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'.
You have defined it such that his rights 'end' in a place that is convenient for you, but deny him the right to define your rights such that your rights 'end' in a place that is convenient for him.
Think Toad, think...
“You have defined it such that his rights ‘end’ in a place that is convenient for you, but deny him the right to define your rights such that your rights ‘end’ in a place that is convenient for him. “
You need to start thinking. Typical liberal type thinking people can do as they please as long as it fits your personal agenda. You have no right to preach to people that do not want to hear you. That is defined in our society as harassment and disturbing the peace. Sorry you’re such an idiot as to think otherwise. No wonder this nation is going down the crapper. Too many people like you with the “do it if it feels good” and the “don’t tell me what to do” mentality.
Your above comment is the dumbest “logic” I have read in a while. He has no right to disturb other people, convenient or not. My standing there not addressing him is in no way a violation of his rights. His bothering me is.