Good ! I wouldn't want sarcasm to throw you off the scent.
Perhaps you meant jurisprudential.
No, epistemic (ie: I was talking about my understanding, not the law).
. . .rather than giving extra benefits to particular groups.
Understood, my point was that veganism or atheism (and a whole host of other ideas or in the case of atheism - non-ideas [!]) do not need state protection in anyway. The second overarching point is that I feel the state have already far too much involvement in public and private matters.
we do all have obligations all the time both to the state/society
Not me, none, unless you are using 'obligations' to mean if I do not comply force will be used against me to get me to comply ?
(Sorry to sound like I am being an argumentative cock for the sake of it, I don't mean to be such a tosspot, it just flows out of me like that)
Good ! I wouldn't want sarcasm to throw you off the scent.
No, epistemic (ie: I was talking about my understanding, not the law).
Understood, my point was that veganism or atheism (and a whole host of other ideas or in the case of atheism - non-ideas [!]) do not need state protection in anyway. The second overarching point is that I feel the state have already far too much involvement in public and private matters.
Not me, none, unless you are using 'obligations' to mean if I do not comply force will be used against me to get me to comply ?
(Sorry to sound like I am being an argumentative cock for the sake of it, I don't mean to be such a tosspot, it just flows out of me like that)