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.
Throughout your writings, you present clouded and confused understandings mixing rights with values. When you say something has meaning (in the sense of "value", not "definition"), the immediate question that should arise in you is "meaning to whom". Because, by "meaning" you are referring to a value, and it is individuals that value things (see FACT#1 and FACT#2).
You make a similar error as Decartes who recognized that "I think" but failed to recognize that one cannot simply think without thinking about something. The flexibility of grammar caused this oversight and fed the subjectivism that followed even to this day, where people insist that they cannot know of the existence of a reality outside their own minds.
So, I say it means something to me, referring the value to a valuer. You then reply that it means nothing logically. I must ask you, "logically means nothing to whom? And after you clarify that, I will ask you to demonstate the logical failure.
Fact 3: humans, among all things we observe in our environment, are uniquely controllable through peaceful persuasion.
Look, fact #3 is not an absolute.
You did NOT give ANY "evidence" that it is not an absolute. All you did was make the observation, which is just as obvious and goes hand in hand with FACT#3, that humans can be observed to NOT be controllable through peaceful persuasion. But of course that has NO bearing on FACT#3 which remains, as stated, a true fact that all of us observe, despite your denials. I am left wondering if English maybe is not your first language. There are examples of humans that don't think, but that does not mean that thinking is not a property of humans. There are examples of humans that don't run, but that does not mean that running is not a property of humans.
As you and I pass through this life, we observe many things--falling leaves, rising sun, singing birds, dry soil, etc. A small subset of those things have a property whereby we find that we can control them through peaceful persuasion. We find upon further inspection that the only things we've encountered that have that property are humans (of course it is the property that is important, and if some nonhuman possessed it, then rights would become relevent to that thing as well).
It is that property that leads to rights. As an observation, a characteristic of reality that our senses allow us access to, independent of what anybody believes, it is a fact and thus an absolute. It thus follows anytime and anywhere the natural ingredients come together. It is inferred in ancient writings and in alien cultures. It is part of the human condition.
If you have some other notion of what "absolute" means, I offered you the opportunity to clarify.
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?
Following the (absolute) facts of human nature, you are respecting, thoughtful of your past communications and understanding of your wife, her value to sleep. Yes, that is an fairly good simplified example of rights. As an illustration it is limited only in that one might see a rock slowly rolling by another rock and claim that it is choosing to roll quietly thinking about the other rock's value to sleep. Thus, an example with more complicated human behavior would be a better illustration, but this one is pretty good. That you do this for your wife, is an observation in yourself of the truth of FACT#3. With that admission, I do not expect you to deny that fact anymore.
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.
Perhaps with the analogy you were trying to allude to something which would allow me to construct for myself the proof of inconsistency of moral judgement without appealing to a "higher"...something. I must say that I don't see it. I am rather hoping that you could provide such clarity yourself, and simply layout the proof. Maybe I can start it for you:
1. I value A.
.
.
.
10. Therefore I do not value A.
11. 1 and 10 prove inconsistency.
Did I? If I did "leave it" I don't recall. Well, in any case, here is the answer. 2+2=4 because God created the universe that way, with order and reason. The Creation, and therefore 2+2=4, cannot exist apart from God.
Sorry, I do not believe that my wife has an absolute right to sleep late, because her right to sleep, through no fault of her own, must often give way to things that are more impotant. If, without having incurred a moral sanction, she must give it up, I cannot see how it is a right - it is merely a preference.
If I commit murder I give up my right to live by God's law and the law of the state. But if the baby wakes up through no fault of my wife's, my wife must give up her "right" to sleep in. Her dignity as a human being is not being "violated" in such a case. Therefore it is not an absolute right - it is a preference.
I may prefer to wear yellow. I have a right to purchase what clothing I wish, if I have the money, and if said clothing is available. It is possible, I think, to make a Biblical case for an absolute right to free commerce. But I do not have an absolute right to wear yellow, even though no one will stand in my way if I do.
Besides, here is the kicker - toddlers cannot be "peacefully persuaded." A small child will put their hand on a burning stove when they do not know that it is hot. They must be physically restrained. You cannot stop a 1-year old from putting their fingers in the socket by launching into a discourse on why it will knock them across the room.
In the end, you still need a transcendent moral standard to account for rights. Fact #3 remains something that is not entirely consistent at all times. Human beings are unique in the world in that some do respond to peaceful persuasion, but that is because they are made in the image of God and can morally reason, unlike a dog or a dolphin. But the fact remains that means of violent coercion must be in place or civilization would collapse into chaos.