(September 17, 2025 at 9:04 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Ignoring that rights may not be, and are not in practice or in us law, purely abstract - by possessing a mind capable of holding them, or any other of the number of explanations and semantics for the possession of abstract items. How do you posess confidence? How do you possess charm? etc etc etc.
One man's charm is another man's cockiness. Rights in the US are defined in written law. In that sense, and only that sense, are they objective.
And since you're complaining about semantics, maybe don't engage in them. You've made the claim now three times that rights are not abstractions (well, this last time you backed up and wrote that they may not be) -- but you have yet to show even a jot how they are concrete.
