It's not a fallacious argument. I have a right and will defend that right. If you claim I don't have a right and attempt to violate my rights, the result will be very real force used against you. The bullet they feel is a side effect of violating my rights.

We've seen tangible results when people didn't stand up to defend their rights in the holocaust and other genocides. The end result is always the same. People eventually stand up for rights, and those who violate them find themselves filled with bullets. Ask every living person if they have a RIGHT to live and not a privilege and 100% of them will agree that they do.

This is in no way like people thinking the earth was flat anymore than if 100% of the people on earth thought we didn't have gravity. Gravity would continue to exist regardless of the opinions of observers as would our rights.

Is "being respected" a right?

I ask because I sometimes read news stories about how one person will put a bullet through the skull of another person because they were not being respected. That must make it a right.

So your evidence for the universal, objective, physical existence of rights is group consensus?"Axiomatic" by definition includes a lack of proof. The right to life is a good candidate for an axiom. An assumption around which the rules of a good society can be built.

But an assumption nonetheless.
Bullets go into skulls without regard for whether they are violating or enforcing rights. They do it with regard only to the subjective views of the wielder.

And, as you hold that the US government violates your rights, and you haven't shot any of them, I would posit that not only is that "measurable result" meaningless, it is nonexistent.

Maybe the following example will show why this argument if fallacious:

A person (not Radar, a strawman) falsely believes he has the right to shoot people for sport. The police come to "take away/violate" this right and the person shoots the police in the head with a very real bullet.
Does the reality of the bullet prove that the right in question exists? Surely not.

My point is, the reality of your rights are not proven by the reality of your ammunition.
Again, this doesn't mean that your conclusion is false. Just that this particular inference is invalid.

How can you say that? How can you know that? You can't. You don't. Every living person? Does this not include your aforementioned ability to "talk and communicate" persons or every single living person 100%?

Correct. Group consensus is only a relevant argument on subjective issues. So stop trying to use it to support an argument for the objective reality of rights.

No, consensus doesn't prove it. Our rights are self-evident. The consensus just proves that people recognize that our rights are self-evident.

False. Axiomatic means it's obvious and always true. It is self-evident and factual regardless of your denials. The right to life isn't an "assumption", it's a cold, hard, indisputable fact.

Wrong.

Bullets go through skulls when they are fired from a gun. A gun is a tool used to defend oneself when our rights are being violated, whether those rights are our right to life, our right to remain unmolested, our right to defend our property or family, etc. Our rights are unquestionable and even YOU claim to have a right to life so you agree with me whether you spew more mindless garbage or not.

How do you know I haven't shot any of them, or that I won't in the future? I've also never said that a bullet through the skull is the ONLY measurable result.

I've already said, your BELIEF in rights is disconnected and unrelated from what your actual rights are. Your rights are the same regardless of your opinion. They exist regardless of your denials. They are the same for all people. Our rights do not include violating the rights of others such as offensively killing someone rather than defensively.

In your example, your strawman is an insane person (much like those who deny the existence of immutable and unalienable rights) and he has violated the rights of another person. If he is killed using DEFENSIVE force by another cop, his rights have not been violated. Our rights never include violating the rights of others and a belief in such does not mean it's true.

Assumed to be true without proof. And yet, everything you attempt to use to support that assertion is entirely subjective.... for whatever the user has in mind when it is used. In support of a right, real or imagined, or in violation of a right, real or imagined. Someone being shot is only evidence of what the shooter was thinking, not whether they were right or not.It's the only one you've offered so far.

Yes to most of this ... but I was just talking about your bullet-in-the-head argument.
Do you agree that strawman's ability to shoot the police in defense of his supposed "right" fails to prove he has that right? It sounds like you do, I just want to be clear.

No, I do not agree. Having the ability to violate another's rights is not the same thing as having the right to do so. I have the ability to rape someone. I do not have the right to do it.

Might does not make right and does not make rights. You can deny rights all you like, but you and I both know that you have them. You have the right to life, so this childish exercise in futility proves nothing.

You have the RIGHT to blather on and on claiming we don't have rights.

Pierce said he would defend his RIGHT to life even if someone else thought it were a privilege. This alone proves it to be a right because it's not something we require permission to do and it does not violate the rights of others.

How many of you are intellectually honest enough to have read the links I posted? My guess is none.

You didn't even read the post you are replying to.
You do agree that "strawman's ability to shoot the police in defense of his supposed "right" fails to prove he has that right?"

His ability to shoot the cop does not prove that the has the right to.

And your ability to shoot someone you percieve to have violated your rights doesn't prove that you have the right to.

So if a group democratically votes that they do not have the right to own an assault rifle or they vote a representive in who believes the people he or she is representing do not have the right to own an assault rifle that the people are scared of getting thrown in jail? That doesn't make sense. Just because you believe that we should never allow the government to violate/take away our rights doesn't mean that everyone does.

Then why are non-politicians trying to get guns outlawed? And I know people that know the income tax is technically illegal but wouldn't mind it if it went to places besides the military.

Not everyone thinks that gun laws are comparable to rape.

No it doesn't, it just proves that everyone agrees that we have that single right. I can just as easily say I don't have the right to life and your conclusion is proven false right there. You are using invalid logic.

It is like saying that just because every human thinks it is unethical to practice cannibalism makes that a universal ethic. But, in the past (actually present too but I am leaving that out for the sake of the example) groups thought it was not only ethical but sacred to practice cannibalism so it obviously isn't a universal ethic.

Finals week is coming up (I come on here to get my mind of studying right now) and I am not going to read through a bunch of links right now for something that you can answer in two seconds. Good way at avoiding my questions though so I will ask them again.



Questions for Radar:
1) What would humans be like without rights?
2) Who determines the difference between a right and a privilege?
3) When did the first human group discover/create rights?
4) Did rights exist before humans evolved the ability to justify their actions?

Thanks, HM, glad someone got the point ;)