Are we arguing whether there is precedent or whether this is humanist?
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @Zacnaloen
Not sure where 'humanist' comes into the equation. This is a question of legality.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndyMeanie @Zacnaloen
Helen Pluckrose Retweeted (((Steve Zara)))
This is the tweet I retweeted.https://twitter.com/sjzara/status/825609433694756864 …
Helen Pluckrose added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I addressed the 'rights' part of that. Humanism is neither here nor there in the argument.
@Zacnaloen@sjzara2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Its an argument about what is humanist! By an Englishman. US laws cannot refute it!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
There is nothing to refute. US law is a legal framework. Humanism is not.
@Zacnaloen@sjzara1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndyMeanie @Zacnaloen
So maybe US law doesn't apply to English people talking about what is humanist?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
In the same way, if you said 'Defending animals rights to life is ethical' wldn't be refuted by UK butchery laws
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @AndyMeanie @Zacnaloen
Helen Pluckrose Retweeted (((Steve Zara)))
I don't know how to put it any more clearly. This is the point.https://twitter.com/sjzara/status/825609433694756864 …
Helen Pluckrose added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
'I support X rights because Y principle' isn't countered by 'But these rights are not enshrined in my country's law
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.