That's not what it is about.
If you truly mean it, you would say that you respect them for making their decision. You don't have to agree with the decision. But it is not more than reasonable to be respectful of a person making the decision their way if it's their decision to make.
Another cheap excuse. Remember how you all were attacking me on literally hundreds of lies and false accusations, even going so far as to attack me on speech from video games? Yeah, maybe it's better if you don't hold a few bad worda against me when I have been under constant attacks from harassment and abuse for 8 years straight.
Maybe it's time you people just admit you were wrong and come clean with this whole abusive shitshow.
"If you use violence to achieve another human right." Sure, but against the violator who already decided to violate your rights first.
You claim the only legitimate use is in self-defense. If you are defending yourself against a violator of your rights, it is self-defense. If you claim you're only allowed to fight back in kind, sure, maybe that is a valid argument. I am not sure whether that is defensible for all rights. In some cases, your attacker might be at an inherent advantage. That would be a good reason to fight back in whichever way is to your benefit.
This is about (the theory of) evolution and natural selection. I know some of you will have an aversion for that kind of (fact-based) science.
To some specific people: let me guess, you retards actually believed that it was about this?
The whole point of that quote "This hole fits me perfectly. It was made for me.", was about a puddle of water stationary in a hole. That by means of basic laws of physics, one can explain how the puddle perfectly fits the hole. However, from the perspective of the puddle observing its environment and assuming it's exact form is "normal", it seems like an insane coincidence that the hole is of the exact perfect-fitting shape.
This is essentially, to put it bluntly, about people who aren't able to reason about or see the bigger picture, therefore claim that the world is shaped for the human, instead of the human adapting to the world it participates in.
In a way, you imbecils have again perfectly demonstrated your own stupidity.
?name=_Kc_5Z4cUjTd0w.jpgJust stop bitching around with your bullshit lies and false accusations and made-up excuses. You've been making up bullshit for 8 goddamn years now.
Lock yourself up and save everyone a fuckload of misery.
This contains a hidden assumption, namely that for whatever reason the use of violence is worse than any other possible (human rights) violations.
Without any form of retaliation, how can stop violators, i.e. how can you stop people who already decided that they don't have to respect (human) rights?
I don't expect you to answer, just that I think throwing around words like libertarian without having proper context might not be that meaningful/illustrative.
No, I don't.
The people need to be comfortable with the fact that not everyone thinks the same way. They need to get comfortable with the fact that there might be something seriously wrong with those people and someone has the right to point that out. They also need to get comfortable with the facts that their human rights violations and other meddling caused all the supposed issues and that there was no reason for any of this to begin with.
They also need to get comfortable with hearing that when they shamelessly violate numerous human rights, that they are in fact in the wrong and they are in fact the vile rotten scum of the planet.
?name=y_qCRPO2tHSt5w.jpgThat wasn't the thought behind that quote. The illustration completely fucks up the point.
Yeah, so that's why I'm struggling with the idea.
If one chooses to deliberately violate the law, they already ignore the rules. Like I said before, I think your idea originates from the right thought process, just that I don't see how it can work in all cases.
I just remembered, there's also the slight problematic distinction:
one individual's rights should not be dependant on the willingness of the majority to defend it. Otherwise it would become a gift, rather than a prerogative.
If one cannot disconnect the one from the other, it is not a "guaranteed" right.
Let's take the right to privacy: if you take measures to protect yourself, and subsequently are attacked for it. You must be able to trust that you are working from a rightful position, even if half the country wouldn't (unrightfully) want you taking measures to protect your privacy.
Examples to make someone's life miserable in other ways:
- stalking
- persistently sending messages
- registering all kinds of services using their personal information
- spreading lies
Etc.
Please clarify which part(s) are unclear to you, to prevent circles or endless walls of text. If you want, you could response in several small messages, then we split it up into threads.
Although I understand what ypu mean to say, there are a lot of ways in which you can make someone's life miserable without resorting to violence.
I think the universal declaration of human rights gracefully captures the key points. Leaving aside what the proper way is to protect those rights, I do think those rights should be protected.
Okay, you got my point, but I want to narrow it down and reduce it by a lot. Forget all the concerns related to states, authoritarianism, politics, etc.
IIRC, your statement was: "you should not solve anything with violence, or essentially pose any restrictions." So, I was curious about human rights. Because no restrictions means also no protections. Which you essentially don't believe in. So now I am curious: how then do you satisfy any reasonably (humane) expectations for humans?
Oh, maybe, my statement needs more clarification. I am in no way challenging *your* intentions. I don't know you. I'm simply saying that I cannot figure out how this ideology, which otherwise seems ideal, can (simply put) protect the people who are civilized from the people who aren't.
And, under the assumption that everyone would stand up and do the right thing, you'd have an overwhelming majority to defend civility and reasonable treatment, but we cannot rely on that due to all kinds of choices like "not my problem", "not the opposing type", misguided ideas or religions, personal bias, etc.