I've sent you 2 essays and you ignored 99% of the words.
And neither of them said, "chicken farms have a right to torture chickens in the most inhumane ways and corporations have a right to hide from the public what food is gmo or not."
You have this weird statist notion that rights are things granted to people by government; that anything the government doesn't make illegal is a right. That's not how rights work. Rights are things you have whether the government recognizes them or not.
If the US were to repeal the Second Amendment tomorrow that wouldn't mean Americans no longer had the right to keep and bear arms, it would just mean their government doesn't recognize their right to do so. There's a big difference between not having a right and having a government that doesn't recognize that right, or worse, penalizes citizens for exercising such rights.
I don't think you can find any widespread support among libertarians for the notion that people have a right to torture animals.
In this case under current examination, for example, It is already certain you believe LP can somehow stand in opposition to something without even making a public comment.
I made no such claim. This is purely an invention of your own mind. This is typical leftist argument technique. When you can't argue something on its merits, just misrepresent your opponent's argument and attack the misrepresentation
I simply asked you to support the claim that a "typical" libertarian argues that there exists a right to "torture chickens in the most inhumane ways," and you continue to obfuscate and deflect rather than address the question.
What a slew of incomprehensible babel.
ALL OF THE WORDS explain precisely how they feel about animals, as a sponsoring belief. Every word. Look at the title of the essays. Look at the thesis. Look at the conclusions drawn. These are called relevant sponsoring thoughts That's the definition of a core belief about animals. And it's absurdly pathetic that you need me to connect the dots to how that translates into birds stretching their wings, as if you are blind and need a translator to forcefully Hellen Keller your hands together in sign language when it's already there.
Do you really need me to quote the 2009 minutes from the CA LP Representatives that voted no, for you to believe it?
Yes, if you're going to claim somebody said something I expect you to provide a direct reference to them saying that thing. That's how references work.
And if I provide it for you. What will you say then? Should we fast forward to the part where you play ((games)) in denial?
(post is archived)