> A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". No, I didn't eq

> A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". No, I didn't equivocate between "harms Americans" and "violates rights." The former is an explanation for why we need a theoretical framework of rights. That was pertinent in that part of the discussion. I get that you think that everyone understands "rights" to mean "rights in a narrow legal sense," but as I said before, I don't agree. In fact, I think most people understand "rights" in my sense. Anyway, I needed to say what I said, the way I said it, to make my point. Yes, this is a discussion about political theory, and already was, before I joined it. On your premise about the word "rights," which I disagree with, I would have acted in bad faith, so you are right to raise that as a complaint, from your perspective. I don't think this is a productive conversation anymore, so I am asking you kindly to refrain from responding further, on the presumption that you continue to believe that I have acted at least irrationally, and possibly in bad faith. I will not respond further. > It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees. I agree, but I couldn't find the link to edit that particular comment, for some reason, so I had to make a new comment. I know how to use HN (been on here for a super long time), but I probably goofed somehow.