Summations Only

Again, they were found guilty based on what the victors believed and under the rights endowed by the victors system.

Really. Had Germany won would they even have been charged?

You may think they "ought not" or "ought", but what does that have to do with reality? Other groups may and do hold other beliefs.Rights only exist within the consensus of a state, culture, community. You are free to argue for what you believe should be "human rights" but it is only through building consensus or through force that you can impose those rights.

You keep claiming that "You are born with natural rights, and no government can grant or revoke those rights" yet governments, societies, cultures, communities, religions, clubs, individuals do grant and revoke rights.You may think they are goals or ideals that "ought to be recognized" but you have not shown any evidence that "human rights" or "natural rights" even exist outside of the consensus of a government, society or culture.

Yet the governmental entity that was the Nuremberg Tribunal revoked the rights of life and liberty from those tried and found guilty.I can see evidence that the capability to reason exists and the capability to feel empathy exists, but no evidence that either reason or empathy exist.You now change the topic to fairness, again, something that does not exist except within the context of a particular government, society and culture.Oughts, by definition, do not exist. They are an abstract development of a State, culture or society.

Oughts though depend on the belief system of a State, community, culture, group. There is nothing innate or universal or inalienable about "oughts"."Oughts" do not exist.

No one said that "oughts" are not important, only that "oughts" exist only within the framework of a State, society or culture.

It might be today but that has only been the goal since the Christian Coalition's coup in the late '70s when they took over the Republican Party and elected perhaps the worst President in US history, Ronald Reagan.Remember that the fight to decriminalize abortion was led by the Southern Baptists,

First, you continue to misquote me.Second, where is the evidence that any Biblical Prophecy has been fulfilled?And yes, Christian Fundamentalists are the greatest threat, particularly US Christian Fundamentalists, that the world faces today; a greater threat than Global Warming or Islamic Terrorism.

You seem to continue to make my case. Reality shows that rights are granted through a consensus by a government within a State, society, culture.Your words seem to support exactly that.

Of course it does.It is the US Declaration of Independence that made the claim that there were inalienable rights, a product of a particular culture.And what I have consistently said is that governments are one of the sources that grant rights; in fact I have said the three main sources are states (governments), societies and cultures.

It refers to your past posts that certainly seem to support my position.Rights only exist that are recognized and created by one of the sources that grant rights; in fact I have said the three main sources are states (governments), societies and cultures.

Yes, you do keep claiming that there is some difference, but so far I see no evidence of any inalienable "natural or human rights" that exist outside of those granted by consensus of a State, society or culture.

Sorry but again just assertion and conflation.Yes they are normal human emotions; so are fear, love, hunger, pain ...Those are not rights.

They are emotions.The assertion is that there are "natural rights".Where is there any evidence that there are any "natural rights?"