So? Does it exist?
The most worthless criticism is unsubstantiated attacks.
There is no possibility for discourse if there are only blanket statements and claims that are expected to be accepted as truth.
Based on what argument is inflation good? I missed that part.
Religion has become nothing more than a fucking joke to me and a lot of the followers nothing more than deceptive hypocritical assholes. Learn some human traits before you start lecturing others.
Repent?!? I became an atheist for a good reason.
Now, I find out a lot of religious people don't have any notion of morality and are hardly able to be called humane. And I have no clue why you think attacking me with these kinds of statements makes any sense.
For all the attacks I have gotten, the constant attacks with these sort of religious statement really are the most disingenuous deceptive bullshit people could throw at me. Like, you are trying to make a point by being the most miserable piece of shit to me while all the while claiming superiority.
And "being watched" means putting in effort, i.e. interference, on the side of the violator.
And note that article 12 of UDHR states this in the same fashion: ".. subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, .." This clearly puts the 'extra effort' in the one interfering. Hence it can very much be a human right.
But that's not the point, is it? Privacy is not about asking people to "unhear". Privacy is about people not putting effort in trying to discover what is none of their business, or presenting bullshit claims that it is "supposedly" their business to know, or that they are allowed to decide what your intentions are and therefore they "need to know".
I would not argue they must be oblivious or cripple their senses. I would argue that they have no right to demand info they aren't privileged to.
(sic) You are being deceived. Words are taken out of context. Regardless, are we arguing the subject or that someone, prly maliciously, calls something a human right?
Given that there isn't going to be a response, let me counter this somewhat short-sighted statement: money is essentially a store of value for labor performed. So when someone exchanges money at a later time for goods, it may not be because of a "human right" but even so there is prior labor involved.
Now, if you want to argue against money equaling labor, one of the most dubious uses of money are the multiple levels of derived labor that are available and flourishing in the stock market. The "value" "created" can be disputed because of the very indirect nature of it.
Similarly, inflation dilutes the "store of value" to lessen its value.