 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » More on: "What is a Right?"... |
|
Page 6 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Michael Gordge... |
 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 8:22 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]You're always free to fuck off to Somalia any time you decide they do it better there.
[/quote]
That is without doubt the most disgusting, cowardly and evasive action
to which all left and right wing knuckle-dragging wankers resort, ewe
fucking immoral anti-human repugnant cockheads refuse to rationally
justify your positions, so ewes resort instead to telling a human
being that the meaning of life is avoiding death.
Go fuck yourself ewe utterly confused right wing / leftist immoral
cockhead.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 8, 5:58 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]You're lying, as always. I always support my assertions, fuckwit.
[/quote]
You fucking disgusting confused right wing leftist piece of lying
crap, if ewe always supported your assertions then ewe would never had
told me that the meaning of human life is avoiding death.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Johnston... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:47:31 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]David Johnston wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Doug Bashford wrote
If the owner of the largest right arm at any given time
is also one that endures, it is called stable government
Mindlessly silly, most obviously with banditry and warlords.
I fail to see what is obvious to you.
Thats because you have wanked yourself completely blind.
Bandits and warlords are not noted for their endurance.
Neither are govts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, stupid.
[/quote]
And those governments are not called "stable" governments for just
that reason. Try again. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Johnston... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:53:14 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]David Johnston wrote
Michael Gordge <mikegordge at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that
the grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction)
will not act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions
meet certain criteria.
You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to
rights - How does the state determine that "certain criteria"?
With laws.
Try telling that to all those jews that ended up dead in the holocaust.
[/quote]
Your response has no bearing on what I said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Johnston... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:45:23 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 4:56 pm, David Johnston <da... at (no spam) block.net> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:28 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that the
grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction) will not
act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions meet certain
criteria.
You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to rights - How
does the state determine that "certain criteria"?
With laws.
Laws plucked from thin air? what laws? where did the laws come from?
[/quote]
Politicians. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 8:28 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]No they didnt. If that was true, there wouldnt have been any need for any amendments.
[/quote]
The amendments were never meant to be in contradiction / violation of
the over-all intent of the constitution, which they have been.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Johnston... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:16:54 -0800, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit at (no spam) cablespeed.com> wrote:
[quote]"David Johnston" <david at (no spam) block.net> wrote in message
news:g515f51jph0lp4shung37rpduahpttjif0 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:19:25 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nobody at (no spam) no.where
wrote:
tg wrote:
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an
important one
to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that the
grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction) will not
act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions meet certain
criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities
of humans.
So Jefferson declared.
No he fucking didn't, not in any universal or moral sense.
[/quote]
Yeah he did. Saying that something is a self-evident truth is a
universal claim.
He said "WE HOLD
[quote]THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT...". Not that it's universally true, but
that the authors of the document, for the document's sake, are asserting it.
[/quote]
"assert" and "declare" being synonyms.
[quote]
He declared that claim to be "self-evident".
It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't
it? It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to
accept it anyway."
For the DofI's purposes, it's called a "postulate", and the rest of the
document builds on it.
If you want to talk seriously about rights, as opposed to inflammatory
rhetoric intended to do little more than piss off George III, shouldn't you
kind of move past the DofI which has absolutely no force of law?
[/quote]
Since the person I was talking to was arguing from the stance that the
law is irrelevant to rights, that would not be effective. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Johnston... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:55:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]David Johnston wrote
Demon Buddha <Nobody at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an
important one to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that
the grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction)
will not act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions
meet certain criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities of humans.
So Jefferson declared. He declared that claim to be "self-evident".
He did indeed, and quite a few agreed with him when he did that, too.
It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't it?
Yep.
It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to accept it anyway."
You're lying now.
[/quote]
No, I'm not. Take you for example. You rely heavily on calling
things obvious, and if someone should dare question the "obvious",
then you insult them and call them blind. It's very convenient for
you to not have to support your assertions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Johnston... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:06:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Michael Coburn wrote
Rod Speed wrote
David Johnston wrote
Demon Buddha <Nobody at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an
important one to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that
the grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction)
will not act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions
meet certain criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities of humans.
So Jefferson declared. He declared that claim to be "self-evident".
He did indeed, and quite a few agreed with him when he did that, too.
And it is that agreement that lends the substance.
Thats very arguable when hordes didnt even consider what was declared.
It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't it?
Yep.
It is sort of like the current rightard use of "clearly".
Not really. Its obvious that the sun usually does come up most mornings etc.
[/quote]
Which is one of those things which, being actually obvious, doesn't
need to be defended because nobody attacks the proposition. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 8, 4:53 am, David Johnston <da... at (no spam) block.net> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:45:23 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Nov 5, 4:56 pm, David Johnston <da... at (no spam) block.net> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:28 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that the
grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction) will not
act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions meet certain
criteria.
You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to rights - How
does the state determine that "certain criteria"?
With laws.
Laws plucked from thin air? what laws? where did the laws come from?
Politicians.
[/quote]
Where did they get them from? Are you trying very hard to be obtuse or
do you just want to avoid?
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 7:25 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an
important one to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it
means is that the grantor of the right (the State or
State-like jurisdiction) will not act against you if you
can demonstrate that your actions meet certain criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does.
These are born-in qualities of humans.
Just like an Immortal Soul, right?
I made no mention of any such thing. The rights actually
follow very naturally and reasonably if one accepts the
notion of the equivalence of all people. Notice I did not
say "equality". We are NOT equal, which would imply
we were clones. But we are equivalent in a metaphysical
sense - that is, we are of equal value as living beings.
That seems like a religious position to me.
It isnt. Its more an instinctive gut feeling.
Little kids very quickly develop pretty firm ideas about
what is and is not fair about what they get told to do, or
what they end up with, LONG before they are capable of
reasoning or being able to grasp religious concepts etc.
Value implies choice or preference. What is
being preferred over what, and by whom?
Yes, but thats got nothing to do with religion.
I smell gods.
More fool you. You cant just ignore that point about little kids, it wont go away.
If little kids have an idea of justice, is proves there
are gods or equivalent metaphysical entities?
When they develop those ideas about what is fair
LONG before they can grasp the concept of religion,
it cant have anything to do with religion or gods.
That depends on your view of what the gods
are and how they operate, doesn't it?
Nope.
Many religious people assert a claim that religious experience
is fundamental and primary, not the result of an abstract idea.
Yes.
If so, children will exhibit god-derived ideas
independent of learning of related abstractions.
Wrong.
Why not?
Because there are no gods, just a vast array
of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds'
So _you_ say. But there may be a god hiding under your bed at this very moment.
Nope, the dog would have noticed.
When did you last look?
Dont need to, the dog does that for me.
[/quote]
How do you know the dog hasn't been subverted? You
know, gods, they might do anything.
[quote]If religious experience is fundamental and primary,
It isnt in little kids of that age.
then it will precede abstractions about it.
Nope. Kids need a metal capacity to grasp
religious concepts for that to happen.
In practice they are just afraid of the dark and can have very
vivid imaginations and suck their thumbs and need night lights
etc and their parents comforting etc instead of 'gods'
In any case, I don't see how this innate sense
of justice you say you observe speaks to the
problem of whether the metaphysical notion of
equality has some kind of independent existence,
More fool you. There is no other way it can show up in
almost all little kids that early, when it cant be trained into
them consciously or unconsiously by their parents etc.
Genetically. No gods or metaphysics required.
What I said below in different words. And not what you
said below, the exact opposite of what you said below.
Wrong.
Everyone can see for themselves that its right.
[/quote]
Wrong.
[quote]
which is what we were talking about above,
Yes.
and why the idea of gods was brought in.
There are no gods. Just an endless variety of crutches
for pathetically inadequate 'minds'. Basically a way of
getting fools to do what they would otherwise not do.
The notion of fairness could be some kind of mental circuit that
evolved to enhance the probability of individual and group survival..
There is no other possibility. And thats just another way of saying his 'born-in'
I don't know if mental circuits can be called "rights".
Corse they can.
Can you explain that?
Just did with that point about little kids and how they operate.
Assuming value is meaningful when applied to "us"
-- another undefined element -- what does equality
of value mean, the mysterious evaluator can't
decide between some of "us" and others?
You also neglect to show why rights follow from this
equivalence of value. I don't see any obvious connection.
It does follow that if you believe you are equivalent in a
metaphysical sense in the sense he is talking about, that
individual rights follow from that in the sense that you
have as much right to something as anyone else etc.
My problem is that I don't know what "equalivalent
in a metaphysical sense" can possibly mean.
Your problem.
That depends on whether the writer desired to convey meaning.
Nope, there will always be some who cant understand the simplest
stuff. You fucked up completely on that bit about little kids,
got it completely backwards. I don't think so,
Corse you did on what I was saying that behaviour with little kids indicates.
although you're welcome to show that the various mental
states of small children are evidence of metaphysical
entities or whatever it is they're supposed to be evidence of.
I actually said that that cant be due to 'gods'
Why not? Anything can be due to gods.
Nope, because there is no such animal, just an endless
variety of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds'
In spades with little kids who cant even grasp the concept of gods.
They do develop strong ideas about their rights tho much earlier than they do about gods.
I don't see how some genetic tendency turns into
a thing which other people are said to possess.
Your problem.
[/quote]
It's _your_ problem. You're the one making assertions
about the strong ideas of little children constituting
"rights". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Johnston wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
David Johnston wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Doug Bashford wrote
If the owner of the largest right arm at any given time
is also one that endures, it is called stable government
Mindlessly silly, most obviously with banditry and warlords.
I fail to see what is obvious to you.
Thats because you have wanked yourself completely blind.
Bandits and warlords are not noted for their endurance.
Neither are govts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, stupid.
And those governments are not called "stable" governments for just that reason.
[/quote]
Pity about where banditry and warlords have endured, that aint called stable government, fool.
[quote]Try again.
[/quote]
Go and fuck yourself, again. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Johnston wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
David Johnston wrote
Michael Gordge <mikegordge at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is
that the grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction)
will not act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions
meet certain criteria.
You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to
rights - How does the state determine that "certain criteria"?
With laws.
Try telling that to all those jews that ended up dead in the holocaust.
Your response has no bearing on what I said.
[/quote]
You're lying, as always.
Those jews LOST THEIR RIGHTS with those laws, fool. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Johnston wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
David Johnston wrote
Demon Buddha <Nobody at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an
important one to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is
that the grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction)
will not act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions
meet certain criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities of humans.
So Jefferson declared. He declared that claim to be "self-evident".
He did indeed, and quite a few agreed with him when he did that, too.
It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't it?
Yep.
It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to accept it anyway."
You're lying now.
No, I'm not.
[/quote]
Yes you are.
[quote]Take you for example. You rely heavily on calling things obvious,
[/quote]
You're lying, as always.
[quote]and if someone should dare question the "obvious",
then you insult them and call them blind.
[/quote]
You're lying, as always.
[quote]It's very convenient for you to not have to support your assertions.
[/quote]
You're lying, as always. I always support my assertions, fuckwit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Johnston wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Michael Coburn wrote
Rod Speed wrote
David Johnston wrote
Demon Buddha <Nobody at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an
important one to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is
that the grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction)
will not act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions
meet certain criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities of humans.
So Jefferson declared. He declared that claim to be "self-evident".
He did indeed, and quite a few agreed with him when he did that, too.
And it is that agreement that lends the substance.
Thats very arguable when hordes didnt even consider what was declared.
It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't it?
Yep.
It is sort of like the current rightard use of "clearly".
Not really. Its obvious that the sun usually does come up most mornings etc.
Which is one of those things which, being actually obvious, doesn't
need to be defended because nobody attacks the proposition.
[/quote]
Irrelevant to whether some things are indeed obvious. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:44 pm
|
|