TaseAFeminist4Jesus

All I am asking you is, where exactly do these "basic rights" come from?

You don't have ideas in this area, IMO. You have the building blocks of ideas: words, like "consent" and "rights," which could be built into ideas.

Here is an example of an idea: the natural state of the physical world is entropy, or disorder. Order can be created from entropy only by the expenditure of energy. I see in the structure of my physical body, and in those of others like me, and the many things they create, great order.

I don't know what or who expended the necessary energy to create this order, or why, but it is my personal belief that it was expended for a reason, and that some debt is owed by those of us whose very nature and existence clearly resulted from that expenditure.

Call the expenditure "The Big Bang." Call the spender God. It does not matter. We are all ultimately agnostics, since as far as I know no one really knows the answer to these questions of "who" and "why." Nevertheless, the larger framework (the energy debt idea) seems unavoidable to me.

On this foundation, one can easily build arguments in favor of a right to self-defense and against suicide. We are debtors and stewards. We ought to protect our lives, as we owe them to some ancient, unknown creditor.

Maybe you think you can build a philosophy of "consent" on this foundation. I think it's much more difficult. The connection isn't as clear.

Returning to the two questions I raised, about the necessity of sexual consent and the sufficiency of sexual consent, I think my energy debt theory must thoroughly reject the "sufficiency" idea. Stewards are not allowed to do whatever they want with whatever it is they've been entrusted with.

As I said last time, the "necessity" idea should be easier to validate. More people will inevitably agree that "consent is necessary" than will agree that "consent is all that's necessary."

But the fact that the "sufficiency" idea is so easy to dismiss makes me suspect, strongly, that the "necessity" idea would also be rejected by most coherent philosophies.

These philosophies probably arrive at other reasons not to rape people, and you might say my fixation on "consent" as a word is mere semantics. "Mere semantics" are kind of the backbone of philosophy, though.