And I Just Don't Understand How You Would Think That Human Rights Are Something That You Have To Earn

and i just don't understand how you would think that human rights are something that you have to earn to keep. it's called "rights" for a reason, and that reason being every human being is to be treated like a fucking human being by other fucking human beings. that is the singular idea that bonds us as communities, that nurtures compassion, that discourages discrimination, that drives society forward. the idea that we as a collective thrives when we RESPECT each other's rights.

i never said that you shouldn't lose any of your rights if you commit crimes. if you can find a single sentence i said in this pointless conversation with you that even entertains that idea, shoot it my way and reep a fucking reward. idk what you want me to explain about a point i never made.

the point i did make is, however, that even though a person who got caught driving under the influence certainly do not deserve the same treatment as a zealot murderer, they are still clumped together under the umbrella of criminality. and criminality is a fragile concept. it can be redefined. it can be manipulative. it can be a tool of oppression.

and when your core argument is "if you do crimes then you don't deserve rights", how do you differentiate between those who you deem deserving of that treatment, and those who got fucked over by the system so bad that they turned to crimes or get turned into criminals not out of their own volition? you certainly never bothered to make that distinction in your original post, so why did you expect us to treat that statement with care and nuance, when you did not make an effort to aspire to that same level of care and nuance? what reaction did you think people would give you, if you made a grossly indiscriminate statement about how criminals do not deserve human rights and then preemptively called everyone who disagree with you weirdos and dumbasses?

in my original responses to you when i tried to point out there is more complicated mechanisms at play, you got defensive and started calling me names, without even trying to engage in the arguments i made. and now that you finally bothered to add a thin layer of nuance, you're patting yourself on the back for using big words without even pointing out which "false equivalences" and "asinine assumptions" you think i or the people in the reblogs actually commited.

go on, name one and let's have a discussion. tell me, which two subjects that i have falsely drawn equivalence between that you feel the need to call me out on it.

^^^———

It is WILD that you say “selling drugs and engaging in gang turf war does not make you not a citizen” as if that changes the fact that they’re still CRIMES.

I mean, if your logic is that Zaun is technically part of Piltover and thus falls under Piltover’s jurisdiction… committing a CRIME under their jurisdiction means you can suffer consequences from your actions. No? It doesn’t MATTER if you’re a citizen or not. Being a citizen doesn’t give you free rein to do whatever you want! You have to obey laws!

If I’m a citizen of a city in America, and I do a crime, the police of that city are allowed to take away my rights as a citizen. That’s what being a citizen in a functional society MEANS!

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU WEIRD ASS MOTHER FUCKERS????