(July 5, 2014 at 12:38 am)Irrational Wrote:(July 5, 2014 at 12:35 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: ... and so if people make decisions we don't like, and we think they have done so for Irrational reasons, that justifies disenfranchised them from their rights?
Forgive me, but I want no part of that.
If their rights are overriding other more important rights, then yeah.
End of debate.
How might that occur? In my view, you've got a pretty high bar to cross before we get to enforcing thought crime.
"End of debate", my ass. You've only asserted that rights you value are more important than ones you clearly don't, and therefore those you don't value can be discarded.
Show your work. In what way are some rights more important than others? What basis are you using to determine that some people's right to live as their conscience informs them is less important than how your conscience informs you?
