(July 5, 2014 at 12:47 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(July 5, 2014 at 12:38 am)Irrational Wrote: 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?
I don't value religious (or some other) rights if they get in the way of other rights that I consider with good reason to be of more value.
No thought crime enforcement intended. That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy.
If you think all types of rights are to be considered equal level, you think that isn't a dangerous thing to espouse? Yours is black and white thinking: it's either right or not. I find that more dangerous than what I believe in.
