Three autists walk into a bar. You’d think one of em would have seen it, turns out they all need their eyes checked. 😂

Man, someone even reported me. I got one of those messages from the care team like I’m suicidal lol.

Wait till you hear my jokes about autistic folks

Plot twist: I was the emo kid. Shoe strings couldn’t hold me for very long. Still made me chuckle.

I don’t. And I’m not projecting. But I WAS an emo kid. It’s funny tho

False. What you describe is homoromantic asexual. And yet another excuse for fascistic genocide. Gay, aka homoSEXUAL is about sexual attraction

Right. So it criminalized our existence. It’s the same thing. Every gay person has sex at some point. There’s no difference here. Our existence was illegal. It was a soft genocide.

No, my existence was criminalized. That’s how we are intimate with our partners.

I’d argue that rights do NOT need recognition to exist. Take the Halocaust, for example. Few people would argue that the rights of the Jews and others targeted and systemically slaughtered were not violated, despite their rights to life not being recognized by the State. Those who would, we generally ostracize. Or take slavery, same thing there. That, to me, clearly and demonstrably disproves your notion that rights have to be recognized to exist. They’re therefore independent of recognition and exist separately from the State. Surely you’re not arguing that slavery and the Halocaust did not violate people’s rights? Of course, I’m sure you’re not. But that’s the logical conclusion of your argument, and we must follow amsuch arguments to their logical conclusions to test their validity. Having done so, I would hold that argument as clearly invalid. No, rights must be more primal than that. I won’t argue that people will not suffer the violation of their rights out of fear of stepping out of line of the masses, or some such phenomena, of course. But hell, homosexuality was illegal in many parts of America until 2003, are we going to seriously say that I had no right to exist until then? Of course not-that’s absolutely absurd.

I’ll categorically reject that notion. We recognized rights before the city-State emerged.

This. I would argue that, as I don’t consent, and as my existence was a crime at birth and until 2003, with the Lawrence V Texas ruling, thus breaking the social contract, the onus is on the State to establish legitimacy by earning consent…or fail at doing so and remain illegitimate.

The problem with positing that rights come from the State, is that any reasonable person would concede that the State can violate rights, a’la Nazi Germany. If rights come from the State, that would not be possible. Thus, rights must precede the State.