A right is man made

It's more an argument of philosophy. I take the Lockean stance of natural "God given" rights.

a right is something you yourself can do

whether it's semantics or not, it's not important

Life itself obviously isn’t man made

But defining that as a right

Is man made

I have a right to move my arm in the air

the gov didnt have to legislate for this

I feel like we are arguing different things now tbh

the gov could legislate.. and say, we are no longer allowing people to move their arms

they havent just created a right... theyve only infringed on an existing right

The whole backbone of what England grew to be is built off the fact that English philosophy sees rights as natural and not man made. Removing something like this opens the door to tyranny, which is why America has their rights, which in tern are taken from the English Bill of rights and other works, enshrined into a written constitution

so healthcare, welfare, education... none of these are rights... they are all "privileges"

that we should be thankful for

It's entirely a philosophy argument, which is why you see banning certain cigarettes as good and I don't. I see it as a stance of an overbearing government, when English liberalism is one that demands and works best with a small government that's here to near enough only protect those rights you're born with. Because of this being born with said rights, it leads us to see other nations that tread on them as tyrannical and morally wrong and infringing on the natural rights of man

would it help to make a distinction between fundamental human rights (what wacka is talking about) and the rights you have as a citizen?

the right to a fair trial etc

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1214884379543121920

And with menthol and capsule cigarettes being banned, it'll lead to people buying from untrustworthy sources for these cigarettes, cigarettes that will be full of things we rightfully banned. And it's why I see deregulation and education as a better alternative than BAN BAN BAN

@PureEvilPie I highly recommend Rights of Man if you wanna look more into the divide between what you argue and our stance

Ya I’ll take a look thanks

John Stuart-Mill On Liberty is another good book. It focuses mainly on the immoral act of censorship

Where rights originate from is immaterial. What matters is enforcement.

Oh, and Locke's works. Though, he's far more of a figurehead of American libertarianism

big jump and then big drop in oil prices today

lower now than before the weekend

big jump in gold prices

Labour leadership contenders continue to prove how painfully lacking in self-awareness they are

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/01/07/08/23055964-7859673-Protest_outside_the_Cypriot_embassy_for_the_19_year_old_girl_acc-a-18_1578386815261.jpg

survivors don't lie? does rape normally result in death? no

do rape accusers lie? yes, quite frequently as it happens

how about they fuck off defending a ho

How about innocent until proven guilty

Not fucking complicated

Actually they are right

indeed, Hopix, that was the first victim of feminism

Survivors (true survivors) are by definition telling the truth of what happened to them. People lying about what happened to them are not survivors they are in fact liars.

but that's obviously not what they mean by that

i take it their sign means 'we say who lies'

obviously