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