Well this was really just a sub-argument about whether 'inalienable' is an Americanism, which it is. The real point about 'natural' rights, or whatever term you've switched to using, is that they're simply assertions. Not supported by anything else. Doesn't really matter who is asserting them. The argument takes the same form, and is equally bunk.

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> whatever term you've switched to using

They're synonyms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_right goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right.... This happens a lot in English.

"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable..."

> is that they're simply assertions

So's "we don't have natural rights".

▲

0x3f 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> So's "we don't have natural rights".

That's the null hypothesis. There are no teapots orbiting the sun, either.

	▲	ceejayoz 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		How fascinating it is that your opinion is the only one not requiring support. I think I will take feedback from someone who’s heard of a thesaurus.