A baseless assertion

What about it is baseless? The only thing that's baseless is an assertion that there exists an objective standard regarding something as subjective and arbitrary as human rights.

arising from a lack of careful consideration of the matter .

And upon more careful consideration, to what conclusion would I arrive? A different, yet equally arbitrary one. But if it is more in line with your personal beliefs, then is that the one that is closer to the truth? No. But is it the one you are more likely to accept? Yes. The beliefs that are more widely agreed upon within a given society at a specific point in time are the ones that will be accepted. Though they are accepted, that doesn't mean they are true; they are all subjective and only exist as long as they are beneficial to the general populace.

What I want to know shithead is, where is your slant on the thread?

Yet you never asked. You think I care enough about you to waste time trying to answer a question you're too ignorant to even ask? You think too highly of yourself you worthless prick.

Are you one of these dirty little parasitic sub classes who leech off other people's contributions due to their inability to hold, and express an independent opinion?

And what exactly was your contribution? A pointless, worthless string of hypotheticals intended in "a lighted way"? I'm not sure you even know what "lighted" means; your comments weren't really that illuminating. What a funny guy. I can tell by your butthurt response how "lighted" you must be. Is that how you respond to everyone who doesn't laugh at your jokes?

You shouldn't use the same word twice in one sentence as you did with; accept.

It's not that I shouldn't do it, I just shouldn't have to. Repeating the same word twice in one sentence is intentional redundancy used to highlight that which should already be apparent. In this case, it's the fact that Idgaf about how you think I should "accept the post". I'll accept it however I want. It's like "No means no": beyond Layman's terms intended for degenerate lowlifes such as yourself.

The word ''or'' is a conjunction used to join two individual words

"Or" can be used to connect individual words, phrases or clauses. In this case, I used it to denote an alternative to the unstated antecedent: your own argument. Anyone with even the most basic reasoning capabilities should be able to see that. I wasn't previously aware of your astonishingly small mental capacity.

and not to start a sentence.

http://grammarist.com/grammar/conjunctions-to-start-sentences/

What kind of archaic, obsolete version of the English language have you been using? That's one of the most blatantly obvious BS facts that wanna-be grammar Nazis spew when attempting to sound intelligent. The only time this "rule" is useful is perhaps at education levels where students grammar skills are so rudimentary that they are unable to start a sentence with a conjunction without creating a sentence fragment. Go back to elementary school so you can feel accepted in your adherence to your fictitious grammar rule.

However, your improper grammar resulted in your comment taking the form of a question and you didn't finish with a question mark.

Even if it were true that starting a starting a sentence with a conjunction is a grammatical error, that wouldn't miraculously change the the sentence from declarative to interrogative. Now, I could use the word "or" if I was asking your opinion on the matter, but considering you have the IQ level of an inbred autist with a few extra chromosomes, quite frankly I'm not interested.

That's probably why Trump won. Liberals were too busy aborting their babies over the years they didn't realize they were becoming outnumbered. Lmaooooooooo

Just do late abortions on all liberals that already exist. Might be a few thousand weeks late, but hey, what's life without a little controversy.

Or I can accept the post however I accept it. It's all subjective.

I doubt you could so easily attribute a human characteristic, such as boredom, to a presumed deity.

Crotch if you're a guy, ass if you're a girl. Unless you're gay, then you can do either.

Nope. To be honest, the entire "cruel and unusual punishment" thing is total BS. Rapists should be castrated. Serial killers should be burned at the stake. The whole 8th amendment is just an ego stroke to shallow people who want to consider themselves good people, and have watched to many cheesy superhero movies with the cliche that "compassion is what separates the good guys from the bad guys."

Women don't have rights. No one has rights. "Human rights" are simply arbitrary social constructs that people use at their own convenience. They differ based upon personal interpretation and don't represent any objective standard.