Excuse me? We made the exact same point. It is in the ‘background’ so to speak - it remains true and valid. But when speaking about ‘beauty’, the ‘weather’ whatever… THERE IS NO CONFLICT BEING PROPOSED. The question of rights etc is pre-supposed but it’s not being discussed, it’s not being challenged, it has been accepted by the participants actions whether they know it or not. So in actuality, your scenario is IRRELEVENT. It’s a non-event. As I said before:
“They are only engaged in a performative contradiction, if their ACTIONS [run at you with a knife etc.] contradict these pre-suppositions/facts. So if they try to justify non-libertarian norms in argumentation. That means be it past, present, or future actions. Their words (argumentation is also action), showcase its invalidity. Because they have to admit that others control themselves by the mere act of discourse.”
For your ‘I think socialism is beautiful’ issue above, the norms are still pre-supposed. You’re still completely stuck on thinking that it all must be debate.