Summations Only

So you keep claiming but so have you have shown no evidence such rights exist outside the context of a State, culture or society.Your reference up thread to treaties is great support for my position.Treaties are voluntary agreements between States. The States that sign a treaty agree that within the context of THEIR State, culture, society they will adopt certain things as law.But guess what?The fact that States agree to adopt a position does not have any baring on those states that do not agree.

Of course you cannot show where I ever said "that there is nothing inherently wrong with a system of apartheid forced on a majority population against its will by a minority government" but if you wish to continue to misrepresent what I say or my position, feel free to continue.

Again, please show where I said that?

Which returns us to the point that rights only exist within the context of a State, culture or society.

You have the right to not be tortured?Is that so?If you live in a State, society or culture where it is accepted by consensus or law that you have that right it MAY be true but that has certainly not always been true and is not always true today, even in States, societies and cultures where it is considered a right.

Once again you create false comparisons. Of course not, the shape of the earth can be independently tested and is unrelated to individual bias.Rights though do not exist in reality and cannot be independently tested and are directly related to individual bias.The earth is a physical object.Rights are a matter of consensus belief.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Sorry but you are still conflating ideas and words, just posting word salad nonsense.Preferences are NOT rights, desires are NOT rights.Yes you can build a consensus within a State, society or culture of what that State, society or culture will recognize as 'rights' within that State, society or culture.that does no mean that any rights exist EXCEPT within the particular State, culture or society.

The point though is that the ten commandments do not relate to rights but rather proscribe behaviors or mandate behaviors and were only applicable within the tribal society that adopted those commandments.

First, there is no ban on torture that I know of that is a human right except in those States, societies or cultures that have agreed that within their State, culture or society they will ban torture. Even there it is not really a right, rather a proscription on torturing another person and usually even that is limited and has exceptions.Second, the ban on worshiping other Gods was a tribal rule, and applied only within the membership of that particular culture and society (they were not a State).

They claimed that rights were being violated, rights that were afforded British Citizens living in England. The rights were those that had been established by the State known as Great Britain.

And so far you have not shown that there is any 'human right not to face torture' as anyone who has ever witnessed or experienced the angst of a first love should know.The Nazi's were convicted by their conquers who applied the conquers standards. The trials were a clear example of might makes right.Nor were the conquers all that united about how Jews should be treated. Roosevelt for example was perfectly happy to suggest that Jews should be limited in employment opportunities in specific professions, specifically the areas of law, medicine and teaching.

Yes and also to the fact that it was a position and belief held by a specific State, culture or society. "We", the signers of this document, hold these beliefs.

Thanks for supporting my position by pointing out yet again that it was through the acts of a State, culture or society that rights are established.And note that almost no Nazi's were sent back to the countries to be judged and even ther it is an example of a State, society or culture establishing standards.

Why?And you have not shown that any of those beliefs outlined are self-evident or inalienable.And the document still says "We hold ..."

The issue is YOU confusing does with should.