Since we have an age limit on the ability to drink alcohol, it is not considered a right but a privilege. I will drink even if society thinks it is a privilege. Does this prove that the ability to drink is a right because its not something that I require permission to do and it does not violate the rights of others?

You will say yes but other people will say no. That shows that rights are perspective based. You just have an absolute perspective, anything that I do not need permission to do and it does not violate the rights of others should be legal, so it is in your best interests to support that view. Other people think differently so it is in their best interest to support an opposing viewpoint where rights are more perspective based.

Once apon a time, everyone believed the world was flat, but then along came someone that proved it wasn't.

So was it a fact that it was flat before it magically become not a fact anymore?

Ooops, should have read this before I posted my last one.

not if the person violating your rights decides to act on his/her right to put themselves out of misery and shoot you first.

In the process of excercising your rights by shooting someone in the head, doesn't that mean that you're violating someone else's right? Or taking that right away?

If it's a right and it's based on the bill of rights, why do people still have to go to court to defend themselves after excercising their rights?

Surely if it's a right, it must be self evident why you shot someone in the head.

It was never a fact that the world was flat. The world was always spherical despite the beliefs of those who thought otherwise. The truth is the truth regardless of the ability of anyone's ability to recognize it. The truth is that we have human rights. They come from nature and are real and tangible and they can't be bought, sold, taken, given, or voted away. This fact will not change regardless of how many claim the world to be flat (or claim our rights are a social construct) regardless of how sure they are.

The attacker is violating rights. If he becomes injured or dead when someone defends themselves, his or her rights have not been violated.

:dedhors2:

I agree. This is getting old.

Gee...I guess it was axiomatic at the time then.

Wrong. If his right to live is natural/inalienable then you've violated his right to live by taking away his life, regardless of the reason why you did it. Regardless of whether you were trying to preserve your own or not.

It doesn't matter what the reason is. It's still a right violated.

No. Axiomatic = True and widely known.

It IS axiomatic that we have undeniable, irrevocable, immutable, and unalienable rights.

WRONG. When you attack someone, any injuries you suffer (including death) are your own fault. It stands to reason you wouldn't understand something this simple since you're stupid enough to think it's Israel's fault when they retaliate for people blowing up their children.

No, you are WRONG.

Shall we go back and forth with this a little bit? Would that make you feel happy?

Sure. If you want to make yourself look more foolish while claiming that those who attack others are the victims when they get their comeuppance. Knock yourself out. You'll still be W-R-O-N-G :D