Barnard17

Because so many of us have an understanding for the need of toleration for those rights to be respected. Which is to say toleration of both sides, not just toleration of Muslims to have their beliefs trampled because it's popular to do so.

I explained the bold statement you highlight, which is a conclusion provided based on those explanations, so why not attack those explanations instead of secluding the conclusion from them and claiming it unsupported? I will not fall for your strawman.

In general I'd re-read Article V if I were you.

More specifically to natural rights, to simply say that they're believed by others and therefore inviolable is a failure to confront the argument at hand. Cede that they are based upon an unsupported regress argument (which your yourself contradict, quad erat demonstrandum), or back up the claim that there exist universal rights without using circular logic. Personally I'm much more inclined towards the existence of a social contract in which "rights" exist as a function. If a "right" can be infringed it isn't truly a "right", the term becomes rhetoric but not necessarily negatively so as long as it's thoroughly inspected and understood.

I argue within the bounds of what you want to argue within to the extent of what is plausible. I am, however, capable of using my brain to think, debate and assess the merits of what those bounds are rather than being tied purely within them. Socrates is the father of modern philosophy because he was willing to question rather than simply accept.

__________________