Smoke two...

Re: Smoke two...


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:pryMj.49722$QC.11479@newsfe20.lga...
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-37C967.14262313042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...


>> As I understand it, when the U.N. says something is a "basic human
>> right", they're saying that humans have a right to do something and if
>> some country or another doesn't give its people the freedom to do these
>> things [to which they have a right], then we should all send over
>> diplomates to give them a stern talking to.

Or worse -- NGO social workers!


>
> Not entirely; the UN has quite a few "rights" that ential someone else
> providing something for them.

Four different sets,Tom: freedom TO and freedom FROM; individual and
communal rights. Read the declaration of independence sometime -- a pure
assertion of *communal* rights.

Re: Smoke two...

"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in
news:EptMj.105503$Ft5.74836@newsfe15.lga:


>> There seems to me to be a difference between a right and a freedom.
>
> No, there isn't.

[snip]

> IOW, you can't have freedom without (proper, negative) rights, as you
> can't have rights without the freedom to exercise them.

Just because two things are inseparable, doesn't mean that
they are the same thing or that there is "no difference"
between them.

Second, these things, as you yourself describe them, _are_
separable. The constitution grants me certain rights, but
it's not clear that I always have the freedom to
excercise them. I can think of several examples of
where my "inalienable rights" are alienated.


> A right TO something infers that someone else must provide it; that's
> privilege or favors, not a right.

At this point, you're just re-defining words to suit your
notions. You'd be clearer if you'd express your notions
with common usage.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Re: Smoke two...


"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A7FBE5C735E6goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81...
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in
> news:EptMj.105503$Ft5.74836@newsfe15.lga:
>
>
>>> There seems to me to be a difference between a right and a freedom.
>>
>> No, there isn't.
>
> [snip]
>
>> IOW, you can't have freedom without (proper, negative) rights, as you
>> can't have rights without the freedom to exercise them.
>
> Just because two things are inseparable, doesn't mean that
> they are the same thing or that there is "no difference"
> between them.
>
> Second, these things, as you yourself describe them, _are_
> separable. The constitution grants me certain rights, but

The Constitution grants NOTHING. The Founders where quite explicit about
this.

> it's not clear that I always have the freedom to
> excercise them. I can think of several examples of
> where my "inalienable rights" are alienated.

Ah...see the link?

To have one or the other, but not both, is political/philosophic chicanery.


>> A right TO something infers that someone else must provide it; that's
>> privilege or favors, not a right.
>
> At this point, you're just re-defining words to suit your
> notions.

BULLSHIT!

> You'd be clearer if you'd express your notions
> with common usage.

"Common usage" is a lot of what got us in trouble. For example, "General
Welfare".

Re: Smoke two...

"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in
news:evyMj.49725$QC.44746@newsfe20.lga:

>> it's not clear that I always have the freedom to
>> excercise them. I can think of several examples of
>> where my "inalienable rights" are alienated.
>
> Ah...see the link?
>
> To have one or the other, but not both, is political/philosophic
> chicanery.

So? The point is that they are not _the same_, as you
asserted. You didn't say "they're linked", you said
they were the same.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Re: Smoke two...

In article <evyMj.49725$QC.44746@newsfe20.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:

> >> A right TO something infers that someone else must provide it; that's
> >> privilege or favors, not a right.

> > At this point, you're just re-defining words to suit your
> > notions.

> BULLSHIT!

I think we can all agree on what THAT word means...

Perhaps what Bart was saying (I don't speak for him, but taking a guess)
is that your definition of "a right to <something>" is a bit too narrow,
and misses important cases. For example (and I think this is where we
differ regarding your "[t]he Constitution grants NOTHING. The Founders
where quite explicit about this"), I have the right to freedom of
speech. This is not something that anyone GIVES me -- I just have it,
all on my own. What the constitution guarantees is that no one will
TAKE IT AWAY from me.

Hence, my right TO <something> is not *only* cases where someone else
has to provide (as in "the right to a free lunch" or whatever), but also
can mean that you have the right to NOT have someone else DENY you
something that you already have (as in "the right to peaceably
assemble", the right to not be unreasonably searched, the right to a
speedy and fair trial, etc. (Hmmm, I suppose the right to a speedy &
fair trial DOES require that someone else provide me with these things
-- but it's still a valid right, I believe. It's a restriction the
founding fathers put upon themselves, and anyone who wanted to step into
their future shoes.)

> > You'd be clearer if you'd express your notions
> > with common usage.

> "Common usage" is a lot of what got us in trouble. For example, "General
> Welfare".

Well, there's "common usage back when the words were authored" and
"common usage, now-a-days" -- often very different things. <sigh>

--
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.

Re: Smoke two...


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
news:Misc-3BE455.19375313042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <evyMj.49725$QC.44746@newsfe20.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> >> A right TO something infers that someone else must provide it; that's
>> >> privilege or favors, not a right.
>
>> > At this point, you're just re-defining words to suit your
>> > notions.
>
>> BULLSHIT!
>
> I think we can all agree on what THAT word means...
>
> Perhaps what Bart was saying (I don't speak for him, but taking a guess)
> is that your definition of "a right to <something>" is a bit too narrow,
> and misses important cases.

Cases?

> For example (and I think this is where we
> differ regarding your "[t]he Constitution grants NOTHING. The Founders
> where quite explicit about this"), I have the right to freedom of
> speech.

You have the right to your speech NOT being censored.


> This is not something that anyone GIVES me -- I just have it,
> all on my own. What the constitution guarantees is that no one will
> TAKE IT AWAY from me.

Exactamundo! Operative word: guarantee.

>
> Hence, my right TO <something> is not *only* cases where someone else
> has to provide (as in "the right to a free lunch" or whatever), but also
> can mean that you have the right to NOT have someone else DENY you
> something that you already have (as in "the right to peaceably
> assemble", the right to not be unreasonably searched, the right to a
> speedy and fair trial, etc. (Hmmm, I suppose the right to a speedy &
> fair trial DOES require that someone else provide me with these things
> -- but it's still a valid right, I believe. It's a restriction the
> founding fathers put upon themselves, and anyone who wanted to step into
> their future shoes.)

We call them "right to", but if you think about it, morely precisely it the
right NOT to have xxxxxx infringed.

>> > You'd be clearer if you'd express your notions
>> > with common usage.
>
>> "Common usage" is a lot of what got us in trouble. For example, "General
>> Welfare".
>
> Well, there's "common usage back when the words were authored" and
> "common usage, now-a-days" -- often very different things. <sigh>

Yes...the bastardization of the English language.

Oddly, Americans need an interpreter when speaking English. Especially in
this "post-modern" era. :~(

Re: Smoke two...


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:cIBMj.27798$KJ1.23460@newsfe19.lga...


> You have the right to your speech NOT being censored.

Within limits.

"FIRE!!!"

"Look, a fat n****r!"



>>> "Common usage" is a lot of what got us in trouble. For example, "General
>>> Welfare".
>>
>> Well, there's "common usage back when the words were authored" and
>> "common usage, now-a-days" -- often very different things. <sigh>
>
> Yes...the bastardization of the English language.
>
> Oddly, Americans need an interpreter when speaking English. Especially in
> this "post-modern" era. :~(

No "bastardisation" involved. This is a very common and natural process for
any language.

Point of fact, if anything surprises, it is that the language of the
Constitution is astonishingly "modern". The differences between 1770's and
today's English are far smaller than between then and Shakespeare's times.

Re: Smoke two...

In article <cIBMj.27798$KJ1.23460@newsfe19.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:

> > Perhaps what Bart was saying (I don't speak for him, but taking a guess)
> > is that your definition of "a right to <something>" is a bit too narrow,
> > and misses important cases.

> Cases?

> > For example (and I think this is where we
> > differ regarding your "[t]he Constitution grants NOTHING. The Founders
> > where quite explicit about this"), I have the right to freedom of
> > speech.

> You have the right to your speech NOT being censored.

I'm suggesting that "the right to speak freely" and "the right to not be
censored" are pretty much the same thing. Are you really going to argue
that there is an important distinction?

> > Hence, my right TO <something> is not *only* cases where someone else
> > has to provide (as in "the right to a free lunch" or whatever), but also
> > can mean that you have the right to NOT have someone else DENY you
> > something that you already have (as in "the right to peaceably
> > assemble", the right to not be unreasonably searched, the right to a
> > speedy and fair trial, etc. (Hmmm, I suppose the right to a speedy &
> > fair trial DOES require that someone else provide me with these things
> > -- but it's still a valid right, I believe. It's a restriction the
> > founding fathers put upon themselves, and anyone who wanted to step into
> > their future shoes.)

> We call them "right to", but if you think about it, morely precisely it the
> right NOT to have xxxxxx infringed.

And, again, I'm suggesting that these are identical. In what way might
they NOT be?!

Let's pick a specific example: how is "you have a right not to be denied
a speedy trial" different from "you have a right to a speedy trial"?!?!

--
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.

Re: Smoke two...

On Apr 14, 9:38 am, Miss Elaine Eos <M...@your-pants.PlayNaked . com >
wrote:
> In article <cIBMj.27798$KJ1.23...@newsfe19.lga>,
>  "Tom S." <t.m.s.w...@cox . net > wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps what Bart was saying (I don't speak for him, but taking a gues=
s)
> > > is that your definition of "a right to <something>" is a bit too narro=
w,
> > > and misses important cases.
> > Cases?
> > > For example (and I think this is where we
> > > differ regarding your "[t]he Constitution grants NOTHING. The Founders=

> > > where quite explicit about this"), I have the right to freedom of
> > > speech.
> > You have the right to your speech NOT being censored.
>
> I'm suggesting that "the right to speak freely" and "the right to not be
> censored" are pretty much the same thing.  Are you really going to argue=

> that there is an important distinction?
>
> > > Hence, my right TO <something> is not *only* cases where someone else
> > > has to provide (as in "the right to a free lunch" or whatever), but al=
so
> > > can mean that you have the right to NOT have someone else DENY you
> > > something that you already have (as in "the right to peaceably
> > > assemble", the right to not be unreasonably searched, the right to a
> > > speedy and fair trial, etc.  (Hmmm, I suppose the right to a speedy =
&
> > > fair trial DOES require that someone else provide me with these things=

> > > -- but it's still a valid right, I believe.  It's a restriction the
> > > founding fathers put upon themselves, and anyone who wanted to step in=
to
> > > their future shoes.)
> > We call them "right to", but if you think about it, morely precisely it =
the
> > right NOT to have xxxxxx infringed.
>
> And, again, I'm suggesting that these are identical.  In what way might
> they NOT be?!
>
> Let's pick a specific example: how is "you have a right not to be denied
> a speedy trial" different from "you have a right to a speedy trial"?!?!
>
> --
> 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 se=
nds
> unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.=



What does any of that crap have to do with cigars?

Re: Smoke two...


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
news:Misc-20DD51.07382714042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <cIBMj.27798$KJ1.23460@newsfe19.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> > Perhaps what Bart was saying (I don't speak for him, but taking a
>> > guess)
>> > is that your definition of "a right to <something>" is a bit too
>> > narrow,
>> > and misses important cases.
>
>> Cases?
>
>> > For example (and I think this is where we
>> > differ regarding your "[t]he Constitution grants NOTHING. The Founders
>> > where quite explicit about this"), I have the right to freedom of
>> > speech.
>
>> You have the right to your speech NOT being censored.
>
> I'm suggesting that "the right to speak freely" and "the right to not be
> censored" are pretty much the same thing. Are you really going to argue
> that there is an important distinction?

He might have a point.
Bleeping out offensive words on television is censorship, but an editorial
decision not to broadcast an election ad by the Aryan Brotherhood is not.


> Let's pick a specific example: how is "you have a right not to be denied
> a speedy trial" different from "you have a right to a speedy trial"?!?!

The first is more limited in scope than the second because it only addresses
a possible attempt to delay a trial whereas the latter insists on a speedy
trial in any and all circumstances.

Re: Smoke two...


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
news:Misc-20DD51.07382714042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <cIBMj.27798$KJ1.23460@newsfe19.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> > Perhaps what Bart was saying (I don't speak for him, but taking a
>> > guess)
>> > is that your definition of "a right to <something>" is a bit too
>> > narrow,
>> > and misses important cases.
>
>> Cases?
>
>> > For example (and I think this is where we
>> > differ regarding your "[t]he Constitution grants NOTHING. The Founders
>> > where quite explicit about this"), I have the right to freedom of
>> > speech.
>
>> You have the right to your speech NOT being censored.
>
> I'm suggesting that "the right to speak freely" and "the right to not be
> censored" are pretty much the same thing. Are you really going to argue
> that there is an important distinction?

Agreed - see my previous post of one minute ago.

Re: Smoke two...


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:knSMj.105686$Ft5.83977@newsfe15.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-20DD51.07382714042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
>> In article <cIBMj.27798$KJ1.23460@newsfe19.lga>,
>> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>>
>>> > Perhaps what Bart was saying (I don't speak for him, but taking a
>>> > guess)
>>> > is that your definition of "a right to <something>" is a bit too
>>> > narrow,
>>> > and misses important cases.
>>
>>> Cases?
>>
>>> > For example (and I think this is where we
>>> > differ regarding your "[t]he Constitution grants NOTHING. The Founders
>>> > where quite explicit about this"), I have the right to freedom of
>>> > speech.
>>
>>> You have the right to your speech NOT being censored.
>>
>> I'm suggesting that "the right to speak freely" and "the right to not be
>> censored" are pretty much the same thing. Are you really going to argue
>> that there is an important distinction?
>
> Agreed - see my previous post of one minute ago.

Along those lines: * capmag . com /article.asp?ID=5155


Political Loathsomeness and The Enumerated Powers Act by Walter Williams
(April 9, 2008)
The Enumerated Powers Act currently has 44 co-sponsors in the House. In the
Senate, it has never had a single co-sponsor, and that's a Senate that
includes our three presidential aspirants. The question one might ask is why
would Sens. Obama, Clinton and McCain have a distaste for, and fail to
support, a measure binding them to what the Constitution actually permits?

Re: Smoke two...

> Political Loathsomeness and The Enumerated Powers Act by Walter Williams
> (April 9, 2008)
> The Enumerated Powers Act currently has 44 co-sponsors in the House. In the
> Senate, it has never had a single co-sponsor, and that's a Senate that
> includes our three presidential aspirants. The question one might ask is why
> would Sens. Obama, Clinton and McCain have a distaste for, and fail to
> support, a measure binding them to what the Constitution actually permits?

interesting. seems that presidential edicts, under the guise of Executive
Orders, is too temping for any potential main-party candidate.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims must
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his
cupidity may at some time be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end, for they do so with approval of their own
conscience." - C. S. Lewis

Re: Smoke two...

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
news:Misc-3BE455.19375313042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :


>> BULLSHIT!
>
> I think we can all agree on what THAT word means...

Yeah, we know what it means. Unfortunately, many think
that it's somehow related to the crushing grip of reason.


> Perhaps what Bart was saying (I don't speak for him, but taking a
> guess) is that your definition of "a right to <something>" is a bit
> too narrow, and misses important cases.

You're being too nice. My dad would occasionally say something
like "I never get mad at you. I might get angry, but never mad."
This is a nonsense statement. He had personal connotations for
"angry" and "mad" which somehow made a distinction for him. But
it's meaningless to the rest of us. And we can't be made aware
of the meaning when the user can do nothing to get his meaning
across besides laying ever more heavy stress on the words in
question. This is exactly what Tom is doing.


>> > You'd be clearer if you'd express your notions
>> > with common usage.
>
>> "Common usage" is a lot of what got us in trouble. For example,
>> "General Welfare".
>
> Well, there's "common usage back when the words were authored" and
> "common usage, now-a-days" -- often very different things. <sigh>

In this case, it's only a difference between what the words mean
vs. someone's private and secret meaning. Chronology is not a
issue here.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Re: Smoke two...

In article <Xns9A80C69D7A11goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> My dad would occasionally say something
> like "I never get mad at you. I might get angry, but never mad."
> This is a nonsense statement. He had personal connotations for
> "angry" and "mad" which somehow made a distinction for him. But
> it's meaningless to the rest of us. And we can't be made aware
> of the meaning when the user can do nothing to get his meaning
> across besides laying ever more heavy stress on the words in
> question.

Many people misuse the word "mad" to mean angry. Your father never
became "mad" due to anything you did. In fact, we might guess that your
father was never "mad" at all (or that he always had been, and your
actions didn't change anything.)

> In this case, it's only a difference between what the words mean
> vs. someone's private and secret meaning. Chronology is not a
> issue here.

I thought that Tom's freedom-TO and freedom-FROM were pretty clear....

--
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.