The only argument you have presented is that restrictions on [rights or whatever you call them] are fundamentally wrong. No matter what words you choose to use, he disproved that argument and you have presented no other.
That was not the point being made, the whole focus on what rights meant was him being pedantic and obtuse about what was being said. That was the diversion, that you think it was the main point just shows he ruined the discussion by ignoring the point. Why would I partake in a hijacking of the thread when my comment was about what constituted justice? Don't bother answering, it was rhetorical.
