“You reserve a right for yourself that you deny to others. “
What are you, an anarchist? Where rights end and begin are clearly defined. Maybe when you grow up your parents might have taught you the difference between right and wrong. Try thinking for a change instead of acting on your emotions.
“You have no right to define where anyone else’s rights end any more than they have a right to define where your rights end.
“
Sorry you are too stupid to know any better. I, of all people, know where someone elses rights end as I know where mine begin. Your right to throw a punch ends and the tip of my nose. By your logic, I have no right to say that.
I don’t know what makes you such a childish idiot, but it really works.
Would it be a reasoned argument, in your mind, if I asked if you were (insert emotionally-charged label here)? Of course not. It is purely designed to evoke an emotional response, the very thing you try to assign to me just below.
Where rights end and begin are clearly defined."
As I said in the initial post, "Of course, that statement works against you just as easily as it works against him. It's all about who gets to decide where someone else's rights 'end'." As we shall see in a moment, you reserve the right to decide where this man's rights end for yourself but deny him the same right.
"Maybe when you grow up your parents might have taught you the difference between right and wrong."
Ah, ridicule. Is that one of your better arguments?
"Try thinking for a change instead of acting on your emotions."
Think Toad, think. You are making arguments that work equally well against your position as for it. That is no argument at all and reduces you to ridicule and name-calling in the place of reasoned argument.
"Sorry you are too stupid to know any better."
Ah, more name-calling.
"I, of all people, know where someone elses rights end as I know where mine begin."
Yes, here we see that you reserve for yourself the right to determine where someone else's rights end and yours begin but you deny that same right to anyone who disagrees w/ you. This is what I said in my first post to you. It still applies.
"Your right to throw a punch ends and the tip of my nose."
Who's throwing punches? Anyone? Anyone at all? Nope. Nobody. We're talking speech and words here, not punches.
"By your logic, I have no right to say that."
It is your logic that says that people have no right to say certain things, not mine. We can again, use your own 'argument' against you. Using your own logic, we can say that you have no right to say or write anything that I disagree with. So your logic fails again.
"I don’t know what makes you such a childish idiot, but it really works."
Ah, ridicule and name-calling. Nothing that couldn't be directed back at you. But apparently, that is the motive. To reduce the discussion to ridicule and name-calling. You fail again.