I know Florida, Texas, and other counties have tried and succeeded to ban books, I wonder how that is even legal since we have the first amendment. I tried doing research on this since Huntington Beach is banning books and people were petitioning against that at the main library.
I made a little post asking people to petition on the Orange County sub.
Of course I believe in human rights, but I also think there are limits to it. And you didn’t answer my question, what right do you believe should be unrestricted?
Freedom from religion. The right to clean food and water. The right to self defense. The right to attempt escape from imprisonment. The right to a fair trial. The right to life, liberty, and security of person. The right of the abolition of slavery in all forms.
Feel free to argue that last one, btw, liberals love to carve out exceptions to it.
Not one of those do liberals have anything against – and in fact, much of which is championed by liberals. You are either trolling or are completely and utterly deluded with some kind of brainwash that makes you think you’re somehow not a liberal.
Every single conservative I know and have heard/read is quite against freedom from religion, quite against the right to clean food and water, quite for imprisonment of criminals even in a case as small as owning a marijuana plant, are quite happy to scowl at what they consider unfair trials (see: every conservative talking head about Trump’s trials), and are quite happy to “own the libtards” by depriving them of life, liberty, and security.
So, maybe you should take a long hard look at what it is you really believe in, because you’re more liberal than you think.
Dude thinks the two types of people on Lemmy are liberals and conservatives 🤣
You’re right, clearly there are also morons. And if it wasn’t inferred, since you seem quite clueless, I mean you.
Oh no, someone on the Internet who doesn’t know anything is trying to insult me
If only there was some way I never have to see their worthless opinions again
You’re not entitled to be free from people practicing their religion near you, e.g. you don’t have the right to not have churches in your block
You can’t invade someone’s property to get food and water.
A juri needs to agree self defense was required, you can’t kill someone because you thought he was going to do something to you without evidence of it.
That’s not a right most countries even recognize, in fact it is a crime on most countries to attempt to escape imprisonment, even if you are wrongfully detained by the state.
Fair is very relative, people get injustly put away constantly, just as much as guilty people are not. Even if we had 100% certainty on the conviction, people would disagree on the penalty, to some it’s not fair that a person who killed others gets to keep living, while to others it’s unfair that someone should be sentenced to death regardless of their crime. While I believe that this is the hardest one to answer of your points it is so because the word fair is very subjective, what if my idea of a fair trial is so different from yours that we can never conciliate both? Whose idea of fair trial is the one that gets implemented? Certainly the other will believe the trial was not fair.
Unless you try to kill someone and he defends himself
Unless you commit a crime
Again, unless you threaten someone
That’s another wording for freedom, by several metrics, prisoners are slaves.
None of those are unrestricted, which is what the original person said.