The point of my line of questioning was not to be edgy, it was to illustrate the utterly ephemeral nature of "human rights". These rights are not carved in stone anywhere, and even in places where they are "enshrined in western democratic constitutions" they are not applied universally and are eroded still. There is nothing stopping a powerful and large enough group from redefining these rights.

Even your own examples illustrate the fragility of these rights.

> And no, human rights are not defined by a majority vote. Otherwise we would have the human right to be held as slave, to be lynched because of skin color, sexual orientation or religion, imprisoned because of your political opinion without trial and a whole lot of other nasty things.

Surely human rights _are_ defined by majority vote, given that not all humans had the right to be free in relatively recent history in the US. What force would these human rights have if they were defined by the Sri Lankan government and held by no other?