It doesn't shatter anything.
Not physically.
Since it demonstrated that rights can't be natural attributes of human beings, it shattered that notion quite completely.
You flat out refuse any amount of consideration for natural rights, even given the base existence.
What do you think it means when a theory is proven false? Does one continue to use that theory to explain things, or does one move on to examine other theories that might still be valid?
Okay, you want to continue using the theory of natural rights I've already shown to be false, and you're getting all emotional that I'm not using the theory of natural rights you like because I've already shown it to be wrong.
What do you want from me, custard pi?
When asked about it, you use probability of outcome to deny argument. Such as being able to be murdered means you don't have the right to life.
Wrong.
Try reading the arguments presented.
A woman with the "right" to murder her baby means the baby can't have the right to life.
That's different that what you're saying, which is that someone who commits murder that then faces legal sanctions deprives their victim of their life, not of their right to it. After all, if they didn't have the right to live, there'd be no basis for prosecuting the murder.
Oh, wait. The LAW denies the unborn their right to life when it allows the incubator the "right" to kill that child. What the law can giveth, the law can taketh away, and if it wasn't the law that gave the child the right to life in the first place, it couldn't have taken it away.
It's all been about the deflect for you.
No, it's all about the fact that the theory of natural rights is wrong.
Don't try to turn it around just because you're being called on your actions.
Whatever.
How about if you start discussing the actual arguments presented?
You won't consider argument,
Sure I will.
When will you provide any?
you give flimsy argument back and purposefully confuse definitions to try to advance your point.
You mean I'm using your definitions as provided.
You're the one that claimed "not created, but discovered" when commenting on those fascinating newly minted rights emitted by our legislatures and courts.
I'm merely pointing out the actually meaning of what you're claiming. So you're personally attacking the messenger because the message he brings is irrefutable.
You never once proved there is not a set of rights innate to humans.
Ya think?
Gee, I wonder what "theory of natural rights is wrong" means?
"Lying"?
Just because your theory is proven wrong doesn't mean I'm a liar. It means my logic is more coherent than yours.
keep misrepresenting all you want,
Cite specific "misrepresentations".
but it's clear from your arguments that you've merely constructed straw man and knocked it down. That's not an impressive argument.
No, the impressive argument was where I used your own definitions to demolish your theory.
Prove I don't have the right to defend myself
If Elias Gonzalez uncle had picked up a gun when the government stormed his home, he would have been shot dead and no legal repercussions would have accrued upon his killer. If the uncle did not die, he would have been subject to prosecution and almost certainly would have spent time in prison.
Hence the law removed his "right" to defend himself.
The can only do that because it's the law that allowed those rights in the first place.
Prove I don't have any just reason to protect my property, that if stolen or otherwise defaced that I don't have reason for restitution.
The Constitution defines what the federal government is allowed to do. The federal government routinely exceeds these limits and all taxation above that required to finance constitutionally allowed programs is theft.
Good luck on your restitution.
Prove that I have no rightful objection to being enslaved.
What's "rights" got to do with your feelings or what you think?
Under the US Constitution prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, slaves could object all they wanted to. And if they got too annoying, their owners could whip them mercilessly. The law didn't award slaves rights, but property owners had rights under the law.
If a man has a right to own slaves, the slaves do not have the right to be not owned.
It's really that simple.
For your homework I suggest you start thinking about POWER, not rights.
Power is what exists in the real world. The boot stamping on the human face forever imagery from 1984. The reality of Zyclone B. The gulag and the killing fields.
While legal rights may vary, and in fact can use the force of government to unjustly infringe upon some natural rights;
So you're saying abortion is an injustice?
Oh! What you're saying is that there's a magical difference between right to life and right to control your own body. That one is inborn, the other is granted by the government. But isn't the right to not be a slave the essence of the right to control your own body? There are natural limits on the right to control your own body so that it isn't a contradiction to have a right to control your body so you can kill someone else, thereby depriving them of their life, hence violating their right to life?
Good luck with that.
Honest people admit that theories presenting essential inescapable incompatible and mutually contradictory conclusions cannot be valid.
there is a base to which all humans share the same right. Since we are all essentially the same creature. Life, liberty, and property are natural rights.
So which right is "right"? The right to liberty or the right to own property, ie, slaves?
Every man has right to his life
You mean the government should be forbidden from killing him.
every man has right to the sweat of his brow,
I'm sure the slave owners didn't steal their property's sweat, not from his brow, not from his pits.
every man has right to his actions and thoughts.
What if his action is to pull a trigger on a fully-automatic rifle in a crowded mall?
What about hate-crime laws?
No amount of weaseling and definitions can change that.
You mean besides the fact that it isn't true, that you're using your definition of natural rights to present examples of natural rights to support your definition in a purely circular fashion?