Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Squirtit
Exactly my point.
Your arguments are based on theory, not reality. You wouldn't even fight for your own rights, let alone those of your children, family, or fellow countrymen.
And when it comes time for you to fight for the "freedom of speech" that you value so much, you wouldn't. You have no sense of community, yet spew what the community should accept.
The reality is that, when push comes to shove, you are not willing to defend what you believe in. Your convictions exist only in theory.  |
My convictions actually do exist in practice. One of my convictions is that to me, my life is the most important thing in the world. Thus, standing by that conviction, I am forced to value my life over the rights of others.
But apart from that, your argument makes no sense. Are you seriously trying to say that you can't have valid and true opinions on things you wouldn't die for?
If so, you are an idiot. An idiot of the dangerous type, namely the fundamentalist type, the type that refuses to see the relativity of things and is willing to kill and die for beliefs.
I believe in animal welfare, and thus try to treat animals well and don't eat them. Does the fact that I am not risking my life in animal protection mean that my opinions on animal welfare are invalid?
You don't seem to fully grasp the concepts of individualism, freedom and civil rights too well either. You seem to consider freedom something that communities can give. However, freedom is the natural state. Communities do not grant it, they can only lessen it. If they do so, they have to have very good reason to do so.
The idea that communities can just take away freedoms because the people defending them don't participate in the community in the way you would like borders on totalitarianism.
You know, the more I think about your argument, the less sense it makes. Only suicidal radicals' ethical positions and arguments are valid? What sort of an idiotic position is that anyway?