> Why do you think the trolley problem applies here?

Well, the right to live is usually considered a human right, and a trolley problem is a conflict between this right for 1 person and another. So if you want human rights that can't get into conflict you can't even get the most basic ones.

And you can create similar conflict for any particular right you can imagine, so if you want human rights that don't conflict - you will have no human rights at all.

Another example - siamese twins with 1 set of necessary organs. Threatened pregnancy depending on your views on abortion. Necessary self-defense. It's impossible to create non-conflicting rights.

As for freedom of expression - it gets into conflict each time 2 people try to speak at the same time in the same place.

Same with right to protest (what if 2 groups with opposite views want to organize protests at the same time and place - a common occurrence during LGBT parades in my country).

You're talking about the same human right creating conflicts between 2 individuals. I read the original comment as conflicts between 2 distinct human rights, ergo my brief example.

I still find the trolley problem like a bit of a reach, but the other ones make sense. Thanks.

If any particular right is self-conflicting then it makes no sense trying to avoid conflicts between different rights.

I disagree, and it would have been courteous to highlight the part that you edited after my reply. It now makes it look like I ignored almost half of your comment.