It is precisely that simple. It doesn't matter how many exceptions you find, FACT#3 holds. Rights do not apply to those exceptions, it only applies to things with the said properties. The exceptions are irrelevent to rights and they certainly do not contradict the statement of FACT#3.
But your opinion in that instance really means no more than your attackers unless you can call on a higher law
No, my opinion in that instance really means MUCH more to me than my attackers, regardless of any law of any elevation.
ME: Maybe you can show me the syllogism that proves that a moral judgement "without a law higher" than the judger is necessarily inconsistent.
YOU: When a case to trial and a judge renders a judgement, he does so (hopefully) in accordance with a law. He does not offer his "observations" disconnected from a higher law - he follows the law and renders justice accordingly. The judge must call upon the law for his judgments to have any moral meaning at all. Otherwise he is just exercising raw force without any moral judgment to back him up. And that is inconsistent.
It would be better if you would lay this out clearly as a syllogism, because I don't follow you. Your proof of necessity somehow refers to a judge on the bench during a trial? You think that somehow legality sets the standard for morality? Judgement that opposes a law is the same as raw force? And what specifically is the inconsistency?
To you of course it does. But logically and morally it doesn't, because without some outside validation of your opinion it has no more moral legitimacy that your attackers.
Look, fact #3 is not an absolute. I presented evidence of this fact. I continue to maintain that you cannot come to a sense of human rights by simply observing how people interact, and assuming that because some people tend to respect others in certain areas that this constitutes a "right." This changes from culture to culture and from country to country. Thus it is not an absolute.
I mean, in the morning I tiptoe around my wife to keep from waking her up. I am "altering my behavior" to avoid a conflict. Does that mean my wife has an "absolute right" to sleep? No, of course not.
My long-winded analogy of the courtroom was to show that in order to pass moral judgment you need something higher than your own opinions and intellect to be consistent. That was all I was trying to say.