No he didn't explain why anything was just, he got pendantic about the meaning of the word right, and no I didn't start the semantics, I clarified my meaning. And I wasn't proven wrong nor did I start with any insults. Read much?
> You didn't even address the argument that "being convicted of murder triggers conditions on most of the rights we have as citizens"...
No, I didn't, because at that point the debate had already turned sour with his pedantics so it wasn't worth addressing as there's no point in continuing such a discussion with someone so anal about every word.
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.
> You didn't even address the argument that "being convicted of murder triggers conditions on most of the rights we have as citizens"...
No, I didn't, because at that point the debate had already turned sour with his pedantics so it wasn't worth addressing as there's no point in continuing such a discussion with someone so anal about every word.