plekhanov Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I didn't say in any area you did. I said that the restriction is justified if it prevents one person from inflicting direct harm on another. Liar you said: "It is a fundamental human right to choice in any area which does not impinge on the rights of other human beings." The suffering of a cow may be regrettable, but that is not as harmful as the removal of a person freedom of choice where that choice does not cause (direct harm to another). Again this exact argument applies to fox hunting and is an argument against criminalisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Liar you said: "It is a fundamental human right to choice in any area which does not impinge on the rights of other human beings." Again this exact argument applies to fox hunting and is an argument against criminalisation. You are quoting out of context to bias the perception of what is being advanced. A person is free to choose where that choice does not impinge upon the rights of others human beings. That is true, but on balance when more harm is done on the majority perception of any activity it can and is, criminalised. And don't call me a liar again, unless you are prepared to do so to my face. There's a good lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Creant Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Before the fox is dead its tail is cut off and the blood smeared on children's faces. No one could deny this is child abuse. Yes they could. Wiping a childs face with mothers spit is child abuse. We have a useless Prime Minister who attacks the poor, the disabled and the elderly. Enjoys seeing animals suffer and is a child abuser. No this is a ridiculous statement to make. You are in fact making a libellous statement which is an illegal act. What a disaster as a human being Cameron is. http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com Apparently there is now a minister for hunting and shooting. Wonder how much he is being paid...out of our taxes. If this is true then he will be paid much the same as other ministers.Just because you are against something does not mean that others are in favour and that a minister should be paid for doing a job http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279562/Tories-plan-scrap-foxhunting-ban--Lib-Dems-facing-split-free-vote.html Well, that is one bit of good news. Hurrah for fox hunting and personal freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 No I haven't I believe Fox hunting should remain illegal. Your inability to understand that the argument you just posted doesn't support your belief (a belief which it seems increasingly clear is based upon emotion not reason) doesn't magically change the logic of the argument you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Fox hunting does not have anything to do with foxes. The poor old fox is just a tool for excuses in all this class warfare, which is what this is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Don't call me a liar you little sh*t. If you don't want me to call you a liar then don't lie. You asserted that "I didn't say in any area you did." that is a blatant lie and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 If you don't want me to call you a liar then don't lie. You asserted that "I didn't say in any area you did." that is a blatant lie and you know it. Not a lie, you quoted out of context. So you are a liar aren't you? But like I say P.M me if you want to say it to my face and I will drive to you and give you that option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 That's an odd argument, you might as well say that paedophiles have no moral objection to what they do, so let them get on with it. Think you need to read the exchange with Rowan22 before taking it out of context with paedophiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Your inability to understand that the argument you just posted doesn't support your belief (a belief which it seems increasingly clear is based upon emotion not reason) doesn't magically change the logic of the argument you posted. Are you are clone of flaming jimmy? Do you honestly believe you can escape from the total lack of logic and intelligence of your position by telling me it is me who doesn't know? You are a crank! Or another objectivist taking his lead from the rest of the "Randroid" brain dead who deliberately cause conflict because they too brainless to appreciate arguments which can't be reduced to their level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Your inability to understand that the argument you just posted doesn't support your belief (a belief which it seems increasingly clear is based upon emotion not reason) doesn't magically change the logic of the argument you posted. If you are so challenged that you can't tell the difference between a value judgement and a matter of objective fact I think you should finish your A levels before pontificating about things you don't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.