Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
I will not agree with property bans based on an argument used by the opponents of gun rights. You are free to do so. You are on stronger ground with the property rights argument.
Seems like an odd position to take... I disagree with the groups conclusion, therefore any and all points which they might use to justify their conclusions are presumptively invalid. Invalid even in another context or perspective.
And I thought that WAS the property rights argument. What other argument have I made?
Oh, and any arguments made by products of evolution have no actual moral basis. They are neither right nor wrong, merely convenient social contracts. We might want to change them for our own perceived benefit but there is no place for any overriding moral imperative.