zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. dragon+(OP)[view] [source] 2015-05-29 21:15:27
> That's very unlikely to work, now what?

Try harder, like by working to convince the public that such a right should exist, so that other people join you in your effort to convince Congress to change the law.

replies(1): >>murbar+b2
2. murbar+b2[view] [source] 2015-05-29 21:38:46
>>dragon+(OP)
Also very unlikely to work unless you happen to be extremely talented at this and spend your life doing it. And even then, it could take decades.
replies(1): >>dragon+y8
◧◩
3. dragon+y8[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-05-29 22:58:20
>>murbar+b2
Yes, radically changing everyone's idea about what rights should exist is hard.

Of course, you haven't provided any argument here for your position on rights, just a bald statement that the right you would like to exist does, as if that were some kind of uncontroversial, universally-accepted thing that required no justification.

replies(1): >>murbar+j9
◧◩◪
4. murbar+j9[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-05-29 23:07:47
>>dragon+y8
And you've made a bald statement equivocating between the morality of legality of something.

Would you like a list of examples where extremely illegal actions are clearly and controversially moral, or can you think of historical examples yourself?

replies(1): >>dragon+va
◧◩◪◨
5. dragon+va[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-05-29 23:28:46
>>murbar+j9
> And you've made a bald statement equivocating between the morality of legality of something.

No, I haven't. "Equivocating" is, you know, pretty exactly the opposite of "expressly disambiguating".

> Would you like a list of examples where extremely illegal actions are clearly and controversially moral

Presuming you mean "clearly and uncontroversially", no.

Though if you are arguing that "the right to buy drugs" is in that category, I'd like to see an argument for that.

[go to top]