Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Smoke two...
Re: Smoke two...
In article <Xns9A834BA4ADAD6goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.91>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> 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?
What you ask is similar to saying "what is the point of having
commandments against (say) murder, when people murder all the time?
Having God command us not to do such a thing is meaningless, when people
still do it."
If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot infringes
those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist. In fact, that's
sort of the point: to describe what things are held as "good" and
"right", regardless of whether or not they're happening.
> Can it mean anything other than "if you deny me this thing,
> then you have sinned against me"?
"Close enough."
> >> It becomes meaningless to the one person, and that's the point.
> >
> > No, that's *A* point. It's certainly not *THE* point that anyone
> > [else] is interested in discussing...
>
> No else is discussing anything. They're echoing sympathies back
> and forth, but no one has said anything substantive yet. Until
> we tackle THIS point, it's the only point.
Bart. This is not the classroom. Nor the lectern. You are not the
professor here, nor the deacon. Your point is not the only point worth
discussing. In fact, it's not even particularly interesting.
I'm sorry if the rest of us are boring you. Please do not hog the
conversation.
> 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.
Actually, we're not. Again, you try to define the discussion around
your own POV, then set out to prove that you are right.
So let's start with your premise: society has obligations to The People
(or "itself", if you prefer.) I contest this, and say society has no
obligations. Please defend your statement.
[WRT "those silly commies have no rights."]
> > 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...?
And that's how it squares: Those silly commies don't have the rights (to
redress in various circumstances that we value) the way we do. See?
> > 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.
I cannot be held accountable for what others say. <G> If we're going
to play that game, I'm going to claim that you're wrong because Paul
posted something or another. ;)
While the government (or some other higher-powered authority) guarantees
one's rights by use of force, I think Tom may have been getting at the
idea that certain things are "fundamental basic rights" that "everybody
SHOULD have." I suppose it's a little like "murder is wrong, I don't
care WHAT your goofy-assed culture says -- this is not one of those
'celebrate diversity' things."
I think that might be what he meant.
> >> 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.
...Which obligation they accepted when they decided to arrest you. They
COULD have said "fuck it, I'm not going through this speedy-trial crap"
and let you walk...
> > 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.
Believe all you want. Heck, you have THE RIGHT to believe that! :D
If it makes you feel better, you can believe that my obligation is
guaranteed under threat of eternal hellfire, should I renig,
> 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.
Is my grandmother -- who can barely walk unaided, let alone yell without
endangering herself to a coughing fit -- obligated to throw herself
between you, a strapping young man capable of fending for himself, and
your assailant?
How come SHE gets a free pass...?
Oh, are we only obligated to assist to our abilities? What if my
abilities are hampered/limited by cowardice? Are you telling me that
I'm OBLIGATED to deny my God-given cowardice-nature just so I can get
myself injured/mugged in your stead...?!?!
WTF are you getting at, Bart? Are you teaching morality to the next
generation?!?! Day-em!
> >> My mother was in labor N hours with me, so doesn't she
> >> have a right to a respectful attitude on my part?
> >
> > You're [or your were] her chattel. She has [had] a right to smack you
> > around if you're disrespectful :)
>
> But the point was her rights to _my_ behavior.
And I already conceded that children aren't people. They have rights
like dogs have rights.
> >> I worked hard all month, don't I have a right to my
> >> paycheck, which forces the ladies in accounting to
> >> actively cut me a check?
> >
> > A deal they entered into, voluntarily. This is an important
> > distinction that I'm not going to allow you to sweep under the rug.
>
> Everything's a distinction. What we can't get at is a definition
> of "right" that applies to the important cases. (And everything
> is already under the rug, that's the problem here.)
I provided you with one. You don't like it because it doesn't support
your position. You can keep demanding that the opposition re-define
words until the word-definitions support your position, but that's not
exactly interesting conversation.
(Trust me, *I*KNOW* not-interesting conversation! ;)
> >> And I've worked polling places ....
> >> All very active and all to accomodate his
> >> "right to vote."
> >
> > This is all very charitable of you. On behalf of society, I thank you
> > for volunteering your time, uncoerced.
>
> You can skip over the point, if it makes you uncomfortable, if
> you want, but: 1. It was not charitable of me, since I was
> modestly paid for my work (it's about $120 for the day.) And
Still, you signed-up to do the work, and to fulfill all the obligation
that went with it. You provided a valuable service to society, and you
did so without coercion. No points skipped, I still thank you on our
behalf.
> 2. It's a good example of a person having a right which
> A. demands action on the part of others
But a lousy example of someone's rights coercing obligation out of the
unmotivated.
Btw, you keep talking about a person's "rights" -- what do you mean by
that word...? <G>
> and B. which no one entered into voluntarily.
> The voter is born, and has the
> right to vote by virture of being born here. The government
> would probably like to forgo all this voting hassle and
> expense, but they are obligated to act in such a way as to
> secure the voter's right.
...by virtue of volunteering to be our government.
This is very much like applying for a job, actually -- all very
volunteer-like, btw.
Employer: I will offer to give you a paycheck and benefits [abbreviated
for clarity], if you do the following work for me: A, B, C.
Candidate: I agree to do A, B and C, in return for your paycheck,
benfits and [snip], under the condition that you D, E and F.
Employer: Deal!
Candidate: <shake on it>
See? No coercion; everybody's happy.
Of course, our national constitutional rights have a more coloured
history. That was more like:
Government: You must do A, B and C.
Citizenry: Fuck that! <bang, bang>
G: <bleed, die>
C: Ok, here are the terms under which we agree to be peacefully
governed. Any volunteers?
New government: Uh... Ok, I'll do it.
So this gets a bit back to your Napoleonic example. Then, of course,
the power-balance shifts...
> > When enough people with big enough sway tell enough other people
> > "we're going to guarantee Bart his right to fresh doritos -- don't
> > stand in his way or else!", that's your "right", your "guarantee",
> > your "legal & just claim or title."
> >
> > Yeah, I guess it all boils down to the guys with the big guns. So...?
> What about "basic human rights?"
That's just morality. That's enough folks banding together to form
another force (you know: like the powerful U.N. ;) to demand that the
world behave, lest we, as you say, tsk-tsk them.
> > Yeah, so...? Under our system (and MY morality), the man has no
> > "right" to my assistance. That is, I shouldn't go to jail (or
> > otherwise be coerced) for not assisting him.
> Not even "tsk-tsk-ed" at?
Well, one COULD argue that that's coercion, but the "tsk-tsk" for
coercing me thus would be so tiny as to be unnoticeable, so you get into
an infinite regression problem, there.
> >> How about somewhere in between: You have the right to life and
> >> health and we've banded together for the mutual support of these
> >> rights.
> >
> > Sure!
> >
> > So long as "we banded together" and not "a few of us banded together,
> > then we held guns to the heads of a bunch of other people and now
> > they're in our band, too."
> >
> > I have the right not to be coerced into joining your band!
> It doesn't seem like it.
Well, there is the whole "born here; if you don't like it, leave"
problem...
So I guess we're really arguing about what SHOULD be "basic human
rights", as opposed to what they are, under the current regime.
> Like I said before, I don't really believe in "rights"
> (in an absolute sense) but only in obligations.
But you believe in right & wrong (as absolutes), no?
Perhaps we have "rights" not to be "wronged"...
--
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.
In article <Xns9A834BA4ADAD6goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.91>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> 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?
What you ask is similar to saying "what is the point of having
commandments against (say) murder, when people murder all the time?
Having God command us not to do such a thing is meaningless, when people
still do it."
If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot infringes
those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist. In fact, that's
sort of the point: to describe what things are held as "good" and
"right", regardless of whether or not they're happening.
> Can it mean anything other than "if you deny me this thing,
> then you have sinned against me"?
"Close enough."
> >> It becomes meaningless to the one person, and that's the point.
> >
> > No, that's *A* point. It's certainly not *THE* point that anyone
> > [else] is interested in discussing...
>
> No else is discussing anything. They're echoing sympathies back
> and forth, but no one has said anything substantive yet. Until
> we tackle THIS point, it's the only point.
Bart. This is not the classroom. Nor the lectern. You are not the
professor here, nor the deacon. Your point is not the only point worth
discussing. In fact, it's not even particularly interesting.
I'm sorry if the rest of us are boring you. Please do not hog the
conversation.
> 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.
Actually, we're not. Again, you try to define the discussion around
your own POV, then set out to prove that you are right.
So let's start with your premise: society has obligations to The People
(or "itself", if you prefer.) I contest this, and say society has no
obligations. Please defend your statement.
[WRT "those silly commies have no rights."]
> > 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...?
And that's how it squares: Those silly commies don't have the rights (to
redress in various circumstances that we value) the way we do. See?
> > 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.
I cannot be held accountable for what others say. <G> If we're going
to play that game, I'm going to claim that you're wrong because Paul
posted something or another. ;)
While the government (or some other higher-powered authority) guarantees
one's rights by use of force, I think Tom may have been getting at the
idea that certain things are "fundamental basic rights" that "everybody
SHOULD have." I suppose it's a little like "murder is wrong, I don't
care WHAT your goofy-assed culture says -- this is not one of those
'celebrate diversity' things."
I think that might be what he meant.
> >> 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.
...Which obligation they accepted when they decided to arrest you. They
COULD have said "fuck it, I'm not going through this speedy-trial crap"
and let you walk...
> > 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.
Believe all you want. Heck, you have THE RIGHT to believe that! :D
If it makes you feel better, you can believe that my obligation is
guaranteed under threat of eternal hellfire, should I renig,
> 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.
Is my grandmother -- who can barely walk unaided, let alone yell without
endangering herself to a coughing fit -- obligated to throw herself
between you, a strapping young man capable of fending for himself, and
your assailant?
How come SHE gets a free pass...?
Oh, are we only obligated to assist to our abilities? What if my
abilities are hampered/limited by cowardice? Are you telling me that
I'm OBLIGATED to deny my God-given cowardice-nature just so I can get
myself injured/mugged in your stead...?!?!
WTF are you getting at, Bart? Are you teaching morality to the next
generation?!?! Day-em!
> >> My mother was in labor N hours with me, so doesn't she
> >> have a right to a respectful attitude on my part?
> >
> > You're [or your were] her chattel. She has [had] a right to smack you
> > around if you're disrespectful :)
>
> But the point was her rights to _my_ behavior.
And I already conceded that children aren't people. They have rights
like dogs have rights.
> >> I worked hard all month, don't I have a right to my
> >> paycheck, which forces the ladies in accounting to
> >> actively cut me a check?
> >
> > A deal they entered into, voluntarily. This is an important
> > distinction that I'm not going to allow you to sweep under the rug.
>
> Everything's a distinction. What we can't get at is a definition
> of "right" that applies to the important cases. (And everything
> is already under the rug, that's the problem here.)
I provided you with one. You don't like it because it doesn't support
your position. You can keep demanding that the opposition re-define
words until the word-definitions support your position, but that's not
exactly interesting conversation.
(Trust me, *I*KNOW* not-interesting conversation! ;)
> >> And I've worked polling places ....
> >> All very active and all to accomodate his
> >> "right to vote."
> >
> > This is all very charitable of you. On behalf of society, I thank you
> > for volunteering your time, uncoerced.
>
> You can skip over the point, if it makes you uncomfortable, if
> you want, but: 1. It was not charitable of me, since I was
> modestly paid for my work (it's about $120 for the day.) And
Still, you signed-up to do the work, and to fulfill all the obligation
that went with it. You provided a valuable service to society, and you
did so without coercion. No points skipped, I still thank you on our
behalf.
> 2. It's a good example of a person having a right which
> A. demands action on the part of others
But a lousy example of someone's rights coercing obligation out of the
unmotivated.
Btw, you keep talking about a person's "rights" -- what do you mean by
that word...? <G>
> and B. which no one entered into voluntarily.
> The voter is born, and has the
> right to vote by virture of being born here. The government
> would probably like to forgo all this voting hassle and
> expense, but they are obligated to act in such a way as to
> secure the voter's right.
...by virtue of volunteering to be our government.
This is very much like applying for a job, actually -- all very
volunteer-like, btw.
Employer: I will offer to give you a paycheck and benefits [abbreviated
for clarity], if you do the following work for me: A, B, C.
Candidate: I agree to do A, B and C, in return for your paycheck,
benfits and [snip], under the condition that you D, E and F.
Employer: Deal!
Candidate: <shake on it>
See? No coercion; everybody's happy.
Of course, our national constitutional rights have a more coloured
history. That was more like:
Government: You must do A, B and C.
Citizenry: Fuck that! <bang, bang>
G: <bleed, die>
C: Ok, here are the terms under which we agree to be peacefully
governed. Any volunteers?
New government: Uh... Ok, I'll do it.
So this gets a bit back to your Napoleonic example. Then, of course,
the power-balance shifts...
> > When enough people with big enough sway tell enough other people
> > "we're going to guarantee Bart his right to fresh doritos -- don't
> > stand in his way or else!", that's your "right", your "guarantee",
> > your "legal & just claim or title."
> >
> > Yeah, I guess it all boils down to the guys with the big guns. So...?
> What about "basic human rights?"
That's just morality. That's enough folks banding together to form
another force (you know: like the powerful U.N. ;) to demand that the
world behave, lest we, as you say, tsk-tsk them.
> > Yeah, so...? Under our system (and MY morality), the man has no
> > "right" to my assistance. That is, I shouldn't go to jail (or
> > otherwise be coerced) for not assisting him.
> Not even "tsk-tsk-ed" at?
Well, one COULD argue that that's coercion, but the "tsk-tsk" for
coercing me thus would be so tiny as to be unnoticeable, so you get into
an infinite regression problem, there.
> >> How about somewhere in between: You have the right to life and
> >> health and we've banded together for the mutual support of these
> >> rights.
> >
> > Sure!
> >
> > So long as "we banded together" and not "a few of us banded together,
> > then we held guns to the heads of a bunch of other people and now
> > they're in our band, too."
> >
> > I have the right not to be coerced into joining your band!
> It doesn't seem like it.
Well, there is the whole "born here; if you don't like it, leave"
problem...
So I guess we're really arguing about what SHOULD be "basic human
rights", as opposed to what they are, under the current regime.
> Like I said before, I don't really believe in "rights"
> (in an absolute sense) but only in obligations.
But you believe in right & wrong (as absolutes), no?
Perhaps we have "rights" not to be "wronged"...
--
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 news:Misc-
E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> What you ask is similar to saying "what is the point of having
> commandments against (say) murder, when people murder all the time?
Not really. I'm asking (or saying) that the "definitions" of
"right" don't account for the fact that a person may never
be able to exercise them.
> If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot infringes
> those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here? I think
your sentence is self-contradictory.
>> Can it mean anything other than "if you deny me this thing,
>> then you have sinned against me"?
>
> "Close enough."
Makin' progress.
>> No else is discussing anything. They're echoing sympathies back
>> and forth, but no one has said anything substantive yet. Until
>> we tackle THIS point, it's the only point.
>
> Bart. This is not the classroom. Nor the lectern. You are not the
> professor here, nor the deacon. Your point is not the only point worth
> discussing. In fact, it's not even particularly interesting.
Not the only point "worth discussing", just the only point
thus far discussed. Saying "I think all these street people
should be shoveled into a hole" and having 9 or 10 folks
agree with the sentiment is not "a point" nor even a
discussion.
> Please do not hog the conversation.
How does one "hog a conversation" on USENET? It's not like
I can interrupt anyone or shout them down.
>> We are obliged to take care of our children
>> and aging parents, if nothing else.
>
> Actually, we're not.
Are too, are too.
> Again, you try to define the discussion around
> your own POV, then set out to prove that you are right.
No, I'm trying to peel apart others' points of view in order
to see what they really think.
> So let's start with your premise: society has obligations to The People
> (or "itself", if you prefer.) I contest this, and say society has no
> obligations. Please defend your statement.
I made the statement as a challenge. I want to know who
disagrees with it and (especially) who agrees with it and why.
>> In the oppressive country, you don't have legal redress, so whatever
>> it was, it wasn't a right after all...?
>
> And that's how it squares: Those silly commies don't have the rights
(to
> redress in various circumstances that we value) the way we do. See?
No.
>> 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.
>
> I cannot be held accountable for what others say. <G> If we're going
> to play that game, I'm going to claim that you're wrong because Paul
> posted something or another. ;)
I don't know where you get "game" out of this. I just observed
that you're saying the opposite of what TomS was saying. At
no point did I put his words in your mouth.
>> I have a right to a speedy trial. That certainly invokes
>> action on a number of people.
>
> ...Which obligation they accepted when they decided to arrest you.
They
> COULD have said "fuck it, I'm not going through this speedy-trial
crap"
> and let you walk...
Not the cops, the _jury_.
> How come SHE gets a free pass...?
>
> Oh, are we only obligated to assist to our abilities?
> WTF are you getting at, Bart? Are you teaching morality to the next
> generation?!?! Day-em!
Maybe you should ask the last question first. I'm getting
at the little bits of things that make some people think
that obligations and rights are related concepts. Trying
to pick apart my examples is easy, but pointless.
> And I already conceded that children aren't people. They have rights
> like dogs have rights.
So you, like me, support abortion into the 48th trimester?
>> Everything's a distinction. What we can't get at is a definition
>> of "right" that applies to the important cases. (And everything
>> is already under the rug, that's the problem here.)
>
> I provided you with one. You don't like it because it doesn't support
> your position.
Nonsense. I don't like it because it doesn't work. (And
thanks for the derogatory slur.)
>> You can skip over the point, if it makes you uncomfortable, if
>> you want, but: 1. It was not charitable of me, since I was
>> modestly paid for my work (it's about $120 for the day.) And
>
> Still, you signed-up to do the work, and to fulfill all the obligation
> that went with it. You provided a valuable service to society, and you
> did so without coercion. No points skipped, I still thank you on our
> behalf.
The only point was skipped: That people committed action
in order to guarantee this guy his right to vote, contrary
to Mickey's definition.
>> 2. It's a good example of a person having a right which
>> A. demands action on the part of others
>
> But a lousy example of someone's rights coercing obligation out of the
> unmotivated.
So?
> Btw, you keep talking about a person's "rights" -- what do you mean by
> that word...? <G>
>
>> and B. which no one entered into voluntarily.
>> The voter is born, and has the
>> right to vote by virture of being born here. The government
>> would probably like to forgo all this voting hassle and
>> expense, but they are obligated to act in such a way as to
>> secure the voter's right.
>
> ...by virtue of volunteering to be our government.
>
> This is very much like applying for a job, actually -- all very
> volunteer-like, btw.
Being born is not "volunteering".
I'll be traveling the next few days, so you won't have
to put up with my hogging till probably next Tuesday.
B. (And don't construe my silence as you having won any
points.)
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> What you ask is similar to saying "what is the point of having
> commandments against (say) murder, when people murder all the time?
Not really. I'm asking (or saying) that the "definitions" of
"right" don't account for the fact that a person may never
be able to exercise them.
> If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot infringes
> those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here? I think
your sentence is self-contradictory.
>> Can it mean anything other than "if you deny me this thing,
>> then you have sinned against me"?
>
> "Close enough."
Makin' progress.
>> No else is discussing anything. They're echoing sympathies back
>> and forth, but no one has said anything substantive yet. Until
>> we tackle THIS point, it's the only point.
>
> Bart. This is not the classroom. Nor the lectern. You are not the
> professor here, nor the deacon. Your point is not the only point worth
> discussing. In fact, it's not even particularly interesting.
Not the only point "worth discussing", just the only point
thus far discussed. Saying "I think all these street people
should be shoveled into a hole" and having 9 or 10 folks
agree with the sentiment is not "a point" nor even a
discussion.
> Please do not hog the conversation.
How does one "hog a conversation" on USENET? It's not like
I can interrupt anyone or shout them down.
>> We are obliged to take care of our children
>> and aging parents, if nothing else.
>
> Actually, we're not.
Are too, are too.
> Again, you try to define the discussion around
> your own POV, then set out to prove that you are right.
No, I'm trying to peel apart others' points of view in order
to see what they really think.
> So let's start with your premise: society has obligations to The People
> (or "itself", if you prefer.) I contest this, and say society has no
> obligations. Please defend your statement.
I made the statement as a challenge. I want to know who
disagrees with it and (especially) who agrees with it and why.
>> In the oppressive country, you don't have legal redress, so whatever
>> it was, it wasn't a right after all...?
>
> And that's how it squares: Those silly commies don't have the rights
(to
> redress in various circumstances that we value) the way we do. See?
No.
>> 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.
>
> I cannot be held accountable for what others say. <G> If we're going
> to play that game, I'm going to claim that you're wrong because Paul
> posted something or another. ;)
I don't know where you get "game" out of this. I just observed
that you're saying the opposite of what TomS was saying. At
no point did I put his words in your mouth.
>> I have a right to a speedy trial. That certainly invokes
>> action on a number of people.
>
> ...Which obligation they accepted when they decided to arrest you.
They
> COULD have said "fuck it, I'm not going through this speedy-trial
crap"
> and let you walk...
Not the cops, the _jury_.
> How come SHE gets a free pass...?
>
> Oh, are we only obligated to assist to our abilities?
> WTF are you getting at, Bart? Are you teaching morality to the next
> generation?!?! Day-em!
Maybe you should ask the last question first. I'm getting
at the little bits of things that make some people think
that obligations and rights are related concepts. Trying
to pick apart my examples is easy, but pointless.
> And I already conceded that children aren't people. They have rights
> like dogs have rights.
So you, like me, support abortion into the 48th trimester?
>> Everything's a distinction. What we can't get at is a definition
>> of "right" that applies to the important cases. (And everything
>> is already under the rug, that's the problem here.)
>
> I provided you with one. You don't like it because it doesn't support
> your position.
Nonsense. I don't like it because it doesn't work. (And
thanks for the derogatory slur.)
>> You can skip over the point, if it makes you uncomfortable, if
>> you want, but: 1. It was not charitable of me, since I was
>> modestly paid for my work (it's about $120 for the day.) And
>
> Still, you signed-up to do the work, and to fulfill all the obligation
> that went with it. You provided a valuable service to society, and you
> did so without coercion. No points skipped, I still thank you on our
> behalf.
The only point was skipped: That people committed action
in order to guarantee this guy his right to vote, contrary
to Mickey's definition.
>> 2. It's a good example of a person having a right which
>> A. demands action on the part of others
>
> But a lousy example of someone's rights coercing obligation out of the
> unmotivated.
So?
> Btw, you keep talking about a person's "rights" -- what do you mean by
> that word...? <G>
>
>> and B. which no one entered into voluntarily.
>> The voter is born, and has the
>> right to vote by virture of being born here. The government
>> would probably like to forgo all this voting hassle and
>> expense, but they are obligated to act in such a way as to
>> secure the voter's right.
>
> ...by virtue of volunteering to be our government.
>
> This is very much like applying for a job, actually -- all very
> volunteer-like, btw.
Being born is not "volunteering".
I'll be traveling the next few days, so you won't have
to put up with my hogging till probably next Tuesday.
B. (And don't construe my silence as you having won any
points.)
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: Smoke two...
In article <Xns9A848D76DD99Cgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> > If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot infringes
> > those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying to
communicate effectively :)
> I think your sentence is self-contradictory.
I don't see how. Are you you being pedantic, here? I'm just saying
that having your rights denied -- through whatever means -- doesn't mean
they're not rights. Ok, so you can't exercise them (onaccounna having
them denied), but they're STILL rights.
I'm saying this in the sense of "if you steal my stereo, it's STILL my
stereo", meaning rightfully so, even though one could (this is where
"pedantically" comes in) argue that it is now yours.
> > Please do not hog the conversation.
> How does one "hog a conversation" on USENET? It's not like
> I can interrupt anyone or shout them down.
Sortof. You can reply to every single post and claim that anyone who
posts a definition other than one that supports your POV is "missing the
point" or "providing an unacceptable definition."
By way of example of something you could do to move the discussion
along: please provide us a definition of what you mean when you refer to
a person's "rights." You have referred to them several times, without
letting us know what the hell you mean by it, only groussing that you
don't like what the rest of us mean when WE say it.
> >> We are obliged to take care of our children
> >> and aging parents, if nothing else.
> >
> > Actually, we're not.
>
> Are too, are too.
Ok, *NOW* we're discussing...! ;)
> > So let's start with your premise: society has obligations to The People
> > (or "itself", if you prefer.) I contest this, and say society has no
> > obligations. Please defend your statement.
> I made the statement as a challenge. I want to know who
> disagrees with it and (especially) who agrees with it and why.
So you don't actually have anything to contribute, yourself? You're
just trying to line others up on sides and guide their discussion? To
what end?
Have I mentioned that this is not a classroom, and you're not the
professor? <G>
Seriously, Bart -- you're a smart guy; pitch in, for crying out loud.
SAY SOMETHING!
> >> In the oppressive country, you don't have legal redress, so whatever
> >> it was, it wasn't a right after all...?
> > And that's how it squares: Those silly commies don't have the rights
> > (to redress in various circumstances that we value) the way we do.
> > See?
> No.
Seriously?!
Oh! You're playing the OTHER side of the coin, now; I get it.
See, earlier, you appeared to be arguing (without actually saying
anything) that a right doesn't exist if someone isn't free to exercise
it. My statement above was intended in that context; "those silly
commies don't have rights."
Tom, Mickey & I have also been saying, at a much larger scale, that
rights exist in a sort of "natural state" -- that there are "natural
rights" -- whether the people who whom they apply are free or oppressed.
Surely this duality is not self contradictory, nor beyond your ability
to grasp...???
> >> I have a right to a speedy trial. That certainly invokes
> >> action on a number of people.
> > ...Which obligation they accepted when they decided to arrest you.
> > They
> > COULD have said "fuck it, I'm not going through this speedy-trial
> > crap" and let you walk...
> Not the cops, the _jury_.
Dury duty is voluntary. I know several people who choose not to
participate.
> Trying to pick apart my examples is easy, but pointless.
Picking apart examples offered in the discussion can't possibly be any
more pointless than the examples, themselves.
I pick apart your examples on the assumption that you're participating
in honest debate, not just jacking-off on-line. Am I wrong to place
such trust in you?
> > And I already conceded that children aren't people. They have rights
> > like dogs have rights.
>
> So you, like me, support abortion into the 48th trimester?
I believe I've stated elsewhere that I support abortion through high
school graduation ;)
(Ok, that's a bit beyond my REAL belief -- but it illustrates the
concept.
> > I provided you with one. You don't like it because it doesn't support
> > your position.
> Nonsense. I don't like it because it doesn't work. (And
> thanks for the derogatory slur.)
You're telling me now that the dictionary definition of "rights" (as it
pertains to human rights) "doesn't work"...?! Doesn't work
*FOR*WHAT*?!?!
FWIW, it works for the vast majority of the English speaking world.
> > Still, you signed-up to do the work, and to fulfill all the obligation
> > that went with it. You provided a valuable service to society, and you
> > did so without coercion. No points skipped, I still thank you on our
> > behalf.
> The only point was skipped: That people committed action
> in order to guarantee this guy his right to vote, contrary
> to Mickey's definition.
No -- please pay very close attention to this next bit (I know we've
been bantering a bit, but this part is key): The important bit of
Mickey's definition is that YOU WERE NOT COERCED IN ANY WAY into doing
what you did in order to provide this guy with his right to vote. NO
ONE WAS.
That's the main thing that Mickey (and Tom and I) have been trying to
get across: what people call "rights" that depends on other people being
coerced into providing said "rights" isn't a "right" at all -- it's just
"entitlement" with a prettier sounding name.
"Lipstick on a pig", and all that...
> >> 2. It's a good example of a person having a right which
> >> A. demands action on the part of others
> > But a lousy example of someone's rights coercing obligation out of the
> > unmotivated.
> So?
Maybe you've not been following this thread ;) That *IS* actually the
point of this entire discussion.
(Actually, it started back with a little friendly U.N. bashing, but
quickly tangented into this area.)
[Example of providing someone services in order that he
exercise his right to vote, and me saying how that isn't
an obligation, snipped]
> Being born is not "volunteering".
Being born doesn't obligate you to provide someone else a right to vote.
> B. (And don't construe my silence as you having won any points.)
Never! :)
Misc "what the hell would I do with 'Bart points', anyway...?!"
--
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.
In article <Xns9A848D76DD99Cgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> > If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot infringes
> > those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying to
communicate effectively :)
> I think your sentence is self-contradictory.
I don't see how. Are you you being pedantic, here? I'm just saying
that having your rights denied -- through whatever means -- doesn't mean
they're not rights. Ok, so you can't exercise them (onaccounna having
them denied), but they're STILL rights.
I'm saying this in the sense of "if you steal my stereo, it's STILL my
stereo", meaning rightfully so, even though one could (this is where
"pedantically" comes in) argue that it is now yours.
> > Please do not hog the conversation.
> How does one "hog a conversation" on USENET? It's not like
> I can interrupt anyone or shout them down.
Sortof. You can reply to every single post and claim that anyone who
posts a definition other than one that supports your POV is "missing the
point" or "providing an unacceptable definition."
By way of example of something you could do to move the discussion
along: please provide us a definition of what you mean when you refer to
a person's "rights." You have referred to them several times, without
letting us know what the hell you mean by it, only groussing that you
don't like what the rest of us mean when WE say it.
> >> We are obliged to take care of our children
> >> and aging parents, if nothing else.
> >
> > Actually, we're not.
>
> Are too, are too.
Ok, *NOW* we're discussing...! ;)
> > So let's start with your premise: society has obligations to The People
> > (or "itself", if you prefer.) I contest this, and say society has no
> > obligations. Please defend your statement.
> I made the statement as a challenge. I want to know who
> disagrees with it and (especially) who agrees with it and why.
So you don't actually have anything to contribute, yourself? You're
just trying to line others up on sides and guide their discussion? To
what end?
Have I mentioned that this is not a classroom, and you're not the
professor? <G>
Seriously, Bart -- you're a smart guy; pitch in, for crying out loud.
SAY SOMETHING!
> >> In the oppressive country, you don't have legal redress, so whatever
> >> it was, it wasn't a right after all...?
> > And that's how it squares: Those silly commies don't have the rights
> > (to redress in various circumstances that we value) the way we do.
> > See?
> No.
Seriously?!
Oh! You're playing the OTHER side of the coin, now; I get it.
See, earlier, you appeared to be arguing (without actually saying
anything) that a right doesn't exist if someone isn't free to exercise
it. My statement above was intended in that context; "those silly
commies don't have rights."
Tom, Mickey & I have also been saying, at a much larger scale, that
rights exist in a sort of "natural state" -- that there are "natural
rights" -- whether the people who whom they apply are free or oppressed.
Surely this duality is not self contradictory, nor beyond your ability
to grasp...???
> >> I have a right to a speedy trial. That certainly invokes
> >> action on a number of people.
> > ...Which obligation they accepted when they decided to arrest you.
> > They
> > COULD have said "fuck it, I'm not going through this speedy-trial
> > crap" and let you walk...
> Not the cops, the _jury_.
Dury duty is voluntary. I know several people who choose not to
participate.
> Trying to pick apart my examples is easy, but pointless.
Picking apart examples offered in the discussion can't possibly be any
more pointless than the examples, themselves.
I pick apart your examples on the assumption that you're participating
in honest debate, not just jacking-off on-line. Am I wrong to place
such trust in you?
> > And I already conceded that children aren't people. They have rights
> > like dogs have rights.
>
> So you, like me, support abortion into the 48th trimester?
I believe I've stated elsewhere that I support abortion through high
school graduation ;)
(Ok, that's a bit beyond my REAL belief -- but it illustrates the
concept.
> > I provided you with one. You don't like it because it doesn't support
> > your position.
> Nonsense. I don't like it because it doesn't work. (And
> thanks for the derogatory slur.)
You're telling me now that the dictionary definition of "rights" (as it
pertains to human rights) "doesn't work"...?! Doesn't work
*FOR*WHAT*?!?!
FWIW, it works for the vast majority of the English speaking world.
> > Still, you signed-up to do the work, and to fulfill all the obligation
> > that went with it. You provided a valuable service to society, and you
> > did so without coercion. No points skipped, I still thank you on our
> > behalf.
> The only point was skipped: That people committed action
> in order to guarantee this guy his right to vote, contrary
> to Mickey's definition.
No -- please pay very close attention to this next bit (I know we've
been bantering a bit, but this part is key): The important bit of
Mickey's definition is that YOU WERE NOT COERCED IN ANY WAY into doing
what you did in order to provide this guy with his right to vote. NO
ONE WAS.
That's the main thing that Mickey (and Tom and I) have been trying to
get across: what people call "rights" that depends on other people being
coerced into providing said "rights" isn't a "right" at all -- it's just
"entitlement" with a prettier sounding name.
"Lipstick on a pig", and all that...
> >> 2. It's a good example of a person having a right which
> >> A. demands action on the part of others
> > But a lousy example of someone's rights coercing obligation out of the
> > unmotivated.
> So?
Maybe you've not been following this thread ;) That *IS* actually the
point of this entire discussion.
(Actually, it started back with a little friendly U.N. bashing, but
quickly tangented into this area.)
[Example of providing someone services in order that he
exercise his right to vote, and me saying how that isn't
an obligation, snipped]
> Being born is not "volunteering".
Being born doesn't obligate you to provide someone else a right to vote.
> B. (And don't construe my silence as you having won any points.)
Never! :)
Misc "what the hell would I do with 'Bart points', anyway...?!"
--
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
news:Misc-25CE02.13052718042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> In article <Xns9A848D76DD99Cgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>
>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
>> E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>> > If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot
>> > infringes those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
>
>> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
>
> Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying
> to communicate effectively :)
If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
about "rights".
>> I think your sentence is self-contradictory.
>
> I don't see how. Are you you being pedantic, here? I'm just saying
> that having your rights denied -- through whatever means -- doesn't
> mean they're not rights.
But it surely does mean that they are "deniable", that is,
"inalienable". Don't I have a right to my rights?
> I'm saying this in the sense of "if you steal my stereo, it's STILL my
> stereo",
But is it your "unstealable" stereo, if I steal it?
> By way of example of something you could do to move the discussion
> along: please provide us a definition of what you mean when you refer
> to a person's "rights."
As I said, I don't have a good definition. That's why I'm
asking for one.
>> >> We are obliged to take care of our children
>> >> and aging parents, if nothing else.
>> >
>> > Actually, we're not.
>>
>> Are too, are too.
>
> Ok, *NOW* we're discussing...! ;)
No, I was calling for my droid to bring me a beer.
> So you don't actually have anything to contribute, yourself? You're
> just trying to line others up on sides and guide their discussion? To
> what end?
As I said, I want to know what people mean when they say "rights".
If that clarifies the current inane babbling, then it's hardly
"nothing to contribute."
> Seriously, Bart -- you're a smart guy; pitch in, for crying out loud.
> SAY SOMETHING!
That's your usual two-step. If I say something, you whine. If
I don't, you whine. <shrug>
> Oh! You're playing the OTHER side of the coin, now; I get it.
Not playing, asking.
> See, earlier, you appeared to be arguing (without actually saying
> anything) that a right doesn't exist if someone isn't free to exercise
> it.
No, I _asked_ how can it be a right if you can't have it? If someone
had a decent definition of "right", they'd be able to answer my
question. I'm still waiting.
My statement above was intended in that context; "those silly
> commies don't have rights."
>
> Tom, Mickey & I have also been saying, at a much larger scale, that
> rights exist in a sort of "natural state" -- that there are "natural
> rights" -- whether the people who whom they apply are free or
> oppressed.
>
> Surely this duality is not self contradictory, nor beyond your ability
> to grasp...???
That remains to be seen. At this point, I haven't the faintest idea
of what a "natural right" is (a Chinese, low-calorie beer?)
>> >> I have a right to a speedy trial. That certainly invokes
>> >> action on a number of people.
>
>> > ...Which obligation they accepted when they decided to arrest you.
>> > They
>> > COULD have said "fuck it, I'm not going through this speedy-trial
>> > crap" and let you walk...
>
>> Not the cops, the _jury_.
>
> Dury duty is voluntary. I know several people who choose not to
> participate.
Not in any state I've lived in. You either do your duty or go
to jail (and going to jail is certainly requiring action.)
So again, Mickey's definition isn't holding water with me,
because we have rights which impose on others. I either lose
several days' pay sitting in a jury box or sitting in a cell,
just because you have the right to a jury trial.
>> > I provided you with one. You don't like it because it doesn't
>> > support your position.
>
>> Nonsense. I don't like it because it doesn't work. (And
>> thanks for the derogatory slur.)
>
> You're telling me now that the dictionary definition of "rights" (as
> it pertains to human rights) "doesn't work"...?! Doesn't work
> *FOR*WHAT*?!?!
To answer my question.
> FWIW, it works for the vast majority of the English speaking world.
The vast majority of English speaking people 1. are stupid and 2.
didn't ask my question. The vast majority of Calc I students
complain that "it's not fair", but have no idea what they mean
by "fair". If they'd think about it, they'd realize that they're
really saying "I want an unfair advantage over the other students"
which is the diametrical opposite of "fair".
> No -- please pay very close attention to this next bit (I know we've
> been bantering a bit, but this part is key): The important bit of
> Mickey's definition is that YOU WERE NOT COERCED IN ANY WAY into doing
> what you did in order to provide this guy with his right to vote. NO
> ONE WAS.
>
> That's the main thing that Mickey (and Tom and I) have been trying to
> get across: what people call "rights" that depends on other people
> being coerced into providing said "rights" isn't a "right" at all --
> it's just "entitlement" with a prettier sounding name.
1. Mickey's definition doesn't say "coerced". 2. Jury duty
is certainly coerced.
>> Being born is not "volunteering".
>
> Being born doesn't obligate you to provide someone else a right to
> vote.
It can obligate someone to serve in the military, which is a
coerced action which purpose is to secure the rights of others.
Ditto jury duty. Ditto paying taxes (which pay for the voting
system and the military maching.)
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
news:Misc-25CE02.13052718042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> In article <Xns9A848D76DD99Cgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>
>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
>> E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>> > If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot
>> > infringes those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
>
>> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
>
> Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying
> to communicate effectively :)
If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
about "rights".
>> I think your sentence is self-contradictory.
>
> I don't see how. Are you you being pedantic, here? I'm just saying
> that having your rights denied -- through whatever means -- doesn't
> mean they're not rights.
But it surely does mean that they are "deniable", that is,
"inalienable". Don't I have a right to my rights?
> I'm saying this in the sense of "if you steal my stereo, it's STILL my
> stereo",
But is it your "unstealable" stereo, if I steal it?
> By way of example of something you could do to move the discussion
> along: please provide us a definition of what you mean when you refer
> to a person's "rights."
As I said, I don't have a good definition. That's why I'm
asking for one.
>> >> We are obliged to take care of our children
>> >> and aging parents, if nothing else.
>> >
>> > Actually, we're not.
>>
>> Are too, are too.
>
> Ok, *NOW* we're discussing...! ;)
No, I was calling for my droid to bring me a beer.
> So you don't actually have anything to contribute, yourself? You're
> just trying to line others up on sides and guide their discussion? To
> what end?
As I said, I want to know what people mean when they say "rights".
If that clarifies the current inane babbling, then it's hardly
"nothing to contribute."
> Seriously, Bart -- you're a smart guy; pitch in, for crying out loud.
> SAY SOMETHING!
That's your usual two-step. If I say something, you whine. If
I don't, you whine. <shrug>
> Oh! You're playing the OTHER side of the coin, now; I get it.
Not playing, asking.
> See, earlier, you appeared to be arguing (without actually saying
> anything) that a right doesn't exist if someone isn't free to exercise
> it.
No, I _asked_ how can it be a right if you can't have it? If someone
had a decent definition of "right", they'd be able to answer my
question. I'm still waiting.
My statement above was intended in that context; "those silly
> commies don't have rights."
>
> Tom, Mickey & I have also been saying, at a much larger scale, that
> rights exist in a sort of "natural state" -- that there are "natural
> rights" -- whether the people who whom they apply are free or
> oppressed.
>
> Surely this duality is not self contradictory, nor beyond your ability
> to grasp...???
That remains to be seen. At this point, I haven't the faintest idea
of what a "natural right" is (a Chinese, low-calorie beer?)
>> >> I have a right to a speedy trial. That certainly invokes
>> >> action on a number of people.
>
>> > ...Which obligation they accepted when they decided to arrest you.
>> > They
>> > COULD have said "fuck it, I'm not going through this speedy-trial
>> > crap" and let you walk...
>
>> Not the cops, the _jury_.
>
> Dury duty is voluntary. I know several people who choose not to
> participate.
Not in any state I've lived in. You either do your duty or go
to jail (and going to jail is certainly requiring action.)
So again, Mickey's definition isn't holding water with me,
because we have rights which impose on others. I either lose
several days' pay sitting in a jury box or sitting in a cell,
just because you have the right to a jury trial.
>> > I provided you with one. You don't like it because it doesn't
>> > support your position.
>
>> Nonsense. I don't like it because it doesn't work. (And
>> thanks for the derogatory slur.)
>
> You're telling me now that the dictionary definition of "rights" (as
> it pertains to human rights) "doesn't work"...?! Doesn't work
> *FOR*WHAT*?!?!
To answer my question.
> FWIW, it works for the vast majority of the English speaking world.
The vast majority of English speaking people 1. are stupid and 2.
didn't ask my question. The vast majority of Calc I students
complain that "it's not fair", but have no idea what they mean
by "fair". If they'd think about it, they'd realize that they're
really saying "I want an unfair advantage over the other students"
which is the diametrical opposite of "fair".
> No -- please pay very close attention to this next bit (I know we've
> been bantering a bit, but this part is key): The important bit of
> Mickey's definition is that YOU WERE NOT COERCED IN ANY WAY into doing
> what you did in order to provide this guy with his right to vote. NO
> ONE WAS.
>
> That's the main thing that Mickey (and Tom and I) have been trying to
> get across: what people call "rights" that depends on other people
> being coerced into providing said "rights" isn't a "right" at all --
> it's just "entitlement" with a prettier sounding name.
1. Mickey's definition doesn't say "coerced". 2. Jury duty
is certainly coerced.
>> Being born is not "volunteering".
>
> Being born doesn't obligate you to provide someone else a right to
> vote.
It can obligate someone to serve in the military, which is a
coerced action which purpose is to secure the rights of others.
Ditto jury duty. Ditto paying taxes (which pay for the voting
system and the military maching.)
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: Smoke two...
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A889DF0EA7F5goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.94...
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
> news:Misc-25CE02.13052718042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>
>> In article <Xns9A848D76DD99Cgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
>> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>>
>>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
>>> E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>>> > If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot
>>> > infringes those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
>>
>>> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
>>
>> Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying
>> to communicate effectively :)
>
> If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
> because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
> contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
> about "rights".
Oh, Gawd..."linguistic analysis" - the game that kids play on the
playground.
(Give it up, Ted, you'll never win that game).
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A889DF0EA7F5goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.94...
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
> news:Misc-25CE02.13052718042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>
>> In article <Xns9A848D76DD99Cgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
>> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>>
>>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
>>> E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>>> > If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot
>>> > infringes those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
>>
>>> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
>>
>> Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying
>> to communicate effectively :)
>
> If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
> because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
> contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
> about "rights".
Oh, Gawd..."linguistic analysis" - the game that kids play on the
playground.
(Give it up, Ted, you'll never win that game).
Re: Smoke two...
In article <vDsPj.2673$1M1.2657@newsfe23.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
> "Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
> news:Xns9A889DF0EA7F5goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.94...
> > Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
> > news:Misc-25CE02.13052718042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> >
> >> In article <Xns9A848D76DD99Cgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
> >> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> >>> E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> >>> > If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot
> >>> > infringes those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
> >>
> >>> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
> >>
> >> Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying
> >> to communicate effectively :)
> >
> > If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
> > because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
> > contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
> > about "rights".
>
> Oh, Gawd..."linguistic analysis" - the game that kids play on the
> playground.
>
> (Give it up, Ted, you'll never win that game).
Bart claims we're not playing a game.
Hell, I'll be happy if I can just get one single honest-debate post out
of him...
--
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.
In article <vDsPj.2673$1M1.2657@newsfe23.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
> "Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
> news:Xns9A889DF0EA7F5goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.94...
> > Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
> > news:Misc-25CE02.13052718042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> >
> >> In article <Xns9A848D76DD99Cgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
> >> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> >>> E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> >>> > If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot
> >>> > infringes those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
> >>
> >>> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
> >>
> >> Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying
> >> to communicate effectively :)
> >
> > If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
> > because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
> > contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
> > about "rights".
>
> Oh, Gawd..."linguistic analysis" - the game that kids play on the
> playground.
>
> (Give it up, Ted, you'll never win that game).
Bart claims we're not playing a game.
Hell, I'll be happy if I can just get one single honest-debate post out
of him...
--
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 news:Misc-
5217F6.15312422042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> Bart claims we're not playing a game.
>
> Hell, I'll be happy if I can just get one single honest-debate post out
> of him...
Really? I point out a direct contradiction in your argument,
and that STILL isn't "honest debate"? Interesting.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
5217F6.15312422042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> Bart claims we're not playing a game.
>
> Hell, I'll be happy if I can just get one single honest-debate post out
> of him...
Really? I point out a direct contradiction in your argument,
and that STILL isn't "honest debate"? Interesting.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: Smoke two...
In article <Xns9A88C7EA6CABAgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.89>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> 5217F6.15312422042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> > Bart claims we're not playing a game.
> > Hell, I'll be happy if I can just get one single honest-debate post out
> > of him...
> Really? I point out a direct contradiction in your argument,
> and that STILL isn't "honest debate"? Interesting.
You manufacture a contradiction that doesn't exist, and refuse to
comprehend even the simplest of explanations.
No, it's hardly honest, Bart. It is, as TomS. pointed out, grade-school
sophistry.
--
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.
In article <Xns9A88C7EA6CABAgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.89>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> 5217F6.15312422042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> > Bart claims we're not playing a game.
> > Hell, I'll be happy if I can just get one single honest-debate post out
> > of him...
> Really? I point out a direct contradiction in your argument,
> and that STILL isn't "honest debate"? Interesting.
You manufacture a contradiction that doesn't exist, and refuse to
comprehend even the simplest of explanations.
No, it's hardly honest, Bart. It is, as TomS. pointed out, grade-school
sophistry.
--
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...
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:vDsPj.2673$1M1.2657
@newsfe23.lga:
>>>> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
>>>
>>> Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying
>>> to communicate effectively :)
>>
>> If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
>> because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
>> contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
>> about "rights".
>
> Oh, Gawd..."linguistic analysis" - the game that kids play on the
> playground.
I asked if these things mean the same thing. He says "yes" (or "sure.")
If so, he has a clear contradiction. It's hardly "linguistic
analysis" (no matter what you mean by that.)
OTOH, relying on "group smugness" as an argument IS a common
playground technique.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:vDsPj.2673$1M1.2657
@newsfe23.lga:
>>>> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
>>>
>>> Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying
>>> to communicate effectively :)
>>
>> If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
>> because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
>> contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
>> about "rights".
>
> Oh, Gawd..."linguistic analysis" - the game that kids play on the
> playground.
I asked if these things mean the same thing. He says "yes" (or "sure.")
If so, he has a clear contradiction. It's hardly "linguistic
analysis" (no matter what you mean by that.)
OTOH, relying on "group smugness" as an argument IS a common
playground technique.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: Smoke two...
In article <Xns9A889DF0EA7F5goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.94>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
> news:Misc-25CE02.13052718042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>
> > In article <Xns9A848D76DD99Cgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
> > Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> >
> >> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> >> E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> >> > If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot
> >> > infringes those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
> >
> >> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
> >
> > Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying
> > to communicate effectively :)
>
> If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
> because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
> contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
> about "rights".
No, you're stuck thinking that people whose rights have been denied them
don't have those rights. They still have the rights, they just can't
exercise them.
If they didn't have the rights, we wouldn't care, since nothing would be
being denied them.
It sure SEEMS like you're intentionally playing word-games; I'm having a
hard time believing that you don't understand what is being said, here.
> > I'm saying this in the sense of "if you steal my stereo, it's STILL my
> > stereo",
> But is it your "unstealable" stereo, if I steal it?
You're trying to equate "inalienable" with "un-infringable"? (I chose
that over "undeniable" to avoid the ambiguity.)
"I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
in·al·ien·a·ble
adj. That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable
rights
Inalienable means you can't take it away or transfer it to someone else.
It does NOT mean it is impossible for anyone to deny me said thing.
You also seem stuck on the idea that a right that is
infringed/denied/not-exercisable is no right at all and pointless. But
it is not. The right has a point and the point is: you SHOULD be able
to exercise it, and the U.N. should send a very stern email to whoever
it is that is denying you your rights.
> > By way of example of something you could do to move the discussion
> > along: please provide us a definition of what you mean when you refer
> > to a person's "rights."
>
> As I said, I don't have a good definition. That's why I'm
> asking for one.
...But you keep griping about the ones given, even the very dictionary
definition of the word and its most common usage! [After all the
"right-hand/left-hand" stuff, that is.]
> > Seriously, Bart -- you're a smart guy; pitch in, for crying out loud.
> > SAY SOMETHING!
> That's your usual two-step. If I say something, you whine. If
> I don't, you whine. <shrug>
No, if you say something, and its wrong, I argue. I only whine when you
don't say anything. Actually, I usually save the whining for when
you've made several dozen posts telling other people that they're wrong
without ever actually taking a stance on what you think is right.
A proper argument:
1: foo!
2: No, not foo, bar!
What you do that is crazy-making:
1: Foo!
2: Nope, foo is clearly wrong.
> > See, earlier, you appeared to be arguing (without actually saying
> > anything) that a right doesn't exist if someone isn't free to exercise
> > it.
> No, I _asked_ how can it be a right if you can't have it? If someone
> had a decent definition of "right", they'd be able to answer my
> question. I'm still waiting.
You've been given both a decent definition and an answer to your
question, several times. You refuse them without stating their
shortcomings. No answer to you is possible.
> > [J]ury duty is voluntary. I know several people who choose not to
> > participate.
> Not in any state I've lived in. You either do your duty or go
> to jail (and going to jail is certainly requiring action.)
You live in Texas, right? Jury duty is voluntary in Texas. If you
don't want to sign up for jury duty (which is what you sign up for when
you register to vote), then don't sign up.
It's that simple.
> So again, Mickey's definition isn't holding water with me,
> because we have rights which impose on others.
No, you don't. We keep asking you to provide one single example, but
you have not done so. You keep SAYING that you've done so, but you have
not.
> I either lose
> several days' pay sitting in a jury box or sitting in a cell,
> just because you have the right to a jury trial.
Or, if it bothers you, you can not-sign-up for jury duty in the first
place.
THIS one isn't even one of those "because you were born there" things!
> 1. Mickey's definition doesn't say "coerced". 2. Jury duty
> is certainly coerced.
(1) Mickey's definition implied coerced (Mickey, care to step in, here?)
and (2) Jury duty is not coerced.
> >> Being born is not "volunteering".
> > Being born doesn't obligate you to provide someone else a right to
> > vote.
> It can obligate someone to serve in the military, which is a
> coerced action which purpose is to secure the rights of others.
Mickey, Tom & I don't like the draft, either, for the same reason.
> Ditto jury duty. Ditto paying taxes (which pay for the voting
> system and the military maching.)
Jury duty's been debunked. I'm pretty sure Mickey, Tom & I don't like
Taxes, either. :)
--
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.
In article <Xns9A889DF0EA7F5goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.94>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
> news:Misc-25CE02.13052718042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>
> > In article <Xns9A848D76DD99Cgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
> > Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> >
> >> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> >> E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> >> > If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot
> >> > infringes those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
> >
> >> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
> >
> > Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying
> > to communicate effectively :)
>
> If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
> because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
> contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
> about "rights".
No, you're stuck thinking that people whose rights have been denied them
don't have those rights. They still have the rights, they just can't
exercise them.
If they didn't have the rights, we wouldn't care, since nothing would be
being denied them.
It sure SEEMS like you're intentionally playing word-games; I'm having a
hard time believing that you don't understand what is being said, here.
> > I'm saying this in the sense of "if you steal my stereo, it's STILL my
> > stereo",
> But is it your "unstealable" stereo, if I steal it?
You're trying to equate "inalienable" with "un-infringable"? (I chose
that over "undeniable" to avoid the ambiguity.)
"I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
in·al·ien·a·ble
adj. That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable
rights
Inalienable means you can't take it away or transfer it to someone else.
It does NOT mean it is impossible for anyone to deny me said thing.
You also seem stuck on the idea that a right that is
infringed/denied/not-exercisable is no right at all and pointless. But
it is not. The right has a point and the point is: you SHOULD be able
to exercise it, and the U.N. should send a very stern email to whoever
it is that is denying you your rights.
> > By way of example of something you could do to move the discussion
> > along: please provide us a definition of what you mean when you refer
> > to a person's "rights."
>
> As I said, I don't have a good definition. That's why I'm
> asking for one.
...But you keep griping about the ones given, even the very dictionary
definition of the word and its most common usage! [After all the
"right-hand/left-hand" stuff, that is.]
> > Seriously, Bart -- you're a smart guy; pitch in, for crying out loud.
> > SAY SOMETHING!
> That's your usual two-step. If I say something, you whine. If
> I don't, you whine. <shrug>
No, if you say something, and its wrong, I argue. I only whine when you
don't say anything. Actually, I usually save the whining for when
you've made several dozen posts telling other people that they're wrong
without ever actually taking a stance on what you think is right.
A proper argument:
1: foo!
2: No, not foo, bar!
What you do that is crazy-making:
1: Foo!
2: Nope, foo is clearly wrong.
> > See, earlier, you appeared to be arguing (without actually saying
> > anything) that a right doesn't exist if someone isn't free to exercise
> > it.
> No, I _asked_ how can it be a right if you can't have it? If someone
> had a decent definition of "right", they'd be able to answer my
> question. I'm still waiting.
You've been given both a decent definition and an answer to your
question, several times. You refuse them without stating their
shortcomings. No answer to you is possible.
> > [J]ury duty is voluntary. I know several people who choose not to
> > participate.
> Not in any state I've lived in. You either do your duty or go
> to jail (and going to jail is certainly requiring action.)
You live in Texas, right? Jury duty is voluntary in Texas. If you
don't want to sign up for jury duty (which is what you sign up for when
you register to vote), then don't sign up.
It's that simple.
> So again, Mickey's definition isn't holding water with me,
> because we have rights which impose on others.
No, you don't. We keep asking you to provide one single example, but
you have not done so. You keep SAYING that you've done so, but you have
not.
> I either lose
> several days' pay sitting in a jury box or sitting in a cell,
> just because you have the right to a jury trial.
Or, if it bothers you, you can not-sign-up for jury duty in the first
place.
THIS one isn't even one of those "because you were born there" things!
> 1. Mickey's definition doesn't say "coerced". 2. Jury duty
> is certainly coerced.
(1) Mickey's definition implied coerced (Mickey, care to step in, here?)
and (2) Jury duty is not coerced.
> >> Being born is not "volunteering".
> > Being born doesn't obligate you to provide someone else a right to
> > vote.
> It can obligate someone to serve in the military, which is a
> coerced action which purpose is to secure the rights of others.
Mickey, Tom & I don't like the draft, either, for the same reason.
> Ditto jury duty. Ditto paying taxes (which pay for the voting
> system and the military maching.)
Jury duty's been debunked. I'm pretty sure Mickey, Tom & I don't like
Taxes, either. :)
--
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
news:Misc-68D4C2.15300222042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>> If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
>> because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
>> contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
>> about "rights".
>
> No, you're stuck thinking that people whose rights have been denied
> them don't have those rights. They still have the rights, they just
> can't exercise them.
I'm not stuck anywhere (except in Texas.) What I've been saying
all along is that the common (sloppy) definition of "rights"
doesn't allow for the fact that rights can be denied or supressed.
"I have a right to walk here." "No you don't. <BANG!>"
> If they didn't have the rights, we wouldn't care, since nothing would
> be being denied them.
>
> It sure SEEMS like you're intentionally playing word-games; I'm having
> a hard time believing that you don't understand what is being said,
> here.
I don't understand what you mean when you say "I have a right to
free speech." I have a decent, yet vague, sense of what I mean
when I say it, but I'm pretty sure most wouldn't agree with what
I mean.
>> > I'm saying this in the sense of "if you steal my stereo, it's STILL
>> > my stereo",
>
>> But is it your "unstealable" stereo, if I steal it?
>
> You're trying to equate "inalienable" with "un-infringable"? (I chose
> that over "undeniable" to avoid the ambiguity.)
I asked you specifically if "infringe" meant "alienate" and you
said they did. I'm not trying to equate them, rather, you
said they were equal.
> "I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
>
> in·al·ien·a·ble
> adj. That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable
> rights
>
> Inalienable means you can't take it away or transfer it to someone
> else. It does NOT mean it is impossible for anyone to deny me said
> thing.
Look at what you're writing, man. 1. "You can't take it away".
vs. 2. "It's not impossible to deny". In what universe is
"taking something away from someone" not tantamount to "deny
said something from someone"?
> You also seem stuck on the idea that a right that is
> infringed/denied/not-exercisable is no right at all and pointless.
Read slower: I'm saying that the given definitions don't
account for a denied right.
>> As I said, I don't have a good definition. That's why I'm
>> asking for one.
>
> ...But you keep griping about the ones given, even the very dictionary
> definition of the word and its most common usage!
The dictionary defines "right" in terms of "just". Since, in
this context, I have the exact same problems with "just", the
dictionary doesn't get us very far. (And why should we
expect it to, when its very nature is circular.)
>> > Seriously, Bart -- you're a smart guy; pitch in, for crying out
>> > loud. SAY SOMETHING!
>
>> That's your usual two-step. If I say something, you whine. If
>> I don't, you whine. <shrug>
>
> No, if you say something, and its wrong, I argue.
Nonsense. I say plenty. You whine whine when you think
I should have said "A" or "B", when I've said "neither".
Indeed, _I_ was whining because no one had said anything,
so _get off my bandwagon, I was here first_.
> A proper argument:
> 1: foo!
> 2: No, not foo, bar!
>
> What you do that is crazy-making:
> 1: Foo!
> 2: Nope, foo is clearly wrong.
More nonsense. If you say "foo" and I explain why "foo"
is wrong, that's a proper argument. "Bar" can well equal
"not foo." Worse, I'm not about to say "bar" until I
know what you meant by "foo".
Occasionally, someone asks me, "Are you a doctor?" Sometimes
I say "yes" and sometimes I say "no." In every case, I try
hard to tell the truth. In order to answer the question
truthfully, I certainly have to know what they meant by
"doctor".
You tell me what you mean by "right" and make it consistant
with how you use it, and then I'll tell you which bits
(if any) I don't agree with.
>> > See, earlier, you appeared to be arguing (without actually saying
>> > anything) that a right doesn't exist if someone isn't free to
>> > exercise it.
>
>> No, I _asked_ how can it be a right if you can't have it? If someone
>> had a decent definition of "right", they'd be able to answer my
>> question. I'm still waiting.
>
> You've been given both a decent definition and an answer to your
> question, several times. You refuse them without stating their
> shortcomings. No answer to you is possible.
Cite?
>> > [J]ury duty is voluntary. I know several people who choose not to
>> > participate.
>
>> Not in any state I've lived in. You either do your duty or go
>> to jail (and going to jail is certainly requiring action.)
>
> You live in Texas, right? Jury duty is voluntary in Texas. If you
> don't want to sign up for jury duty (which is what you sign up for
> when you register to vote), then don't sign up.
>
> It's that simple.
So to avoid jury duty I have to yield my right to vote?
Sounds like coercion to me.
>> So again, Mickey's definition isn't holding water with me,
>> because we have rights which impose on others.
>
> No, you don't. We keep asking you to provide one single example, but
> you have not done so. You keep SAYING that you've done so, but you
> have not.
Of course I have. Jury duty. Military service. Taxes. Having
to deal with unwanted "free" newspapers thrown on my lawn.
> Mickey, Tom & I don't like the draft, either, for the same reason.
And yet, there it is, ostensibly in order to preserve _my_ rights.
> Jury duty's been debunked.
Not hardly.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
news:Misc-68D4C2.15300222042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>> If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
>> because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
>> contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
>> about "rights".
>
> No, you're stuck thinking that people whose rights have been denied
> them don't have those rights. They still have the rights, they just
> can't exercise them.
I'm not stuck anywhere (except in Texas.) What I've been saying
all along is that the common (sloppy) definition of "rights"
doesn't allow for the fact that rights can be denied or supressed.
"I have a right to walk here." "No you don't. <BANG!>"
> If they didn't have the rights, we wouldn't care, since nothing would
> be being denied them.
>
> It sure SEEMS like you're intentionally playing word-games; I'm having
> a hard time believing that you don't understand what is being said,
> here.
I don't understand what you mean when you say "I have a right to
free speech." I have a decent, yet vague, sense of what I mean
when I say it, but I'm pretty sure most wouldn't agree with what
I mean.
>> > I'm saying this in the sense of "if you steal my stereo, it's STILL
>> > my stereo",
>
>> But is it your "unstealable" stereo, if I steal it?
>
> You're trying to equate "inalienable" with "un-infringable"? (I chose
> that over "undeniable" to avoid the ambiguity.)
I asked you specifically if "infringe" meant "alienate" and you
said they did. I'm not trying to equate them, rather, you
said they were equal.
> "I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
>
> in·al·ien·a·ble
> adj. That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable
> rights
>
> Inalienable means you can't take it away or transfer it to someone
> else. It does NOT mean it is impossible for anyone to deny me said
> thing.
Look at what you're writing, man. 1. "You can't take it away".
vs. 2. "It's not impossible to deny". In what universe is
"taking something away from someone" not tantamount to "deny
said something from someone"?
> You also seem stuck on the idea that a right that is
> infringed/denied/not-exercisable is no right at all and pointless.
Read slower: I'm saying that the given definitions don't
account for a denied right.
>> As I said, I don't have a good definition. That's why I'm
>> asking for one.
>
> ...But you keep griping about the ones given, even the very dictionary
> definition of the word and its most common usage!
The dictionary defines "right" in terms of "just". Since, in
this context, I have the exact same problems with "just", the
dictionary doesn't get us very far. (And why should we
expect it to, when its very nature is circular.)
>> > Seriously, Bart -- you're a smart guy; pitch in, for crying out
>> > loud. SAY SOMETHING!
>
>> That's your usual two-step. If I say something, you whine. If
>> I don't, you whine. <shrug>
>
> No, if you say something, and its wrong, I argue.
Nonsense. I say plenty. You whine whine when you think
I should have said "A" or "B", when I've said "neither".
Indeed, _I_ was whining because no one had said anything,
so _get off my bandwagon, I was here first_.
> A proper argument:
> 1: foo!
> 2: No, not foo, bar!
>
> What you do that is crazy-making:
> 1: Foo!
> 2: Nope, foo is clearly wrong.
More nonsense. If you say "foo" and I explain why "foo"
is wrong, that's a proper argument. "Bar" can well equal
"not foo." Worse, I'm not about to say "bar" until I
know what you meant by "foo".
Occasionally, someone asks me, "Are you a doctor?" Sometimes
I say "yes" and sometimes I say "no." In every case, I try
hard to tell the truth. In order to answer the question
truthfully, I certainly have to know what they meant by
"doctor".
You tell me what you mean by "right" and make it consistant
with how you use it, and then I'll tell you which bits
(if any) I don't agree with.
>> > See, earlier, you appeared to be arguing (without actually saying
>> > anything) that a right doesn't exist if someone isn't free to
>> > exercise it.
>
>> No, I _asked_ how can it be a right if you can't have it? If someone
>> had a decent definition of "right", they'd be able to answer my
>> question. I'm still waiting.
>
> You've been given both a decent definition and an answer to your
> question, several times. You refuse them without stating their
> shortcomings. No answer to you is possible.
Cite?
>> > [J]ury duty is voluntary. I know several people who choose not to
>> > participate.
>
>> Not in any state I've lived in. You either do your duty or go
>> to jail (and going to jail is certainly requiring action.)
>
> You live in Texas, right? Jury duty is voluntary in Texas. If you
> don't want to sign up for jury duty (which is what you sign up for
> when you register to vote), then don't sign up.
>
> It's that simple.
So to avoid jury duty I have to yield my right to vote?
Sounds like coercion to me.
>> So again, Mickey's definition isn't holding water with me,
>> because we have rights which impose on others.
>
> No, you don't. We keep asking you to provide one single example, but
> you have not done so. You keep SAYING that you've done so, but you
> have not.
Of course I have. Jury duty. Military service. Taxes. Having
to deal with unwanted "free" newspapers thrown on my lawn.
> Mickey, Tom & I don't like the draft, either, for the same reason.
And yet, there it is, ostensibly in order to preserve _my_ rights.
> Jury duty's been debunked.
Not hardly.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: Smoke two...
In article <Xns9A88C7483A297goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.89>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> >> > [J]ury duty is voluntary. I know several people who choose not to
> >> > participate.
> >> Not in any state I've lived in. You either do your duty or go
> >> to jail (and going to jail is certainly requiring action.)
> > You live in Texas, right? Jury duty is voluntary in Texas. If you
> > don't want to sign up for jury duty (which is what you sign up for
> > when you register to vote), then don't sign up.
> >
> > It's that simple.
> So to avoid jury duty I have to yield my right to vote?
> Sounds like coercion to me.
No. Pay attention: we're talking about your statement that one person's
rights puts an obligation on another person (or society), which I claim
is false, and repeatedly ask you to provide a single example. You keep
bringing up jury duty as an example of a right that some other person
has that puts an obligation on another person (or society), but it does
not.
YOU claiming YOUR right to vote puts an obligation on YOU to sign-up for
jury-duty. That's it. The rest of us have no obligation.
See? YOU have a right. With it comes YOUR responsibilities and YOUR
obligations. Me, Mickey, Alex and the rest of society has NO
obligations to support your rights.
Get it?
> >> So again, Mickey's definition isn't holding water with me,
> >> because we have rights which impose on others.
> > No, you don't. We keep asking you to provide one single example, but
> > you have not done so. You keep SAYING that you've done so, but you
> > have not.
> Of course I have. Jury duty. Military service. Taxes. Having
> to deal with unwanted "free" newspapers thrown on my lawn.
You said a bunch of words. You have not shown how any person's rights
have imposed obligations on others (let alone all of society.) Above, I
explain in very simple terms how jury duty is not an obligation. (I
HOPE you're not going to argue that it's a right...!)
I have no clue what you mean by military service, taxes or papers on
your lawn. That is, I understand the words (in their common usage), but
have no idea why you say them in the context of "please list a right
that one person has that imposes an obligation on another or on society."
> > Jury duty's been debunked.
> Not hardly.
No, not hardly. Simply, and completely. You have no obligation to jury
duty. (Didn't you used to teach logic...?!)
--
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.
In article <Xns9A88C7483A297goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.89>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> >> > [J]ury duty is voluntary. I know several people who choose not to
> >> > participate.
> >> Not in any state I've lived in. You either do your duty or go
> >> to jail (and going to jail is certainly requiring action.)
> > You live in Texas, right? Jury duty is voluntary in Texas. If you
> > don't want to sign up for jury duty (which is what you sign up for
> > when you register to vote), then don't sign up.
> >
> > It's that simple.
> So to avoid jury duty I have to yield my right to vote?
> Sounds like coercion to me.
No. Pay attention: we're talking about your statement that one person's
rights puts an obligation on another person (or society), which I claim
is false, and repeatedly ask you to provide a single example. You keep
bringing up jury duty as an example of a right that some other person
has that puts an obligation on another person (or society), but it does
not.
YOU claiming YOUR right to vote puts an obligation on YOU to sign-up for
jury-duty. That's it. The rest of us have no obligation.
See? YOU have a right. With it comes YOUR responsibilities and YOUR
obligations. Me, Mickey, Alex and the rest of society has NO
obligations to support your rights.
Get it?
> >> So again, Mickey's definition isn't holding water with me,
> >> because we have rights which impose on others.
> > No, you don't. We keep asking you to provide one single example, but
> > you have not done so. You keep SAYING that you've done so, but you
> > have not.
> Of course I have. Jury duty. Military service. Taxes. Having
> to deal with unwanted "free" newspapers thrown on my lawn.
You said a bunch of words. You have not shown how any person's rights
have imposed obligations on others (let alone all of society.) Above, I
explain in very simple terms how jury duty is not an obligation. (I
HOPE you're not going to argue that it's a right...!)
I have no clue what you mean by military service, taxes or papers on
your lawn. That is, I understand the words (in their common usage), but
have no idea why you say them in the context of "please list a right
that one person has that imposes an obligation on another or on society."
> > Jury duty's been debunked.
> Not hardly.
No, not hardly. Simply, and completely. You have no obligation to jury
duty. (Didn't you used to teach logic...?!)
--
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 news:Misc-
A12E9E.18301022042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> No. Pay attention: we're talking about your statement that one
person's
> rights puts an obligation on another person (or society), which I claim
> is false, and repeatedly ask you to provide a single example. You keep
> bringing up jury duty as an example of a right that some other person
> has that puts an obligation on another person (or society), but it does
> not.
Of course it does. YOU have the right to a jury trial. _I_ am
coerced into serving on the jury. (By the way, Texas doesn't
use the voting rolls to choose jurors. They use the driver's
license rolls.) I think that in anyone's book, "If you don't
submit to jury duty, then you can't drive or vote" is coercion.
> YOU claiming YOUR right to vote puts an obligation on YOU to sign-up
for
> jury-duty.
See? I'm not the one not paying attention. I said nothing
of the sort. I said, rather, that YOUR right to a jury trial
puts an obligation on me. If I shun the obligation, there is
a penalty: I don't get to vote or drive.
>> Of course I have. Jury duty. Military service. Taxes. Having
>> to deal with unwanted "free" newspapers thrown on my lawn.
>
> You said a bunch of words. You have not shown how any person's rights
> have imposed obligations on others (let alone all of society.)
I'm pretty sure I have. In order to ensure my rights, because
they are "rights", the government/society is obliged to take
certain actions. Why? Because I have a "right" to them. If
I didn't have a "right" to them, then what argument do I have
against a government who doesn't bother to ensure them, in order
to get them to start ensuring them?
> Above, I
> explain in very simple terms how jury duty is not an obligation. (I
> HOPE you're not going to argue that it's a right...!)
Of course I am. That is, jury duty is clearly an obligation,
and I'm coerced into it by the government....on YOUR behalf.
> I have no clue what you mean by military service, taxes or papers on
> your lawn. That is, I understand the words (in their common usage),
but
> have no idea why you say them in the context of "please list a right
> that one person has that imposes an obligation on another or on
society."
Two or three times per week, some kid on a skateboard or bike
whizzes by my house and throws a free "newspaper" on my lawn.
This newspaper is useless and unwanted. I've asked several
times to have it not thrown on my lawn. I consider it trash, but
I can't stop them. If I went about the neighborhood throwing
my trash on others' lawns, they'd call the cops and I'd be cited.
But this company hires kids to distribute their newspapers,
and the cops will do nothing to stop them from littering
on my lawn. Why? Because the company has the "right to free
speech", which, evidently, includes their 16 pages of useless
ads and personals. So what happens? _I_ have to go out every
so often and gather up this trash and put it in my dumpster.
If I let it accumulate, I get cited by the city for not keeping
up my yard.
So again, the exercise of someone's "right" forces me to
action.
Further, I'm am obliged to pay taxes in order to pay for
cops who in turn ensure your rights. YOUR rights oblige ME
to pay cops' salaries. Ditto the military.
This doesn't seem that hard. If a person has a right, then
we seem to agree (vaguely) that this is a moral issue. If
some guy has a moral ("just claim") right to something, then
how can I be NOT obliged (justly and morally) to step around
it?
>> > Jury duty's been debunked.
>
>> Not hardly.
>
> No, not hardly. Simply, and completely.
You've already shown that you have some confusion over
whether I meant that jury duty was the right. So you
really need to rethink "simply and completely" until you've
sorted through the issues.
> You have no obligation to jury
> duty. (Didn't you used to teach logic...?!)
Still do, which should give you pause. What do you think
"obligation" means?
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
A12E9E.18301022042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> No. Pay attention: we're talking about your statement that one
person's
> rights puts an obligation on another person (or society), which I claim
> is false, and repeatedly ask you to provide a single example. You keep
> bringing up jury duty as an example of a right that some other person
> has that puts an obligation on another person (or society), but it does
> not.
Of course it does. YOU have the right to a jury trial. _I_ am
coerced into serving on the jury. (By the way, Texas doesn't
use the voting rolls to choose jurors. They use the driver's
license rolls.) I think that in anyone's book, "If you don't
submit to jury duty, then you can't drive or vote" is coercion.
> YOU claiming YOUR right to vote puts an obligation on YOU to sign-up
for
> jury-duty.
See? I'm not the one not paying attention. I said nothing
of the sort. I said, rather, that YOUR right to a jury trial
puts an obligation on me. If I shun the obligation, there is
a penalty: I don't get to vote or drive.
>> Of course I have. Jury duty. Military service. Taxes. Having
>> to deal with unwanted "free" newspapers thrown on my lawn.
>
> You said a bunch of words. You have not shown how any person's rights
> have imposed obligations on others (let alone all of society.)
I'm pretty sure I have. In order to ensure my rights, because
they are "rights", the government/society is obliged to take
certain actions. Why? Because I have a "right" to them. If
I didn't have a "right" to them, then what argument do I have
against a government who doesn't bother to ensure them, in order
to get them to start ensuring them?
> Above, I
> explain in very simple terms how jury duty is not an obligation. (I
> HOPE you're not going to argue that it's a right...!)
Of course I am. That is, jury duty is clearly an obligation,
and I'm coerced into it by the government....on YOUR behalf.
> I have no clue what you mean by military service, taxes or papers on
> your lawn. That is, I understand the words (in their common usage),
but
> have no idea why you say them in the context of "please list a right
> that one person has that imposes an obligation on another or on
society."
Two or three times per week, some kid on a skateboard or bike
whizzes by my house and throws a free "newspaper" on my lawn.
This newspaper is useless and unwanted. I've asked several
times to have it not thrown on my lawn. I consider it trash, but
I can't stop them. If I went about the neighborhood throwing
my trash on others' lawns, they'd call the cops and I'd be cited.
But this company hires kids to distribute their newspapers,
and the cops will do nothing to stop them from littering
on my lawn. Why? Because the company has the "right to free
speech", which, evidently, includes their 16 pages of useless
ads and personals. So what happens? _I_ have to go out every
so often and gather up this trash and put it in my dumpster.
If I let it accumulate, I get cited by the city for not keeping
up my yard.
So again, the exercise of someone's "right" forces me to
action.
Further, I'm am obliged to pay taxes in order to pay for
cops who in turn ensure your rights. YOUR rights oblige ME
to pay cops' salaries. Ditto the military.
This doesn't seem that hard. If a person has a right, then
we seem to agree (vaguely) that this is a moral issue. If
some guy has a moral ("just claim") right to something, then
how can I be NOT obliged (justly and morally) to step around
it?
>> > Jury duty's been debunked.
>
>> Not hardly.
>
> No, not hardly. Simply, and completely.
You've already shown that you have some confusion over
whether I meant that jury duty was the right. So you
really need to rethink "simply and completely" until you've
sorted through the issues.
> You have no obligation to jury
> duty. (Didn't you used to teach logic...?!)
Still do, which should give you pause. What do you think
"obligation" means?
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 23 Apr 2008, 08:00
-- deleted messages --
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 23 Apr 2008, 08:58
-- deleted messages --
