Summations Only

Of course it was the State, society or culture that wrote the agreement.It really is that simple.

It is really very simple.You seem to think that something that "should be" really is. The very fact that the word "should" can be asserted proves that it does not exist.Rights exist only when recognized by a State, culture or society. There is no such thing as a universal or inalienable right except within the consensus of that State, culture or society.Rights are simply a construct of a given State, culture or society an even then are usually limited in context and extent, and are created through a consensus within that State, culture or society and have no existence outside that State, culture or society and are not even universal or inalienable within that State, culture or society.It is only when that State, culture or society removes the term "should" and substitutes the term "is" through either building consensus or imposition by force, compulsion, intimidation or coercion that the rights have any existence.

I fully understand your stance but so far you have not provided any support for that position.It really is that simple.Reason and empathy are not rights, nor are they universal nor are they inalienable.Until and unless you can provide some testable evidence to support your assertion, you have nothing but your opinions.AbE: nor am I just talking about punishment. Read what I write fully, what you even quoted. Note the term "consensus".Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Whether someone likes or dislikes something is not a matter of rights nor does it show that any rights exist.I will acknowledge that you have put forward an argument that you believe human rights should exist, but so far I have seen no argument that shows that human rights exist except where they are implemented and accepted by a State, culture or society.

What I think is totally irrelevant to the issue of rights.It really is that simple.