zlacker

Yes, they do, you just don't understand rights.

Rights are the things that we would all agree should be legally protected if we were all rational about it.

So they're a human construct, but they're still objective.

>>javert+(OP)
And of course you are perfectly rational and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong...

>>javert+(OP)
Ironically, that definition of "rights" is subjective (most people would agree with you, but not all). And what you define as a "right" is also very subjective.

>>javert+(OP)
Isn't it funny how the people who appeal to rationalism are the ones who happen to not manage it themselves? I mean, I'm not saying I'm rational, but I'm also not fronting about it.

What "rational", of course, usually means, is "agreeing with me", and so there are so very many false Scotsmen in attendance.

>>javert+(OP)
> Yes, they do, you just don't understand rights.

No, I think you're the one who doesn't seem to understand them.

> Rights are the things that we would all agree should be legally protected if we were all rational about it.

We, as a society, have a system in place to work out this sort of thing. That system has already decided that we don't have this right. If you were in fact able to convince enough people that your position is the most rational then your available rights can be changed. Your argument is valid but your conclusion is wrong based on the available facts.

>>javert+(OP)
> Rights are the things that we would all agree should be legally protected if we were all rational about it.

There are lots of definitions of "rational", and I don't think that explanation actually works (or even makes sense) for any of the obvious ones.