There's perfectly legitimate ways to argue against the existence of natural rights (see Bentham), but this strawman ain't it.

At least someone’s done some research on the topic

My guess is that the crowd here needs to go and actually do a little bit more philosophical reading maybe start with deleuze

You’re being ridiculous if you’re down to the level of saying you don’t have a right to life because there’s no guarantee.

In that case there’s no rights to anything, you just don’t believe in them, and you can stop being coy about by only calling out individual instances people refer to as a right

Correct, the idea of “natural rights” left any serious philosophical defense in the 1970s. I mean bentham’s rotten head amd straw body is the the only body still in philosophy taking “natural rights”

Might as well be discussing luminiferous ether

Cool then don’t be coy about your beliefs on rights and just open up with that instead.

And ah I recognize your name now, I have always found your writings a tad off to put it mildly.

I’ve been debating on the internet under my real name for…30 years? It got boring 20 years ago now the fun part is figuring out what bait makes people make the argument, so I don’t have to.

The most effective way to get a correct answer on the Internet is to get people to disagree with you because they want to prove how smart they are

It’s also the one way left seemingly that people learn.

They’ll see something they disagree with run off to Google or Wikipedia or now one of the chat applications, do a bunch of research (in which case they learn a bunch of stuff) and then they come back and they “prove me wrong.”

If I actually get ppl to go out and learn something that’s a win. There’s probably somebody who read this thread who never heard of Jeremy Bentham and went and looked them up, that is an unambiguous success.

:)

> It got boring 20 years ago now the fun part is figuring out what bait makes people make the argument, so I don’t have to

I say this from a glass house. You are an asshole.

Ha, at least we’re self aware

Your original comment technically isn’t even wrong, it’s just the definition of “right” written in a backwards ass way. Unfortunately for you this latest comment proves that this was just an accident!

That's not what a "right" is.

Do you really think this is an interesting line of interrogation?

When we speak of rights, we speak of limits that should apply to our government and the actions of others, not of iron laws of the universe.