Re: Smoke two...

"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9A834BA4ADAD6goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.91...
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in
> news:Misc-C93839.19444216042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:
>
>
>> Then we all say "we lost our right to view porn, once
>> Napolean took
>> over." That's the nature of being conquored.
>
> Again, what sort of definition of "right" can you have
> that
> makes it possible to lose a right? We observe that man
> has
> certain inalienable rights, but then we alienate them.
> What does it mean to have a "right", especially when such
> having is unenforcable?
>

Think of it as a baseline, around which we can elaborate and
construct our preferred variations and flavours. We may all
agree that a person has a right to life, but then each
society goes and institutionalises its own particular
definition of "life" -- at the moment of conception, after
20/22/26 weeks, at a certain minimum level of intellectual
ability -- and any exceptions thereto.


>> Ok, so I'll concede that society has an obligation to NOT
>> do certain
>> things -- the old "no hitting, no stealing" rule. But do
>> NOT attempt
>> to slippery-slope this into society having some sort of
>> obligation
>> *TO* The People.
>
> It's not a slippery slope. Society is people. And people
> are
> social animals. We have obligations to each other, some
> passive
> and some active. If we don't follow through on the
> obligations,
> everyone dies. We are obliged to take care of our
> children
> and aging parents, if nothing else.

Ah, obligations.
Responsibilities.
Duties.
Concepts that assuredly do not play well in the Land of the
Individually Righted.


>
>
>> A right is "a just claim or title, whether legal,
>> prescriptive, or
>> moral: You have a right to say what you please."
>>
>> I'm PRETTY sure that no one in the discussion thus far
>> will disagree
>> with that...
>
> And yet I'm not finding it useful. To define "right" as
> "just"
> isn't really helpful, since in this case they're synonyms.
> I have
> the same trouble figuring out what is a "just" claim that
> I have
> figuring out whether something is a "right".
>
>> To the extent that I ever made such a gloat (i) I was
>> almost certainly
>> mistaken and (ii) "have none" was used sloppily to mean
>> "their
>> government protects such a small set of what I consider
>> 'basic human
>> rights' that what is left would appear a niggardly
>> amount."
>
> This doesn't square with what you say later:
>
>
>> If your right to live is violated, you (in the person of
>> your living
>> heirs -- same as if the stale Doritos kill you), you have
>> legal
>> redress.
>
> In the oppressive country, you don't have legal redress,
> so whatever
> it was, it wasn't a right after all...?
>
>
>
>> FWIW, "life" and "fresh Doritos" are two different scales
>> of "right."
>> But you're on the right track that a "right" is a sort of
>> government-sponsored guarantee.
>
> And again here. I have rights which those in oppressive
> countries
> do not, because their government doesn't guarentee them.
> TomS
> already made a big deal about the fact that the government
> doesn't
> "grant rights" (presumably they only "recognize rights.")
> Now
> you are saying something quite different: That rights are
> government
> dependent.

In an oppressive regime, your rights still exist --
notionally. To be meaningful, a right has to be exercised;
at the very lest, you ahve to have the choice to exercise
it.


>
>
>>> And to bring the argument down a level, I'm pretty sure
>>> we
>>> can cook up sensible scenerios where someone "has a
>>> right"
>>> which necessarily invokes action on the part of someone
>>> else.
>>
>> I'm PRETTY sure we can only do that if the obligated
>> person entered
>> freely into the obligation.
>
> I have a right to a speedy trial. That certainly invokes
> action on a number of people. I have a right to a jury
> trial,
> and that means 12 or 18 people have to leave off their
> jobs
> and get paid $6 a day to sit and listen to me fabricate
> outlandish stories. None of those on the jury entered
> into
> the agreement willingly. It comes from being born here,
> rather than there.


>
>
>> And the difference between me-offering to be obligated to
>> you and you
>> offering for me to be obligated to you (or Alex or
>> whoever) is pretty
>> much the thing that this argument is about.
>
> I most firmly believe that you have an obligation to help
> the
> weak in distress. Very few people wouldn't think you an
> utter
> cad if you walked causally by a mugging victim bothering
> only
> to shrug. It's not a government guaranteed obligation,
> but
> a moral one. There are sins of commission and sins of
> omission.

Bingo.
In some countries it is indeed a legal obligation, BTW;
"failure to render aid" is a felony which may land you in
prison throughout much of Europe.

On a personal note, I find it vaguely ironic that I so often
end up defending such positions when I'm not even a
Christian ...


>> I have the right not to be coerced into joining your
>> band!
>
> It doesn't seem like it. A guy is born into a family (a
> band)
> and, while we don't call it coercion, he has no choice
> about
> this. Similarly, he's born in a country (band), which,
> while he
> doesn't realize it, has been protecting him from danger,
> and
> educating him and, by the time he's 16, has given him so
> much
> that he could never repay it. He's in the band, whether
> he
> wills it or not.

I dimly remember seeing calculations that it is, in fact,
possible to put a figure on the cost, or at least a
reasonable estimate. IIRC, it was somewhere in the
low-to-middle six figures.

Of course, that sort of calculation is moot since a
government will not permit such an abdication.

In article <66psqfF2luii5U2@mid.individual.net>,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> We may all
> agree that a person has a right to life, but then each
> society goes and institutionalises its own particular
> definition of "life" -- at the moment of conception, after
> 20/22/26 weeks, at a certain minimum level of intellectual
> ability

...After we verify that they get a decent report card exiting high
school...

;)

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in message
news:Misc-95E651.12303718042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <66psqfF2luii5U2@mid.individual.net>,
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> We may all
>> agree that a person has a right to life, but then each
>> society goes and institutionalises its own particular
>> definition of "life" -- at the moment of conception, after
>> 20/22/26 weeks, at a certain minimum level of intellectual
>> ability
>
> ...After we verify that they get a decent report card exiting high
> school...


I told my kids, "Don't you get smart!!"; now they're older and they're not.

In article <66psqfF2luii5U2@mid.individual.net>,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On a personal note, I find it vaguely ironic that I so often
> end up defending such positions when I'm not even a
> Christian ...

I thought Catholocism was like alcoholism -- you can be "dry", but
you're still a Catholic... ;)

> I dimly remember seeing calculations that it is, in fact,
> possible to put a figure on the cost, or at least a
> reasonable estimate. IIRC, it was somewhere in the
> low-to-middle six figures.
>
> Of course, that sort of calculation is moot since a
> government will not permit such an abdication.

I used to room with a guy whose job was to produce the charts & graphs
that his legal-firm employers used to demonstrate the value of life lost
in wrongful-death suits. Walks on the beach not taken, puppies not
petted, etc.

I remember him showing me some calculation or another for "romantic
evenings with wife not spent" valued at [something like] $40 each and
thinking "man, he's not doing it right...!"

Anyway, it seems juries gobble-up this stuff.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

On Apr 18, 2:36 pm, Miss Elaine Eos <M...@your-pants.PlayNaked.com>
wrote:
> In article <66psqfF2luii...@mid.individual.net>,
>  "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On a personal note, I find it vaguely ironic that I so often
> > end up defending such positions when I'm not even a
> > Christian ...
>
> I thought Catholocism was like alcoholism -- you can be "dry", but
> you're still a Catholic...      ;)

I don't see "Catholic" in your quote of what Alex posted.

While all Catholics are Chritians, not all Christians are Catholics.

That said... once again, your anti-Catholic (if not your anti-
Christian) bias once again rears its ugly head.

Unc G wrote:

> On Apr 18, 2:36 pm, Miss Elaine Eos <M...@your-pants.PlayNaked.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <66psqfF2luii...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On a personal note, I find it vaguely ironic that I so often
>>>end up defending such positions when I'm not even a
>>>Christian ...
>>
>>I thought Catholocism was like alcoholism -- you can be "dry", but
>>you're still a Catholic... ;)
>
>
> I don't see "Catholic" in your quote of what Alex posted.
>
> While all Catholics are Chritians, not all Christians are Catholics.

there may be some question about that first statement. Some Catholics are
Priests and... apparently... not all Priests are...

> That said... once again, your anti-Catholic (if not your anti-
> Christian) bias once again rears its ugly head.

In article
<3dbc93a7-987b-4111-a661-47e5d4fb82b0@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Unc G <pauld1943@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 18, 2:36 pm, Miss Elaine Eos <M...@your-pants.PlayNaked.com>
> wrote:
> > In article <66psqfF2luii...@mid.individual.net>,
> >  "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On a personal note, I find it vaguely ironic that I so often
> > > end up defending such positions when I'm not even a
> > > Christian ...

> > I thought Catholocism was like alcoholism -- you can be "dry", but
> > you're still a Catholic...      ;)

> I don't see "Catholic" in your quote of what Alex posted.

You are correct. One has to hang around and contribute something to the
community to pick up the little hints...

> While all Catholics are Chritians, not all Christians are Catholics.

This is ture.

> That said... once again, your anti-Catholic (if not your anti-
> Christian) bias once again rears its ugly head.

What the fuck is your damage, Paul? Never mind, I know: you're angry
and you think the world revolves around you. Get over yourself.

Alex was raised Catholic. Google it. I made a little joke. Choke on
it, you shit-eating fuck.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

On Apr 19, 12:07 am, Miss Elaine Eos <M...@your-pants.PlayNaked.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <3dbc93a7-987b-4111-a661-47e5d4fb8...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>  Unc G <pauld1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > While all Catholics are Chritians, not all Christians are Catholics.
>
> This is ture [sic]
>
> > That said... once again, your anti-Catholic (if not your anti-
> > Christian) bias once again rears its ugly head.
>
> What the fuck is your damage, Paul?  Never mind, I know: you're angry
> and you think the world revolves around you.  

And you feel somehow otherwise?

I merely have noticed your anti-Catholic/Christian bias in this group
from your first days participating.

> Alex was raised Catholic.  Google it.  I made a little joke.  Choke =
on
> it, you shit-eating fuck.

Tsk, tsk. Not nice Teddy.

I was raised - AND STILL AM - Catholic.

How does that change the fact that you are obviously a Catholic/
Christian basher?

"The Grumpster" <i.m.nonnymous@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09a793c0-b0bc-4eda-9c27-89bcdcd215fe@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Alex was raised Catholic. Google it. I made a little joke. Choke on
> it, you shit-eating fuck.

:: Tsk, tsk. Not nice Teddy.

:: I was raised - AND STILL AM - Catholic.

ANd still deranged.

Back in the bozo bin with you and your new address/moniker.

[plonk]