You're putting words in my mouth. I never said the state has anything to do with rights. You did. You also suggest if a child can't defend themselves in isolation, then they have no rights. You also imply that if everyone except for you agrees you have no rights, then you have none.
Discussion
lol saying"putting words in my mouth"
and then saying a bunch of stuff I never said.
but basically
yeah
if an individual can't assert "rights" themselves
and everyone else agrees they don't have them,
sucks to be you.
in that situation,
in what sense do they have those "rights" except as imagination?
where do those rights exist?
how would they be guaranteed ?
(except through violence by a 3rd party, which is the usual way of doing it)
in other words,
*We* guarantee the rights of the defenseless.
by mutual agreement
and application of force if necessary.
If an individual can't assert rights and everyone disagrees it's a right, then does the right not exist. Seems you are arguing it doesn't exist.
Flip side: If someone asserts and takes their "right" no matter how egregious, you would argue that the right exists.
What kind of morality is that which changes with the ebbs and flows of the zeitgeist?
If everyone says an imaginary thing isn't real
and I think it is, but I can't demonstrate its reality
in what way does it exist?
except as my imagination 🤨
If I felt really strongly about it,
I'd move somewhere I could demonstrate that "right" without being antagonized.
here
homeboy took your argument through to the end