Alglenne (20):
In the initial post of this thread you used the word "respect" several times. When you did so I assume that you were using it to convey a particular meaning because that's the way that human verbal communication generally works. The word is a symbol that stands for a particular idea or concept within the context of the statements that you were making. I believe that your very first paragraph brings to light the problem we have with words having more than one commonly accepted meaning. You start out by saying that you have "heard it argued that people have to earn other peoples respect". Then you go on to say that "you want to argue that every human being has the right to respect from every other human being". Now when people argue, as I have, that respect must be earned, they are using the "esteem" definition of respect which I brought up in post 16 and is referred to on the web site that you provided the link to as "evaluative" respect. But, when you say that "every human being has the right to respect" I believe you are using a different definition of the word. (If you aren't then you are making evaluative respect meaningless as Plato and I pointed out in posts 12 and 13.) So, you are in effect arguing against a statement which uses one definition of the word "respect" ("people have to earn other peoples respect") with an argument that uses a different definition of the word ("every human being has the right to respect from every other human being"). Because the definition of the word is not the same in the two statements, the two statements have independent truth values and do not contradict each other. You are comparing apples and oranges though you are using the same word to stand for both.
I think it would be a good idea for everyone to read the web site that Alglenne provided the link to: Respect
It provides a very good explanation of the different concepts that the word "respect" is used to stand for.