are entitled to it.

"What if someone is 90 years old, in good health, but they're diagnosed with a disease that will kill them within five years if it's not treated… Treatment will cost $1M."

Do we have a million dollars? We're the richest country in the world. Should be some spare cash around we were going to spend on landmines anyway. Cure the dying man. He has a right to medical care.

"Is it a "human right" that society pays for their treatment?"

Yes. The scope of human rights is not as narrow as you see it.

"How should society factor that case against kids with cancer, and limited health care budgets?"

Cure kids with cancer. Oh my God, how is this even a debate? Cure the f**king cancer children! Limited healthcare budgets: we're the richest country in the world. There are only so many children dying of cancer. This shouldn't be hard. If we can build giant statues of Jesus in Ohio, we have the spare cash to cure children with cancer.

"Worse, doesn't this create a moral hazard, since people would not be concerned about keeping themselves healthy if their healthcare is a "right" that society is responsible for providing?"

No. People still get an enormous personal benefit from keeping themselves healthy. Not going to the doctor at all is better than going to a free doctor.