 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » What is a Right?... |
|
Page 6 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Rod Speed... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
*Anarcissie* wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 6:59 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:11 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:46 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:10 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 25, 9:54 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 25, 12:44 am, David Johnston <da... at (no spam) block.net> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:34:08 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that
prohibits all other persons from acting in certain ways toward
that individual. For example, your right to life prohibits all
other persons from killing you.
So it's wishful thinking, then?
Not necessarily. As Anarcissie points out, rights exist within
legal frameworks, although I don't think the framework is
restricted to 'liberalism'. If you have a 'right to life', the
legal framework may be designed to minimize the probability that
you will be denied that right. One example would be deterrent
effects of criminal law, another would be the provision of
health care.
In both cases, there is obviously no guarantee, but the 'right'
can be said to 'exist' within the context of a State legal
system. Outside of this, of course, the term is meaningless
drivel.
I mentioned liberalism only because I thought people
would be familiar with it and it is liberals (libertarians)
who tend to be most excited about rights. Actually, we
don't need liberalism or the state to have rights, but
some sort of framework is necessary.
What sort of 'framework'? Absent a State, with a functioning legal
system, there simply isn't any meaning to the term 'rights'. Of
course one may envision a legal system that is enforced
independent of the need for a State to control land/resources, and
given the proper conditions that might exist. But there would
still be some degree of coercion.
***
Coercion fades off into persuasion and convenience. It
is not hard to imagine a community in which there was no
state but instead traditions were observed.
Ah, the passive tense---but I didn't think you were a politician  .
There is a difference between persuasion and convenience (utility),
and persuasion is akin to coercion.
These traditions
might prescribe, for example, that mothers of children be
granted a certain amount of land (Navaho) or have the
right to play certain songs, engage in certain rituals or
dances, invoke certain spirits.
Here's the problem. Let's say that Navajo child-rearing, minimally
coercive, results in universal adherence to tradition (some set of
rules). What purpose is served by having the term (or concept)
"rights"? Doesn't the behavior we are talking about then attach to
the actor (right action) rather than the person towards whom he is
acting?
The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
area of freedom which both protects and limits the
freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
both moral and utilitarian reasons.
Feudal polities had longs
lists of rights, for example a lord might have a right to
summon various services from his vassals -- but I
suppose you might consider such a polity a state.
I have to add, at a certain risk of provoking ranting,
that some people believe that rights are given by
the gods, or arise out of nature. In this case the gods
or nature provide the framework.
Eh. So what?
So these people believe that rights exist without
the state or community traditions or any other
human agency. Since we don't know what's really
real, maybe there _are_ gods who endow us with
inalienable rights, or something like that.
[/quote]
Or maybe not and we decide that stuff for ourselves
because society works better with those rights etc. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Beam Me Up Scotty... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
1Z wrote:
[quote]On 27 Oct, 17:29, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
1Z wrote:
On 25 Oct, 17:25, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from killing you.
It also means that you have a right to assistence to stop you from dying as well.
A right to buy assistance, but no right to force others to supply it.
Putting liberty ahead of life is nonsense,
because removing someone's life is removing their liberty.
Requiring someone to make affordable mandatory payments is
slight encroachment on their liberty. Allowing someone
to die unnecessarily is a much greater encroachment on theirs,
because the dead have zero freedom. (It could even
be the same someone).
I have no legal requirement to risk my health or life to save you.
The orgininal question was whether you had any legal or moral
obligations
of that kind. You introduced the rider "risk my health or life".
[/quote]
It is always a risk, I explained that.
You seem to think saving people is a no risk endeavor, obviously you
haven't been at it long.
[quote]Do I know if you have aids.... do I know if you are carrying a gun or
knife?
I was asing you to pay your taxes.
[/quote]
That is not a requirement either. Maybe that $100 will save me from
dieing next week when I get sick and need a doctor.
Why do you have a right to steal my money to buy other people cheeze and
beer and cigarettes when that money is needed by me to buy prescriptions
to keep me alive? Should I die so those "poor" get money for cheese and
a flat screen TV?
Maybe you tax me $100,000 and I need that money for a heart
transplant... you are willing to kill me so you can have a "Plate
Museum" paid for with my tax dollars?
Thank you for your help. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
[quote]1Z wrote
Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from killing you.
It also means that you have a right to assistence to stop you from dying as well.
A right to buy assistance, but no right to force others to supply it.
Putting liberty ahead of life is nonsense,
because removing someone's life is removing their liberty.
Requiring someone to make affordable mandatory payments
is slight encroachment on their liberty. Allowing someone
to die unnecessarily is a much greater encroachment on theirs,
because the dead have zero freedom. (It could even
be the same someone).
I have no legal requirement to risk my health or life to save you.
[/quote]
Correct, but in most modern first and second world countrys,
you do have a legal requirement to assist when that does not
risk your health or life to save someone else when that is possible.
[quote]Do I know if you have aids.... do I know if you are carrying a gun or knife?
[/quote]
Perfectly possible for even someone as stupid as you to call
911 and do so in a way that avoids any risk from any of those.
[quote]Are you an escaped killer or a Priest?
[/quote]
Perfectly possible for even someone as stupid as you to call
911 and do so in a way that avoids any risk from any of those.
[quote]Do I have the knowledge or tools to save you?
[/quote]
Dont need either, thats what 911 has in spades.
[quote]If I choose to watch you die, that is my decision.
[/quote]
And your crime in most modern first and second world countrys now.
[quote]You are stuck, you better hope you are a compelling person that I want to save...
[/quote]
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What you might or might not want in spades.
[quote]By the way I did save a 12 year old kid in the unguarded
water at the beach... But kids are mostly descent people.
[/quote]
Yes, they are usually descendants of their parents etc.
[quote]Funny that no one else would risk their life to get
that kid, good thing I'm a fairly strong swimmer.
Can you hold a Doctor at gun point to get that assistance?
Can you be held responsible for failing to preserve someone's life?
Yes.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
WILL YOU STOP FUCKING AROUND WITH THE ATTRIBUTIONS.
James A. Donald wrote:
[quote]Rod Speed wrote
James A. Donald wrote
If the government gives you a "right", then it cannot be a right:
Mindlessly silly. Have fun explaining the Bill of Rights.
Those rights are not given by the government.
[/quote]
So it was the fairys at the bottom of the garden that produced the Bill of Rights eh ?
Why didnt someone tell me ?
[quote]Example:"the right to health care", which in practice means
the right to be put on a waiting list to be evaluated to see if
someone else thinks you need health care sufficiently to be
put on another waiting list to actually get it.
Even sillier, most obviously with life threatening medical
problems where there is no waiting list whatever.
Cancer is life threatening, and the longer the operation
is delayed, the less likely it is to be successful.
There is a waiting list for cancer operations. Heart
disease is life threatening. There is a waiting list for
heart operations. And so on and so forth.
[/quote]
There is no waiting list for those who are having a heart attack, you silly little pathological liar. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James A. Donald wrote
[quote]Michael Gordge <mikegordge at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote
Constantinople <constantinop... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
No it's not, because we can't explain how
anything is distinguished from anything else,
Oh so you cant explain how that garbage is distinguish from
any other Kantian garbage that you have ever regurgitated?
Can you explain how to distinguish an apple from a pear?
[/quote]
Nope, its one of those things thats a hell of a lot easier to do than to explain.
Even someone as stupid as you can usually manage it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Coffee's For Closers... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <79a3e406-89d4-49e9-b18c-
5e1a822cf5af at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, peterdjones at (no spam) yahoo.com
says...
[quote]On 25 Oct, 17:25, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from killing you.
It also means that you have a right to assistence to stop you from dying as well.
[/quote]
[quote]A right to buy assistance, but no right to force others to supply it.
[/quote]
[quote]Putting liberty ahead of life is nonsense,
because removing someone's life is removing their liberty.
Requiring someone to make affordable mandatory payments is
slight encroachment on their liberty. Allowing someone
to die unnecessarily is a much greater encroachment on theirs,
because the dead have zero freedom. (It could even
be the same someone).
[/quote]
[quote]Can you hold a Doctor at gun point to get that assistance?
[/quote]
[quote]Can you be held responsible for failing to preserve someone's
life?
Yes.
[/quote]
Can the local supermarket be held responsible for refusing to
give me free food? Can a landlord be held responsible for
refusing to give me free shelter?
Do I have a legal or moral right to hold a gun to YOUR head, to
extort my life-sustaining needs, like food and shelter?
And what about people whose health problems are self-inflicted?
Do they have a "right" to hold others responsible for their
obesity, smoking-related cancer, and other life-threatening
conditions?
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Principle... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:09:59 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 25, 9:44 am, Peter Principle <petesfe... at (no spam) SNIPITgmail.com
wrote:
.......Idiotic meaningless Kantian garbage snipped.
[/quote]
How about that! Right on cue!
FYI, only cowards snip away that which they can't address. Congratulations!
[quote]Mortal is stupid and has an excuse, he is uncertain that he exists,
however you are a complete and utter fucking idiot and have no excuse,
unless of course ewe are also uncertain of your own existence.
MG
[/quote]
Ah, so, now I see the problem. He's not just stupid. He's crazy, too.
My, what a charming combination...
Now, as a public service, and because it bothers the shit our of bat shit
crazy stupid assholes like this idiot, here, again, is the response that
scared him so badly that he snipped it all, then ran away like a WATB...
<yawn>
Oh, look, it's another knee jerk moron leaping huge chasms of logic only to
arrive at ridiculous, absurd, unsupported and completely erroneous
positions...
FYI, Dip Thunker, that was a TWEAK to the other idiot. Had you the cognitive
capacity of a bright 8th grader you might know that the créme de la dumb of
the rightarded loonytoonians are, like Ron "Nutball" Paul, actually far
right wing KKKristian superstitious imbeciles who conveniently ignore the
fact that their hero Rand had nothing but contempt for religion in general
and their religion in particular.
That there are non religious loonytoonian maroonian Rand fart smellers every
bit as deluded as their superstitious political brethren should hardly come
as a shock. One of the few things as patently ridiculous as fundamental
Christianity is Ayn Rand's style libertarianism. As I said, and you, Dip
Thunker, apparently missed, most sentient upright walkers grow out of Ayn
Rand by 16.
Boy, howdy, dat kowardlee schnippin' shore dun werkt gud fer ya, eh, Dip
Thunker? Well, you know that they say about repeating the same failed action
over and over again, each time expecting a different outcome...
Then again, obviously no. Seems it's a subject with which your bat shit
crazy stupid ass is completely unfamiliar.
<cue kook.fart lagniappe>
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
....the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
[quote]1Z wrote
Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote
1Z wrote
Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n- dog.com> wrote
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from killing you.
It also means that you have a right to
assistence to stop you from dying as well.
A right to buy assistance, but no right to force others to supply it.
Putting liberty ahead of life is nonsense,
because removing someone's life is removing their liberty.
Requiring someone to make affordable mandatory payments is
slight encroachment on their liberty. Allowing someone
to die unnecessarily is a much greater encroachment on theirs,
because the dead have zero freedom. (It could even
be the same someone).
I have no legal requirement to risk my health or life to save you.
The orgininal question was whether you had any legal or moral
obligations of that kind. You introduced the rider "risk my health or life".
It is always a risk,
[/quote]
Irrelevant to what the law requires.
[quote]I explained that.
[/quote]
You lied about that, actually.
[quote]You seem to think saving people is a no risk endeavor,
[/quote]
You're lying, again.
[quote]obviously you haven't been at it long.
[/quote]
You've been lying for a long time.
[quote]Do I know if you have aids.... do I know if you are carrying a gun or knife?
I was asing you to pay your taxes.
That is not a requirement either.
[/quote]
Corse it is.
[quote]Maybe that $100 will save me from dieing next week when I get sick and need a doctor.
[/quote]
Or maybe not when that wont come even close to paying for what you need when you have a heart attack etc.
[quote]Why do you have a right to steal my money to
buy other people cheeze and beer and cigarettes
[/quote]
You're lying about that, again.
[quote]when that money is needed by me to buy prescriptions to keep me alive?
[/quote]
For the same reason you have to pay your taxes, even if that doesnt allow
you enough left to buy your prescriptions to keep you alive. You get to pay
your share of what the voters have decided that they want govt to do.
[quote]Should I die so those "poor" get money for cheese and a flat screen TV?
[/quote]
You're lying about that too.
[quote]Maybe you tax me $100,000 and I need that money for a heart
transplant... you are willing to kill me so you can have a "Plate
Museum" paid for with my tax dollars?
Thank you for your help.
[/quote]
No thanks for your lying. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Principle... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:04:08 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 5:53 am, Peter Principle <petesfe... at (no spam) SNIPITgmail.com
wrote:
Christianity is Ayn Rand's style libertarianism.
Ewe dumb leftist religious commie cunt, ewe've already proved that ewe
know nothing of Ayn Rand.
[/quote]
Ah, how charming! He's not just a run-of-the-mill net.kook idiot. Oh, no.
He's the créme de la dumb, a bat shit crazy forging lying net.kook troll.
Man, just how fucking PATHETIC must one be before LYING by snipping away all
context seems something other than stupid, crazy and just plain
embarrassing? Your answer is of great interest, as the rest of us have will
never know any other way.
Boy, howdy, dat kowardlee schnippin' shore dun werkt gud fer ya, eh, Dip
Thunker? Well, you know that they say about repeating the same failed action
over and over again, each time expecting a different outcome...
Then again, obviously no. Seems it's a subject with which your bat shit
crazy stupid ass is completely unfamiliar.
Now, as a public service, and because it bothers the shit our of bat shit
crazy stupid assholes like this idiot, here, again, is the response that
scared him so badly that he snipped it all, then ran away like a WATB...
<yawn>
Oh, look, it's another knee jerk moron leaping huge chasms of logic only to
arrive at ridiculous, absurd, unsupported and completely erroneous
positions...
FYI, Dip Thunker, that was a TWEAK to the other idiot. Had you the cognitive
capacity of a bright 8th grader you might know that the créme de la dumb of
the rightarded loonytoonians are, like Ron "Nutball" Paul, actually far
right wing KKKristian superstitious imbeciles who conveniently ignore the
fact that their hero Rand had nothing but contempt for religion in general
and their religion in particular.
That there are non religious loonytoonian maroonian Rand fart smellers every
bit as deluded as their superstitious political brethren should hardly come
as a shock. One of the few things as patently ridiculous as fundamental
Christianity is Ayn Rand's style libertarianism. As I said, and you, Dip
Thunker, apparently missed, most sentient upright walkers grow out of Ayn
Rand by 16.
<cue kook.fart lagniappe>
Now, just for you, kooklet...
You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we
say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions
printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather
kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in
the Islets of Langerhans.
You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a
cad, and a weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on a
weasel's rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench,
a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at
the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are
a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. You are a technicolor yawn.
And did I mention that you smell?
You are a squeaking rat, a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal bagpipe
player. You were not born. You were hatched into an unwilling world
that rejects the likes of you. You didn't crawl out of a normal egg,
either, but rather a mutant maggot egg rejected by an evil scientist
as being below his low standards. Your alleged parents abandoned you
at birth and then died of shame in recognition of what they had done
to an unsuspecting world. They were a bit late.
Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting
to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a
nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able
to access it ever so much more rapidly. If cluelessness were crude
oil, your scalp would be crawling with caribou.
You are a thick-headed trog. I have seen skeet with more sense than
you have. You are a few bricks short of a full load, a few cards short
of a full deck, a few bytes short of a full core dump, and a few
chromosomes short of a full human. Worse than that, you top-post. God
created houseflies, cockroaches, maggots, mosquitos, fleas, ticks,
slugs, leeches, and intestinal parasites, then he lowered his
standards and made you. I take it back; God didn't make you. You are
Satan's spawn. You are Evil beyond comprehension, half-living in the
slough of despair. You are the entropy which will claim us all. You
are a green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered inbred
trout-defiler. You make Ebola look good.
You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with
you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in
a land that reality forgot. You are not ANSI compliant and your markup
doesn't validate. You have a couple of address lines shorted together.
You should be promoted to Engineering Manager.
Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to be
read? Everyone plonked you long ago. Do you fantasize that your
tantrums and conniption fits could possibly be worth the $0.000000001
worth of electricity used to send them? Your life is one big
W.O.M.B.A.T. and your future doesn't look promising either. We need to
trace your bloodline and terminate all siblings and cousins in order
to cleanse humanity of your polluted genes. The good news is that no
normal human would ever mate with you, so we won't have to go into the
sewers in search of your git.
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
loathsome disease, a drooling inbred cross-eyed toesucker. You make
Quakers shout and strike Pentecostals silent. You have a version 1.0
mind in a version 6.12 world. Your mother had to tie a pork chop
around your neck just to get your dog to play with you. You think
that HTTP://WWW.GUYMACON.COM/FUN/INSULT/INDEX.HTM is the name of a
rock band. You believe that P.D.Q. Bach is the greatest composer who
ever lived. You prefer L. Ron Hubbard to Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You would watch test patterns
all day if the other inmates would let you.
On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are
deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
Spammers look down on you. Phone sex operators hang up on you.
Telemarketers refuse to be seen in public with you. You are the source
of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.
May you choke on your own foolish opinions. You are a Pusillanimous
galactophage and you wear your sister's training bra. Don't bother
opening the door when you leave - you should be able to slime your
way out underneath. I hope that when you get home your mother runs
out from under the porch and bites you.
You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock.
You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted
boggish foot-licking half-twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You
gormless crook-pated tosser. You bloody churlish boil-brained clotpole
ponce. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You cockered
bum-bailey poofter. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You
dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. May your
spouse be blessed with many bastards.
You are so clueless that if you dressed in a clue skin, doused yourself
in clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny
clues at the height of clue mating season, you still would not have a
clue. If you were a movie you would be a double feature;
_Battlefield_Earth_ and _Moron_Movies_II_. You would be out of focus.
You are a fiend and a sniveling coward, and you have bad breath. You
are the unholy spawn of a bandy-legged hobo and a syphilitic camel.
You wear strangely mismatched clothing with oddly placed stains. You
are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just knowing that
you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go
away. You are jetsam who dreams of becoming flotsam. You won't make
it. I beg for sweet death to come and remove me from a world which
became unbearable when you crawled out of a harpy's lair.
It is hard to believe how incredibly stupid you are. Stupid as a stone
that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that you have traveled
far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to
a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium.
Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid.
Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one
minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot
be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid.
This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure
extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws
of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of
stupid. After this experience, you may not hear from me for a while.
I don't think that I can summon the strength left to mock your moronic
opinions and malformed comments about boring trivia or your other
drivel. Duh.
The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped
away most of your of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't
really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was
pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a
load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after
you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal"
people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering.
But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this
world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this
was true in your case then I would have never have exposed myself to
what you wrote. It just wouldn't have been "right." Sort of like
parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the
emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a
demand on you.
P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable,
belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame,
self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent,
libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, EDLINoid,
illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic,
fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim,
crazy, weird, dyspeptic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim,
unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive,
mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, and Generally Not Good.
I hope this helps...
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
....the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Coffee's For Closers wrote:
[quote]In article <79a3e406-89d4-49e9-b18c-
5e1a822cf5af at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, peterdjones at (no spam) yahoo.com
says...
On 25 Oct, 17:25, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
killing you.
It also means that you have a right to assistence to stop you
from dying as well.
A right to buy assistance, but no right to force others to supply
it.
Putting liberty ahead of life is nonsense,
because removing someone's life is removing their liberty.
Requiring someone to make affordable mandatory payments is
slight encroachment on their liberty. Allowing someone
to die unnecessarily is a much greater encroachment on theirs,
because the dead have zero freedom. (It could even
be the same someone).
Can you hold a Doctor at gun point to get that assistance?
Can you be held responsible for failing to preserve someone's life?
Yes.
Can the local supermarket be held responsible for refusing to give me free food?
[/quote]
Yes, if they are stupid enough to refuse food stamps.
[quote]Can a landlord be held responsible for refusing to give me free shelter?
[/quote]
Yes, when that landlord is the govt and the law requires welfare housing.
[quote]Do I have a legal or moral right to hold a gun to YOUR head,
to extort my life-sustaining needs, like food and shelter?
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]And what about people whose health problems are self-inflicted?
Do they have a "right" to hold others responsible for their obesity,
smoking-related cancer, and other life-threatening conditions?
[/quote]
Nope, but just like the insurance system has to cover those too,
so does any viable replacement for the insurance system too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Coffee's For Closers... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <58840e8c-3c52-44d8-8ec7-
78efabdda11d at (no spam) v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, peterdjones at (no spam) yahoo.com
says...
[quote]On 27 Oct, 20:41, Coffee's For Closers <Usenet2... at (no spam) THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG
wrote:
In article <79a3e406-89d4-49e9-b18c-
5e1a822cf... at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com
says...
Requiring someone to make affordable mandatory payments is
slight encroachment on their liberty. Allowing someone
to die unnecessarily is a much greater encroachment on theirs,
because the dead have zero freedom. (It could even
be the same someone).
Can you hold a Doctor at gun point to get that assistance?
Can you be held responsible for failing to preserve someone's
life?
Yes.
[/quote]
[quote]Can the local supermarket be held responsible for refusing to
give me free food?
[/quote]
[quote]This is gettign repetititive.
No, but the local welfare office can be held responsible for giving
you food stamps
[/quote]
Do you really believe that, the government cannot change the
rules to reduce eligibility for, and amounts of, welfare?
Remember the Clinton reforms in 1996?
And, what would you do if you showed up at that local welfare
office, and it was closed, because all of the employees decided
that they didn't feel like working to support themselves? And
were sitting at home, expecting someone to simply give them
whatever they needed?
Do you believe that it is possible to have a society where
EVERYONE has all of their needs met, without having to do any
work? Do you think that, "free" means resources just magically
appearing?
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Coffee's For Closers wrote:
[quote]In article <58840e8c-3c52-44d8-8ec7-
78efabdda11d at (no spam) v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, peterdjones at (no spam) yahoo.com
says...
On 27 Oct, 20:41, Coffee's For Closers <Usenet2... at (no spam) THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG
wrote:
In article <79a3e406-89d4-49e9-b18c-
5e1a822cf... at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com
says...
Requiring someone to make affordable mandatory payments is
slight encroachment on their liberty. Allowing someone
to die unnecessarily is a much greater encroachment on theirs,
because the dead have zero freedom. (It could even
be the same someone).
Can you hold a Doctor at gun point to get that assistance?
Can you be held responsible for failing to preserve someone's
life?
Yes.
Can the local supermarket be held responsible for refusing to
give me free food?
This is gettign repetititive.
No, but the local welfare office can be held responsible for giving
you food stamps
Do you really believe that, the government cannot change the
rules to reduce eligibility for, and amounts of, welfare?
Remember the Clinton reforms in 1996?
And, what would you do if you showed up at that local welfare
office, and it was closed, because all of the employees decided
that they didn't feel like working to support themselves? And
were sitting at home, expecting someone to simply give them
whatever they needed?
Do you believe that it is possible to have a society where
EVERYONE has all of their needs met, without having to do any
work? Do you think that, "free" means resources just magically
appearing?
[/quote]
I think there is such a thing as the technological
singularity, and that what you describe might just be an asymtopic state
we may very slowly converge towards.
--
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 5:05 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 3:30 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 9:17 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 27, 8:38 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 6:59 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:11 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:46 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:10 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 25, 9:54 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 25, 12:44 am, David Johnston <da... at (no spam) block.net> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:34:08 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
killing you.
So it's wishful thinking, then?
Not necessarily. As Anarcissie points out, rights exist within legal
frameworks, although I don't think the framework is restricted to
'liberalism'. If you have a 'right to life', the legal framework may
be designed to minimize the probability that you will be denied that
right. One example would be deterrent effects of criminal law, another
would be the provision of health care.
In both cases, there is obviously no guarantee, but the 'right' can be
said to 'exist' within the context of a State legal system. Outside of
this, of course, the term is meaningless drivel.
I mentioned liberalism only because I thought people
would be familiar with it and it is liberals (libertarians)
who tend to be most excited about rights. Actually, we
don't need liberalism or the state to have rights, but
some sort of framework is necessary.
What sort of 'framework'? Absent a State, with a functioning legal
system, there simply isn't any meaning to the term 'rights'. Of
course one may envision a legal system that is enforced independent of
the need for a State to control land/resources, and given the proper
conditions that might exist. But there would still be some degree of
coercion.
***
Coercion fades off into persuasion and convenience. It
is not hard to imagine a community in which there was no
state but instead traditions were observed.
Ah, the passive tense---but I didn't think you were a politician .
There is a difference between persuasion and convenience (utility),
and persuasion is akin to coercion.
These traditions
might prescribe, for example, that mothers of children be
granted a certain amount of land (Navaho) or have the
right to play certain songs, engage in certain rituals or
dances, invoke certain spirits.
***
Here's the problem. Let's say that Navajo child-rearing, minimally
coercive, results in universal adherence to tradition (some set of
rules). What purpose is served by having the term (or concept)
"rights"? Doesn't the behavior we are talking about then attach to
the actor (right action) rather than the person towards whom he is
acting?
The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
area of freedom which both protects and limits the
freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
both moral and utilitarian reasons.
Sure, but this doesn't answer my question. The socially constructed
framework I describe attributes no 'rights' to individuals. It simply
articulates what in some traditions would be called Right Action. So,
if members of the community follow the rule "Thou shalt not kill.",
and the rule "Give of your wealth that your sick neighbor may be
cured.", and so on, what possible use is the idea of 'a right to
life'? This just seems like something that property-arians find
appealing; something that they can 'own'.
If people enjoy dealing with the world through property
relations and property-like entities, then that is "use" --
utility -- to them. It's a way of thinking about things. If
the tribal traditions prescribe that you can cut down and
use one tree from the tribal preserve per month, you can
construe that in a variety of more or less equivalent ways,
one of which is "owning" the right to one tree per month.
Perhaps the tribal traditions also prescribe that the
entitlement to one tree per month can be transferred
to another, so now you can "sell" or "give" the right to
someone. It's just a way of thinking and talking about
the situation.
Yes, and now you've set up a State with control of resources. I've
stipulated several times that 'rights' *are* meaningful when they are
part of such a legal system, with the enforcement capacity of a State
or State-like entity.
[/quote]
I don't see any necessary state, unless you're using
the term very, very broadly. A set of traditional beliefs
about how things should be done, enforced by the
people in general does not strike me as a state.
[quote]In the case *I* described, people who would think in terms of 'rights'
as property would do so for irrational religious reasons or as part of
a psycho-pathology. I'm sure that serial killers find utility in their
approach to the world as well.
[/quote]
That seems irrelevant. And everyone works off irrational religious
reasons, because our knowledge of the universe is extremely
limited and we have to proceed based on beliefs. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nic... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 30 Oct, 22:19, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 5:05 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 27, 3:30 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 9:17 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 27, 8:38 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 6:59 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:11 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:46 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:10 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 25, 9:54 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 25, 12:44 am, David Johnston <da... at (no spam) block.net> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:34:08 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
killing you.
So it's wishful thinking, then?
Not necessarily. As Anarcissie points out, rights exist within legal
frameworks, although I don't think the framework is restricted to
'liberalism'. If you have a 'right to life', the legal framework may
be designed to minimize the probability that you will be denied that
right. One example would be deterrent effects of criminal law, another
would be the provision of health care.
In both cases, there is obviously no guarantee, but the 'right' can be
said to 'exist' within the context of a State legal system. Outside of
this, of course, the term is meaningless drivel.
I mentioned liberalism only because I thought people
would be familiar with it and it is liberals (libertarians)
who tend to be most excited about rights. Actually, we
don't need liberalism or the state to have rights, but
some sort of framework is necessary.
What sort of 'framework'? Absent a State, with a functioning legal
system, there simply isn't any meaning to the term 'rights'.. Of
course one may envision a legal system that is enforced independent of
the need for a State to control land/resources, and given the proper
conditions that might exist. But there would still be some degree of
coercion.
***
Coercion fades off into persuasion and convenience. It
is not hard to imagine a community in which there was no
state but instead traditions were observed.
Ah, the passive tense---but I didn't think you were a politician .
There is a difference between persuasion and convenience (utility),
and persuasion is akin to coercion.
These traditions
might prescribe, for example, that mothers of children be
granted a certain amount of land (Navaho) or have the
right to play certain songs, engage in certain rituals or
dances, invoke certain spirits.
***
Here's the problem. Let's say that Navajo child-rearing, minimally
coercive, results in universal adherence to tradition (some set of
rules). What purpose is served by having the term (or concept)
"rights"? Doesn't the behavior we are talking about then attach to
the actor (right action) rather than the person towards whom he is
acting?
The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
area of freedom which both protects and limits the
freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
both moral and utilitarian reasons.
Sure, but this doesn't answer my question. The socially constructed
framework I describe attributes no 'rights' to individuals. It simply
articulates what in some traditions would be called Right Action. So,
if members of the community follow the rule "Thou shalt not kill.",
and the rule "Give of your wealth that your sick neighbor may be
cured.", and so on, what possible use is the idea of 'a right to
life'? This just seems like something that property-arians find
appealing; something that they can 'own'.
If people enjoy dealing with the world through property
relations and property-like entities, then that is "use" --
utility -- to them. It's a way of thinking about things. If
the tribal traditions prescribe that you can cut down and
use one tree from the tribal preserve per month, you can
construe that in a variety of more or less equivalent ways,
one of which is "owning" the right to one tree per month.
Perhaps the tribal traditions also prescribe that the
entitlement to one tree per month can be transferred
to another, so now you can "sell" or "give" the right to
someone. It's just a way of thinking and talking about
the situation.
Yes, and now you've set up a State with control of resources. I've
stipulated several times that 'rights' *are* meaningful when they are
part of such a legal system, with the enforcement capacity of a State
or State-like entity.
I don't see any necessary state, unless you're using
the term very, very broadly. A set of traditional beliefs
about how things should be done, enforced by the
people in general does not strike me as a state.
In the case *I* described, people who would think in terms of 'rights'
as property would do so for irrational religious reasons or as part of
a psycho-pathology. I'm sure that serial killers find utility in their
approach to the world as well.
That seems irrelevant. And everyone works off irrational religious
reasons, because our knowledge of the universe is extremely
limited and we have to proceed based on beliefs.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
hey bitch aint never seen you on this site before! lookin fer a blow
bacj heh!? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 6:19 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]acting?
The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
area of freedom which both protects and limits the
freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
both moral and utilitarian reasons.
Sure, but this doesn't answer my question. The socially constructed
framework I describe attributes no 'rights' to individuals. It simply
articulates what in some traditions would be called Right Action. So,
if members of the community follow the rule "Thou shalt not kill.",
and the rule "Give of your wealth that your sick neighbor may be
cured.", and so on, what possible use is the idea of 'a right to
life'? This just seems like something that property-arians find
appealing; something that they can 'own'.
If people enjoy dealing with the world through property
relations and property-like entities, then that is "use" --
utility -- to them. It's a way of thinking about things. If
the tribal traditions prescribe that you can cut down and
use one tree from the tribal preserve per month, you can
construe that in a variety of more or less equivalent ways,
one of which is "owning" the right to one tree per month.
Perhaps the tribal traditions also prescribe that the
entitlement to one tree per month can be transferred
to another, so now you can "sell" or "give" the right to
someone. It's just a way of thinking and talking about
the situation.
Yes, and now you've set up a State with control of resources. I've
stipulated several times that 'rights' *are* meaningful when they are
part of such a legal system, with the enforcement capacity of a State
or State-like entity.
I don't see any necessary state, unless you're using
the term very, very broadly. A set of traditional beliefs
about how things should be done, enforced by the
people in general does not strike me as a state.
[/quote]
How is the 'tribal preserve' different from a State? Clearly, the
tribe controls the trees and excludes non-tribe members from using
them. Clearly, there is scarcity, otherwise why would there be a
limit on cutting?
Your problem is to demonstrate the meaning of 'the right to cut trees'
when there are more than enough trees. That's my point below. Your
response doesn't address that either.
-tg
[quote]
In the case *I* described, people who would think in terms of 'rights'
as property would do so for irrational religious reasons or as part of
a psycho-pathology. I'm sure that serial killers find utility in their
approach to the world as well.
That seems irrelevant. And everyone works off irrational religious
reasons, because our knowledge of the universe is extremely
limited and we have to proceed based on beliefs.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:22 am
|
|