web analytics

HUHNE: EIGHT MONTHS IN THE SLAMMER

By Pete Moore On March 11th, 2013

BFFu2jsCQAAmqSqI picked the wrong week to give up champagne.

Former Cabinet minister Chris Huhne has been sentenced to eight months stir for perverting the course of justice. So has his ex-missus, Vicky Pryce. All for getting her to cop for three penalty points a decade ago. In reality his smug face will back on the streets in four months.

I do love how the political establishment has backed them all day, talking about how they’ve already suffered, how this is a tragedy for them etc etc. I don’t remember much of that when a student was sent down for six months for stealing a bottle of water.

67 Responses to “HUHNE: EIGHT MONTHS IN THE SLAMMER”

  1. Could not happen to a nicer bloke .. now for other the 645 crooks.

    Apparently and according to the MSM it was ‘Judgment day’ for Huhne, I disagree, judgement day will be when he has to hand back all those millions he made from ‘Speed cameras’ when he was a Minister .. oh and when he hands back that iPad he stole off the taxpayer.

  2. That camera should have been shoved up his nose 😉

    I wonder just how many gullible Liberals actualy believed the lying oaf when he swore blind he was innocent .. quite a few probably.

    Fools.

  3. I didn’t believe him, but then I don’t tend to believe any politicians.
    I’m not sure why you think they should hand back speeding fines though.

  4. Dave

    I did not mention speeding fines, I do believe that Huhne started companies selling speed cameras through his fathers companies, that’s how he made his millions, and that’s why he was given the golden ticket as minister in charge of … speed cameras.

  5. Dave

    You are a Liberal .. and you did not know that ?

    As I said

    Fools.

  6. Ah. I did not know that about him and the cameras, I’ll do some reading-up about it.
    I’m a Liberal? I’m not sure about that, I get accused of being left wing, right wing, and everything in between.

  7. Dave

    My apologies I assumed from your first post you were indicating you were a Liberal, no insult intended.

    Actualy I was incorrect on the second part, Huhne was not Minister in charge of speed cameras, but he used to lobby for more widespread use of them as nobbled by Guido Fawkes some time ago.

    But he definately made his millions by setting up dodgy companies selling speed cameras through his fathers speed camaera contacts .. follow the money, they are all at it one way or another.

    BTW, Right wing, Left wing, Extremists, whoever .. I am convinced they are just made up groups by the State.

  8. The jailing of a guy who avoided paying state fines applauded by guy who avoids paying a state license?
    I should have thought he’d be your new hero, Pete.

  9. Noel

    Huhne did not avoid paying a State fine, he avoided getting banned from driving, he already had nine points on his licence.

  10. Noel Cunningham –

    As I said last week:

    The fact of the matter is that Huhne committed no crime to begin with, and I’d normally applaud all and every attempt to wriggle out of points. But not for corrupt parasites like him. Not for the enemy class. No way.

    To be clear, a victimless crime (speeding and diddling the points) is no crime. Real crime, as opposed to administrative crime, is against people and their property.

  11. Speeding is no crime?

  12. It’s an arbitrary political rule with sanctions for transgressors, but not true crime. True crime can only be against people and property.

    Like taxes.

  13. Speeding is a crime.

    There’s a great deal of science behind most speed limits.

    The road is not yours alone. You share it with others who have just as much right to safe passage as you do.

    Speeding, especially extreme speeding, is a crime against both persons and their property.

    Details upon request.

  14. ‘Speeding’ is a state-created ‘crime’ for income generation. The way the entire ‘speeding’ system should work is as follows.

    Speed limits should be generally guidelines except near schools and densely-populated areas in peak times. Speed cameras should be used to send notifications to people if they have exceeded guidelines, but have no effect because no harm has been done to anybody. However, if a driver were to injure or kill somebody and his record shows persistent speeding, that is a contributory factor which makes an ‘accident’ become negligence leading to death, and the sentence will reflect accordingly.

  15. http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/ohio-car-accident-that-killed-6-teens-is-worst-in-countys-history

    http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/36/10/all_familykilled_2013_03_08_bk.html

    Sure. Speeding is safe.

  16. I didn’t say that “speeding” is safe. I said that’s it’s not a crime.

    Smashing other cars and killing other people is real crime, whether you’re above or below the arbitrary administrative line.

    Come on, let’s be grown up about this.

  17. Phantom misses the point – a rare event indeed. (just kidding)

    Speeding is not a crime any more than drinking alcohol. However, if a driver were to kill or maim someone and had been both drinking and speeding, then the incident becomes a crime by dint of the contributory behaviour of the driver as it could be reasonably foreseen that alcohol and speeding could cause injurious incident.

    If I’m on a dual-carriageway at midnight and the road is clear, why is it a ‘crime’ if I hit 90mph on a straight?

  18. Significant speeding is a criminal offense here and in lots of other places.

    The speeder always thinks that he can handle it, but statistically he very often can’t. Which is why speeders smash into other cars and kill other drives in hugely disproportionate numbers.

    It’s a much bigger crime than stealing a mere bit of property.

  19. “I didn’t say that “speeding” is safe. I said that’s it’s not a crime.”

    AS a guy who thinks it’s cool not to pay his tv licence but easily affords sexy little mountain bikes and guns’n stuff,
    you’d have to say that wouldn’t you Pete?

  20. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8719263/Speed-cameras-fail-to-cut-accidents.html

  21. It is cool he does not pay his TV license .. why should anyone pay to have a TV license if they don’t want to watch all the bias lefty drivel on BBC.

  22. Agit8ed –

    I encourage everyone to resist violent looters. It’s good and right and moral. I thought Christianity taught that to rob is wrong.

  23. I’ve known all too many incidents where people have been killed by speeders and other reckless drivers.

    That this issue is not taken seriously by the unthinking who think that they exist as independent atoms in outer space, independent of all legal obligations to their fellow man is no surprise.

  24. I would not call Pete a violent looter for using the BBC signal without paying for it.

    That would be harsh.

  25. Phantom –

    “Significant speeding is a criminal offense here and in lots of other places.”

    Forget the “significantly”, we’re talking about “speeding”. For something to be a real crime it must be objectively wrong. Today if I drive at 71mph on a motorway I will be committing a crime. If I drive at 70mph I will not be committing a crime.

    Yet if a few hundred people in Westminster change the arbitrary limit to 65mph, and I drive again at 70mph, I will then commit a crime, even though I haven’t altered my behaviour.

    How can what I do not be objectively wrong one day, and that same behaviour be objectively wrong on another? Because a few hundred people (half of them drunk, if they vote in the evening) change their minds? This is preposterous. It is no crime.

    In fact it’s as preposterous as me spending two minutes typing a case which you haven’t the slightest intention of rebutting.

  26. Studies show that speeding results in more accidents.

    Consider yourself rebutted.

  27. Nice try Pete, but very very flimsy!
    I shouldn’t keep having a dig at you, but you see your actions and attitudes are no better than the very Establishment people you pretend to despise..

  28. “For something to be a real crime it must be objectively wrong. Today if I drive at 71mph on a motorway I will be committing a crime. If I drive at 70mph I will not be committing a crime.”

    Rubbish. 50 years ago if you raped your wife it was not a crime, today it is. A couple hundred years ago it was legal to own slaves, today not so much.

    “I didn’t say that “speeding” is safe. I said that’s it’s not a crime.”

    Dangerous driving is a crime.

    In many jurisdictions reckless endangerment (or similar) is a crime. That’s why you can’t go around throwing knives at passers by or taking pot shots at schoolchildren, even if you don’t actually hit any of them or if, in your opinion, you’re a great shot. Nobody has to wait until you actually kill someone to get you to stop doing that.

  29. Speeding is a crime. If you go over the set limits, then it’s a criminal offence. If you agree with those limits or not, it’s still a criminal offence.
    Speeding is directly responsible or a factor in hundreds of deaths a year, many of them children. I’m not saying I don’t stray over the limits by a few MPH some times, but the number of other drivers I see doing 40, 50 or more in a 30 zone beggars belief.

  30. Frank O’Dwyer –

    “Rubbish. 50 years ago if you raped your wife it was not a crime, today it is. A couple hundred years ago it was legal to own slaves, today not so much.”

    Drivel.

    Rape has been a common law felony for many centuries. Until the 19th Century a convicted rapist could be hanged.

    That slavery was once allowed is neither here nor there to the point, which is that something is either objectively wrong, or not. Slavery always was objectively wrong, and it was outlawed in this country on that particular basis, i.e. that only positive law could allow it, because it is objectively wrong.

  31. Pete,
    All you are doing is picking and choosing the things which best suit your philosophy -and convenience… 😉

  32. This isn’t about speeding its about perverting justice. It’s cost the taxpayer thousands, was it worth it ? Yes i think so. Because not to have prosecuted after a very public admission by Pryce would have sent out the wrong message, namely one law for politicians and one for everybody else.

    In reality he’ll be home in 2 months with a tag according to recent news reports.

  33. Pete

    Like it or not, you have obligations to your fellow man. You cannot just do as you please all the time.

    Excessive speeding on your roads and highways is very wrong and is illegal for a reason. It’s not just you who is impacted – it is your fellow passengers, and it also involves every other driver who shares the road with you at any point in time.

    This is so not an academic point.

    You act as though all societal rules are wrong. This is a highly erroneous approach.

    Nearly all roads, public and private, even parking lots in large shopping malls, have speed limits and stop signs, not to oppress you, either.

  34. Agit8ed –

    What’s the alternative? That I pick and choose things which contradict my philosophy?

  35. Phantom –

    I see that Bloomberg’s law to save you from Big Soda has just been struck down by a federal court.

    Was it objectively good law yesterday and objectively bad law today?

    Frankly, anyone who tells me that morality, and right and wrong, is whatever a few hundred Westminster criminals say it is can fuck right off.

  36. I agree with the judge.

    And we all agree that there should be rules of the road.

  37. Pete

    You are not being told what morality is – You are simply being asked to obey laws designed to protect everyone. You have often said rightly that civilisation depends on the rule of law. Motoring is not a private activity that affects no-one else, it is obvious common sense for laws regulating motoring to apply to all users of the road.

  38. “Rape has been a common law felony for many centuries. Until the 19th Century a convicted rapist could be hanged.”

    Rape within marriage was considered an oxymoron and was perfectly legal until relatively recently.

    “That slavery was once allowed is neither here nor there to the point, which is that something is either objectively wrong, or not.”

    Your notion of ‘objective wrong’ is not very useful if people can’t agree as to what is supposed to be ‘objectively’ wrong from one time to the next and there is no reliable means to find out who is ‘correct’. Loudly shouting that you’re right and pounding the table doesn’t make your opinion objective.

    Luckily ‘objectively wrong’ is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be a crime, you have simply made that up. And a good thing too, since people have debated the very existence of ‘objective wrong’ for centuries, to no useful conclusion. Lots of things that people consider ‘objectively wrong’ are legal, and lots of things that are crimes (including theft) are considered to be moral by someone in some circumstances.

    Not only are people unable to objectively determine what’s wrong or not in any practical sense (even if there were such a thing), but they can’t even agree whether there is any such thing as objective wrong in the first place.

  39. Pete,
    AS a Christian I am expected to obey the rulers of my society except where it clearly contradicts my faith.
    As a citizen I have the responsibility to speak put against the things I consider to be wrong or harmful to our country, and so do you.
    You would have more of my respect (because I do have regard for you) if you actually spoke out as a concerned citizen and tried to get things changed.

  40. Colm –

    “You are simply being asked to obey laws designed to protect everyone.”

    No I’m not. For instance the 70mph motorway speed limit was introduced in a panic after a splendid chap was clocked doing 185mph on the M1 in his AC Cobra. Prior to then there was no speed limit. There’s no science behind the 70mph limit. It’s an arbitrary threshold.

    Frank O’Dwyer –

    I’d suggest that offences against people and their property are objectively wrong. If you think “objective” wrong is a dubious notion then we’re left with nothing but arbitrary rules set by whoever happens to hold the State monopoly on violence.

    Agit8ed –

    “AS a Christian I am expected to obey the rulers of my society except where it clearly contradicts my faith..”

    So what are you digging me out for? BTW, I completely agree with you that Christians should ignore laws which contradict their faith.

  41. Pete

    If you accept the principle in general that the faster people drive their cars the greater possibility that, one they will be involved in an accident and two, that any subsequent accident will be more serious than someone driving at a slower speed then their has to be a limit set at some level whether it’s 65 70 75 whatever. At least it is clear cut to know what speed limit you are allowed to reach rather than the worse option of a vague offence of simply ‘speeding’ where prosecutions really would be arbritory.

  42. I Don’t Want to Grow Up
    Tom Waits and Kathleen Brennan

    When I’m lyin’ in my bed at night
    I don’t wanna grow up
    Nothing ever seems to turn out right
    I don’t wanna grow up
    How do you move in a world of fog that’s
    always changing things
    Makes wish that I could be a dog
    When I see the price that you pay
    I don’t wanna grow up

    I don’t ever want to be that way
    I don’t wanna grow up
    Seems that folks turn into things
    that they never want
    The only thing to live for is today…
    I’m gonna put a hole in my T.V. set
    I don’t wanna grow up
    Open up the medicine chest
    I don’t wanna grow up
    I don’t wanna have to shout it out
    I don’t want my hair to fall out
    I don’t wanna be filled with doubt
    I don’t wanna be a good boy scout
    I don’t wanna have to learn to count
    I don’t wanna have the biggest amount
    I don’t wanna grow up
    Well when I see my parents fight
    I don’t wanna grow up
    They all go out and drinkin all night
    I don’t wanna grow up
    I’d rather stay here in my room
    Nothin’ out there but sad and gloom
    I don’t wanna live in a big old tomb on grand street
    When I see the 5 oclock news
    I don’t wanna grow up
    Comb their hair and shine their shoes
    I don’t wanna grow up
    Stay around in my old hometown
    I don’t wanna put no money down
    I don’t wanna get a big old loan
    Work them fingers to the bone
    I don’t wanna float on a broom
    Fall in love, get married then boom
    How the hell did it get here so soon
    I don’t wanna grow up

  43. Pete,

    “I’d suggest that offences against people and their property are objectively wrong.”

    Yeah most people will agree with that and then when you dig a little deeper you find that they understand different things by the word ‘offences’ and ‘property’. Heck, people don’t even agree as to what constitutes ‘people’, so you’re 0 for 3.

    It’s easy to come up with ‘objective’ wrong when using slippery terms like those.

    “If you think “objective” wrong is a dubious notion then we’re left with nothing but arbitrary rules set by whoever happens to hold the State monopoly on violence.”

    I do and that doesn’t follow. The law isn’t objective but it isn’t arbitrary. Nor is the state the only arbiter of law, indeed it is subject to law itself.

    Ultimately you can believe what you like as to what is wrong or not and how far you will go in either forcing consequences on others or resisting them from others. Still you’ll have to deal with billions of other people and their opinions on the matter. Whether it is ‘objective’ or not is unknowable and makes zero practical difference so isn’t useful at all.

  44. Colm –

    “If you accept the principle in general that the faster people drive their cars the greater possibility that, one they will be involved in an accident and two, that any subsequent accident will be more serious than someone driving at a slower speed then their has to be a limit set at some level whether it’s 65 70 75 whatever.”

    I disagree with the assumption. Driving dangerously slowly is just as dangerous as driving dangerously fast. In fact, I am an experienced motorway driver and I’ve seen more crashes due to drivers going too slowly rather than too fast. The point is dangerous driving, not what side of an arbitrary line you are.

    “At least it is clear cut to know what speed limit you are allowed to reach ..”

    But even the law circumscribes this. On a dark, icy motorway you are not “allowed” to drive at 70mph. The law itself says that a driver must drive in a manner suiting the conditions. Well yes! Doing 20 mph is too fast in front of a primary school I know, yet the permissible limit is 30, which enourages some drongoes to think that if they do 30 they’re within the law and safe.

  45. So the sole arbiter of the proper speed should be the driver?

  46. Here, the cops will ticket you for driving too slow.

    So there goes that one.

  47. Frank O’Dwyer –

    “Yeah most people will agree with that and then when you dig a little deeper you find that they understand different things by the word ‘offences’ and ‘property’.”

    We found a solution to this problem more than a thousand years ago. They’re called courts.

    “Heck, people don’t even agree as to what constitutes ‘people’, so you’re 0 for 3.”

    Nope, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about, unless an Alabaman 3/5ths law is about to wash up in Britain.

  48. Without a minimum objective standard ( speed limit ) , you’d have the courts tied up in knots

    Every fool driving 100mph through a town would say that he was driving prudently.

    No.

  49. Nice poem Phantom!
    Pete,
    I think you have principles..
    you just don’t share them with the rest of us!
    No matter how intelligent you are -which indeed you are- I think people here are calling you on this glaring inconsistency in your value system.
    Heck, it ain’t the end of the world, but it would be nice if you stopped believing that Pete Moore is the only person who doesn’t have to obey the rules… 🙂

  50. The courts are tied up in knots now, because lawyers designed the most lucrative way of doing business.

    The idea that people don’t drive at 100mph through towns because of a law can only have been suggested by a car-hating, inner-city socialist.

  51. Now we might try to get back to the point, which at this hour is probably Chris Huhne rapidly changing his mind on same-sex relationships.

  52. “We found a solution to this problem more than a thousand years ago. They’re called courts.”

    And the courts have given different answers to some pretty interesting questions over those thousand years, I’ve already given examples. How would anyone figure out which of those mutually conflicting answers is ‘objectively correct’. The answer is they can’t. All you do is call the ones you agree with correct.

    “Nope, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about, unless an Alabaman 3/5ths law is about to wash up in Britain.”

    I was referring to the fact that some people claim to believe that zygotes are ‘people’ (though few of them act like it), while others disagree.

    (Of course, according to the courts those who disagree are right – courts all over the world have defined ‘person’ as at or after birth for millennia, so I guess that problem was solved more than a thousand years ago, and that settles that finally.)

  53. There are some who would drive 100mph without the law to stop them.

    I’ve seen ’em.

    And you are wrong yet again.. You are way below the Mendoza Line, amigo.

    I own a car and I enjoy driving. At or very close indeed to the speed limit, Mr. Moore.

  54. As a politician in a very responsible role Huhne should have received more than eight months. Again you see the arrogance and self belief that many politicians seem to possess.
    They seem to believe that the normal rules don’t apply to them.
    Oh! hang on…… 😉

  55. Frank O’Dwyer –

    “Of course, according to the courts those who disagree are right – courts all over the world have defined ‘person’ as at or after birth for millennia ..”

    For thousands of years? I doubt that, but then courts and potentates have decreed – for thousands of years – that some are non-persons. In terms of truth, so what?

  56. Phantom –

    “There are some who would drive 100mph without the law to stop them.”

    Germans drive at 100mph without any law to stop them. Can we have one of your appeals to what those clever Germans do?

  57. Interesting discussion about what (ought to) constitute a “crime”.

    As regards the roads, I think it’s less important to distinguish whether speeding ought to be a crime or not – the way I see it, the important thing is that, the “rules of the road” (whatever they are) need to be defined, and carefully taught, so that everyone adheres by them. Road traffic is a “system”, and for a “system” to work and flow smoothly, everyone needs to know its rules, and how to apply them. The important point is not so much whether the speed limit is set at 70mph or 65mph, but that every user of the system agrees to adhere to it.
    An example: It frustrates me so much these days, when I am approaching a T-junction (ie, I’m on the vertical bar of the T, and I can turn either left or right onto the main road) – many drivers who are on the main horizontal bar, and who wish to turn right onto the road I’m on, will stop and indicate that they wish me to turn before they do so. I know they’re probably just trying to be polite, but the simple rule is, they have the right of way. They ought to turn first, and I ought to stop until the main stretch is clear. But instead, they stop and flash me to turn first. It just creates confusion, and that’s what causes accidents. Why can’t they just bloody obey the highway code: If you have the right of way, you turn first, and I wait until it’s clear!

  58. “Road traffic is a “system”, and for a “system” to work and flow smoothly, everyone needs to know its rules, and how to apply them”

    The same is true of all rules in society. They are not imposing morality -just rules.

  59. “For thousands of years? I doubt that, but then courts and potentates have decreed – for thousands of years – that some are non-persons. In terms of truth, so what?”

    You tell me, you’re the one who said the courts were the solution to the fact that nobody can agree as to what’s ‘objectively wrong’. After all without such agreement the word ‘objective’ is a bit of a stretch and it certainly makes the whole concept about as useful as a chocolate teapot. And now you admit that the courts can be wrong anyway, so I guess it’s not a solved problem after all.

    You’re also assuming there are correct and incorrect answers as to what is or isn’t wrong, or for that matter what is or isn’t a person. Given the vast and obvious disagreement on both topics that’s far from obvious.

    But it’s clear that even if it were true, if your favourite answer was wrong you’d have no reliable way of knowing. It is indistinguishable from you making it up, and it may be that that’s all it actually is.

  60. Well, no, I’m not sure I completely agree with you there, Agit8ed: Some laws are an attempt to codify an agreed concept of common morality. Murder is illegal, not merely because we all need to agree upon a system of daily life without murdering each other, but because murder is inherently wrong. However, driving at over 70mph is not inherently wrong, but it’s the speed limit because all of the multiple users of the “road system” need to act in unison. Just like in air traffic, the agreed-upon language is English. Not that there’s anything immoral about using Spanish, but because we all need to be agreed upon what language we use, in order for the system to function smoothly.

  61. Frank O’Dwyer –

    No, you tell me. For thousands of years courts and parliaments and kings have declared people to be non-persons and banished, usually for upsetting whoever holds the monopoly on violence. According to you it’s not possible to say if this is objectively wrong or not, but since all should obey laws decreed by whoever is the most powerful then they ought to be obeyed. Hence non-persons are non-person, and that’s that.

    Nothing is right or wrong, there are just rules. All there is to it is making up the most convenient argument at the time, which is probably why the argument appeals to you.

  62. …And that is kind of why I disagree with Pete Moore in this instance (re interpretation, and application of “road rules”). It’s simply no good me saying “I shall drive at the speed appropriate to the conditions of the road, as I find them to be”, because the speed you find appropriate may not be the speed other drivers find appropriate or comfortable. The speed limit is there, not as an attempt to curb your driving, but as an attempt to lay down a common rule which all the disparate road users can engage with.
    Case in point; I’m a fairly nervous driver in icy/snowy conditions. Some people I know wouldn’t even attempt to drive between towns in the blizzardy conditions tonight, I’m not that nervous, I’ll do it, but I don’t feel safe driving at above 45-50mph, even on dual carriageway A-roads. Bloody hell, if only everyone else would at least keep a safe distance behind me, that’d be good enough, but oh no, I’ve had HGVs driving 6 inches behind me (somehow thinking that if they try and ram themselves up behind me, that will make me speed up?? /phuq

  63. …And that is kind of why I disagree with Pete Moore in this instance (re interpretation, and application of “road rules”). It’s simply no good me saying “I shall drive at the speed appropriate to the conditions of the road, as I find them to be”, because the speed you find appropriate may not be the speed other drivers find appropriate or comfortable. The speed limit is there, not as an attempt to curb your driving, but as an attempt to lay down a common rule which all the disparate road users can engage with.

  64. Pete

    Your position is indefensible.

    You put yourself at war not with government, but with civilization itself.

    All creatures have rules. The speed limit, which varies by local custom and condition,, is one of ours.

  65. Now, now, Phantom, please don’t take my comment as inherently supportive of your anti-Pete stance. Remember, I said “driving at over 70mph is not inherently wrong”, which was Pete’s point to start with. My argument has to do with materiality, not inherent morality. I’m merely saying that I think Pete was wrong to ignore the case for having a systematic rule. I’m sure he would agree that, whether the agreed air traffic control language was English or Venezuelan, it should be one or the other.

  66. LOL, Pete. You’ve covered slower drivers on the motorway being a so called hazard, as I thought you would, now all you need to do is moan about people in the middle lane of the motorway and cyclists jumping red lights to complete the set.

    Oh and I do hope you’re including all religions in your advice to ignore laws that go against their teachings. I wouldn’t want you to be any more of a hypocrite.

  67. Pete,

    “No, you tell me. For thousands of years courts and parliaments and kings have declared people to be non-persons and banished, usually for upsetting whoever holds the monopoly on violence.”

    You’re the one who offered that as a solution to deciding what the terms you use (like ‘offence’, ‘property’, ‘people’) mean, and said that it meant that it was a solved problem. So you can explain what it has to do with ‘truth’, it’s nothing to do with me.

    “According to you it’s not possible to say if this is objectively wrong or not”

    Oh it’s easy to say. Hard to show.

    Of course, you stop at the saying part.

    “but since all should obey laws decreed by whoever is the most powerful then they ought to be obeyed. Hence non-persons are non-person, and that’s that.”

    Who said all should obey laws decreed by whoever? Not me. If you try reading what I actually wrote you’ll notice I never said anything of the sort. Here’s what I said:

    Ultimately you can believe what you like as to what is wrong or not and how far you will go in either forcing consequences on others or resisting them from others. Still you’ll have to deal with billions of other people and their opinions on the matter. Whether it is ‘objective’ or not is unknowable and makes zero practical difference so isn’t useful at all.

    “Nothing is right or wrong, there are just rules. ”

    If nothing is objectively right or wrong it does not follow that nothing is right or wrong.

    “All there is to it is making up the most convenient argument at the time, which is probably why the argument appeals to you.”

    On the contrary, what could be more convenient than dismissing others views as objectively wrong and not having to explain or justify further? No wonder you like to tell yourself you’re the Bearer of Truth.