Legalize everything, that's my policy

it is yeah
mstar.com.my/lokal/semasa/2018/06/30/kerajaan-jawab-isu-kahwin-bawah-umur
>41 (m)
>11 (f)
yum yum

Attached: budak11kahwin.jpg (830x553, 56K)

Based. One white race.

By being alive.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Animals are alive, too, and they don't share the same rights as humans.

That's because they aren't sapient.

Now you've introduced a different criterion. Still, it leaves up to debate what rights sapient creatures should have. That's by no means obvious.

>Now you've introduced a different criterion
No I didn't.

The question of where rights come from is about as useful as proving axioms in mathematics. Unless one is well versed in the philosophy of constitutional law which this finnoid obviously isn’t you’ll end up having to resort to some sort of cyclical reasoning and even those who are versed in constitutional law would end up giving you an answer that amounts to pretty much another axiom. Rights exist because we want them to exist.

Yes you did. First you said humans have rights because they're alive (). After that, you said they do because they're sapient ().

You also didn't address the second part of what I just said.

Your initial opinion was quite stupid, too. You said, "Legalize everything that doesn't violate someone else's rights" (), but that's already the case and the very essence of legality. You ended up with nothing more than a tautological definition of morality: "What's not permitted by the law is illegal and therefore bad". In the end, this attitude leads to completel moral subjectivism between nations, wherein in each of which can claim their actions are just because their particular code permits them.

I know you're getting at human rights, but you're going about this incredibly poorly and with very little thought given to what you say.

>The question of where rights come from is about as useful as proving axioms in mathematics
I'm not sure about this at all. You're right about the fact that all moral values are, in the end, nothing but axioms, yet we have hundreds of different sets of axioms that are in place around the world. I think it would in fact be quite useful to from time to time talk about where they came from and which axioms the global community should abide by, especially in the age of interconnectivity and nuclear warfare.

Imagine thinking it's okay to force people not to do things you don't like, which don't hurt anybody, by using a faceless horde of armed morons to enforce your will simply because a majority of other people share your savage opinion.

Lol, just lol.

Please rope yourself statists

>>Yes you did.
I appreciate that you may be slightly retarded, but I didn't. We werre discussing human rights, and humans have rights because they are alive. Animals are also alive, but they aren't humans.

>What's not permitted by the law is illegal and therefore bad
No, laws are in almost all cases bad.

>In the end, this attitude leads to completel moral subjectivism between nations, wherein in each of which can claim their actions are just because their particular code permits them.
Governments are the worst invention in human history. No group, however popular, has any right to dictate what individuals may or may not do if there exists no explicit agreement between them.

The individual is sovereign. Nobody has the right to dictate what that individual may or may not do, so long as he doesn't invade other's sovereign kingdom.

Based. There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to own a full auto ak

Where can i find my socks in my Edgelord Boyfrind's Room?

>We werre discussing human rights, and humans have rights because they are alive.
>Animals are also alive, but they aren't humans [and therefore they don't have rights, I suppose you mean].
Do you not read what you write? By that logic, animals should have rights too. Here are two different criteria for rights: In the first sentence, you say humans have rights because they're alive (thereby implying any living creature has rights). In the second, you say animals don't have rights even though they're alive (contradicting the first definition) because they're not humans (setting up another definition, which is, by the way, speciest and contradicts one of your earlier definitions that sapient creatures should have rights).

I'll stop responding to you now because it's honestly way more annoying than in any way, shape or form potent to be talking to you.

>Do you not read what you write? By that logic, animals should have rights too.
No, because they aren't humans.

>In the first sentence, you say humans have rights because they're alive (thereby implying any living creature has rights).
No, the implication was not there. Any living human has rights, any living creature doesn't.

>In the second, you say animals don't have rights even though they're alive (contradicting the first definition) because they're not humans (setting up another definition, which is, by the way, speciest and contradicts one of your earlier definitions that sapient creatures should have rights).
There is no contradiction.

>I'll stop responding to you now
Suit yourself, bootlicker.

Based

based

this

Based

cringe

based and redpilled

>What a man puts in his own body is his own business. Got a problem with that?

Attached: gigachad staring at you.jpg (1080x1266, 85K)

This, but unironically

I wish murder was legal, I know two motherfuckers I really wanna kill

Attached: tenor[1].png (640x360, 340K)

>Legalize everything
>you now have powerful corporations like apple buying nukes and annexing other countries

Good. Would challenge the supremacy of governments.

Also, it's not like you can just 'buy' nukes, their manufacture takes billions, and it's unlikely Apple is interested in spending the money to procure and maintain them.