[yamtaddle]

They absolutely are. "Right" is just a name for "freedom or protection some people decided they like a whole bunch". There's no absolute, certain standard for what they are. Absent laws and/or norms protecting them, they do not, in any meaningful sense, exist.

(yes, yes, I'm aware of the concept of "natural rights", I've read the Second Treatise, blah blah—it's a pretty idea, but it's weak, to put it mildly)

[Zetice]

Maybe when you “blah blah” someone’s whole argument, that should be a sign you aren’t engaging in a great way…

[yamtaddle]

Engaging with what, the several sources (not "someone's whole argument") I was encompassing in that "blah blah"? Have you engaged with sources related to this topic? If you're aware of some strong argument for natural rights that I've missed, please, point me in the right direction.

AFAIK they can stand up, kinda, if you have some foundational rules at the bottom that you're taking as divinely-revealed and unquestionable. Otherwise, not so much.

They're a good rhetorical tool and a nice shorthand for "thing we care about a lot", but I'm pretty sure it's a mistake to treat them as for-real real, to any greater degree than anything else we guard with laws and norms. Again, if you've got info that might change my mind, do share—it'd be really handy if they were real.