To me, arbitrary, would be like writing a bunch of possible rights down on pieces of paper, throwing them into a hat, then randomly picking them. Calling them arbitrary implies there's no reason behind them, and there was.
Note the bold. Still an assertion on your part. Not an actual intelligent argument. You're still only justifying what you say with nothing else but because you say so. It does not matter what you think, it matters what you can support.
The second part is very slightly better but still does not constitute anything intelligent. Arbitrary does not necessarily, by definition, mean there was no reason behind them. It means there was no supported reason behind them, and as I've pointed out repeatedly you have given no reason for why these were called "natural" rights other than that people wanted to call them such.
Don't say there was a reason, give the reason. And before you start retreading your old, pointless assertions, it has to be a reason that indicates they had a reason for making them "natural" rights other than because they wanted to.
And the rights aren't entirely subjective since they were agreed upon by multiple observers.
This is seriously almost too stupid to actually comment on, Gill. It does make a good signature though. Don't you think that before you use the word subjective, you should actually know what it means?
To respond, yes, it is still entirely subjective. See the bold, that statement alone makes it subjective. If it has to be "agreed upon" then it is subjective. Objective means that it is what it is regardless of what people think.
How? The Declaration lists natural rights.
Still an assertion, you have yet to attempt to actually justify this.
They didn't list these things arbitrarily. Such rights were declared to take power off the government and give leverage to the citizens. A pretty common interpretation I'm giving here, don't see how it's very debatable.
Does not address the point. Which was that you were to demonstrate that people recognized an innate desire to live and constructed the "natural" right around that idea. To repeat again, simply saying "The Declaration of Rights" is not an argument that offers any explanation or evidence or support for your conclusion. You have to actually think
and make a real response that displays a coherent trail of logic. Not a series of assertions.
As it stands all this does is demonstrate laziness, incompetence, and a lack of understanding.
I'm curious, why would you post in a discussion forum that has as its rules the need to backup and support your arguments, when you are clearly unwilling to even make the slightest attempt to do so?