It's not only nice, it's simple. My pursuit of happiness violates yours when something I do directly stops you from pursuing yours. In other words, if your idea of happiness is enslaving me or preventing me from doing something which doesn't concern you, you have violated my rights. Your question is childish.
Also I didn't see you address the first three.
My experience with libertarian apologists is that they appoint themselves judges as to whether a person's rights have been violated. Surely it is unjust to let the violator determine if he has violated rights.
My experience with authoritarian aplogists is that they appoint themselves judges of what rights are, or they have absolutely no idea, like you. You ask questions, will not accept the answers, but never offer your view of what rights are and where they come from. Take a crack at it.
If people want to communicate the plague to each other through sexual misconduct, that's ok as long as it doesn't violate someone's rights? Willful transmission of a disease IS a violation of someone's rights!
This is a non sequiter. Willful transmission of disease is fraud and possibly assault, it has nothingwhatsoever to do with the question you asked.
Thou shalt not kill:
You need to revisit the commandments, it means "thou shalt not murder".
Spreading AIDS is killing.
So is driving a car when involved in an fatal accident. And stay in your own bed and you won't get stds. Your comment also applies to all disease, and stds are most common among hetrosexuals.
I'm glad you acknowledged a Creator.
Oh goody, you are glad. That makes me happy.
The Creator forbids homosexual sex.
Yep, he will deal with it, and all other sin as well. It has nothing to do with rights. He didn't tell you to punish people for sinning.
So.. You acknowledge the Creator, you acknowledge the Decalogue as a source of human rights,
Yes,,so?
but you discount the Creator's prohibition of homosexual sex?
No, you bear false witness on that. Hit your knees.
Homosexuality isn't in the ten commandments BTW.
, only that 3 of them needed to be answered.
Nice that you have a pass/fail level all of your own. LOL
My question isn't childish, it's one of the reasons libertarians can't scrape together half a percent of the vote.
Note "the pursuit" of happiness has mutated to "idea" of happiness. And who determines whether an issue does or does not "concern you?"
The entire theoretical utopia of libertarianism flies apart once reality sets in.
You ask questions, will not accept the answers, but never offer your view of what rights are and where they come from. Take a crack at it.
A reasonable person does not change his views unless he has good reason to change. The libertarian utopia has rarely attracted anyone not preoccupied with self. If you wish to convince others that you have a reasonable position you must present your best case. If your best is not convincing, ad hominem attacks only weakens your case.
This is simple utilitarianism, which is a simply idiotic philosophical system.