Las Vegas

Duck and cover
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:45 pm

X = Since TJ's words were clear and easy to understand, the only misunderstanding is on your part. Typical you would not get it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Las Vegas

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:59 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I quibble with: "This is also the reason why traitors are stripped of their rights in most countries: a state doesn't owe any protection to people who work against it. " .............I assume you can write a contra as well as I could.


I would define traitor in this sense as someone who works for another country; the number of people who tried to bring down the government in order to make the country better might be working against the state, but not the country itself.
Of course, the powers-that-be will usually see things differently.

The truth is that Western Democracies have adopted Universal Rights because they have the luxury to do so: there is no reason to assume that famines will make it necessary to chose who lives or dies. They usually don't fight wars that would require a forced draft and labor camps, and they are most don't suffer from so much internal strife that would justify Martial Law.
But this is fragile, as the example of, say, Turkey shows.
We shouldn't make the mistake of taking our rights for granted.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:05 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal ... man_Rights

Kinda confusing. Ratified but "not accepted" at the same time. Excellent double speak.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:20 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:X = Since TJ's words were clear and easy to understand, the only misunderstanding is on your part. Typical you would not get it.


Let the record show bobbo's only purpose in that post is to attack me personally, without adding anything of substance to the conversation.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:31 pm

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html wrote:
Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, . . .


That's what I have been saying all along, that people have certain natural (inalienable) rights.

Governments are instituted to protect those rights, not create (or "gift") them.

The government can neither give those inalienable rights nor take them away, it can only server to protect those rights or violate them.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:49 pm

I suspect, Xouper, that we may have another semantics problem here. In my discussion , I am talking of legal rights. My country has specific human rights legislation, in which every individual's legal rights are specified. You appear to be talking about something else, much less specific. More fuzzy and meaningless.

The USA has some pretty silly legal ideas on rights. The statement that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is ridiculous.
Life, because you have the death penalty, making this statement into pure hypocrisy.
Liberty, because after writing this down, your founding fathers made slavery legal, making this statement into pure hypocrisy.
Pursuit of happiness, since this is not a right. Just inevitable. Therefore describing it as a right is ludicrous.

And on top of that, your country makes bearing arms into a legal right, which is just plain stooopid !!

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:59 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I suspect, Xouper, that we may have another semantics problem here. In my discussion , I am talking of legal rights. My country has specific human rights legislation, in which every individual's legal rights are specified. You appear to be talking about something else, much less specific. More fuzzy and meaningless.

The USA has some pretty silly legal ideas on rights. The statement that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is ridiculous.
Life, because you have the death penalty, making this statement into pure hypocrisy.
Liberty, because after writing this down, your founding fathers made slavery legal, making this statement into pure hypocrisy.
Pursuit of happiness, since this is not a right. Just inevitable. Therefore describing it as a right is ludicrous.

And on top of that, your country makes bearing arms into a legal right, which is just plain stooopid !!


Now you know how I feel about your position, Lance. It's stoopid.

Example: You claim that the right to life is not actually a right and is meaningless and ridiculous.

Even your own favorite authority on human rights, the UN, disagrees with you on that.

Let me drive that point home a little harder:

Even the UN disagrees with you on that, Lance.

"Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

What planet are you living on?

Secondly, I am against the death penalty, but the fact remains that although some states (not all) have a death penalty, that does not contradict the general right to life. The right to life in that case is only violated after years of due process, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment, which spells out when a person's rights may be violated by the government.

As for the slave issue, that defect was fixed a long time ago. And you know that. Complaining about historical mistakes does not refute the fact that people have inalienable rights, which according to the UN Declaration, they do.

Likewise for your entire argument (as quoted above), it's stoopid.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:51 pm

Straw man alert.

I did not say the right to life was meaningless. What I said was that the statement by the founding fathers of the USA about right to live was hypocritical, because they immediately betrayed it. The right to life, in my opinion, is the most important right of all, and should be written into the constitution of every nation. That means, among other things, no death penalty.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:53 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Straw man alert.

I did not say the right to life was meaningless.


Yes you did. But I will accept your clarification of what you intended to say.

You said the rights I am talking about (which includes the right to life) are fuzzy and meaningless.

You also explicitly said the right to life is "ridiculous".

However, I will take your word for it that you had something else in mind and that the words you wrote did not accurately reflect what you intended to say.

You know better than I do what you intended to mean, even if what you wrote could reasonably be interpreted some other way.

Not a problem. We are not professional writers here and these kinds of (unintentionally) sloppy expressions are common on this forum. What matters is that we work together to reach mutual understanding, rather than attack each other with straw men (as bobbo is fond of doing).


Lance Kennedy wrote:What I said was that the statement by the founding fathers of the USA about right to live was hypocritical, because they immediately betrayed it.


In those days, the US was no different than your country in that regard. For a long time New Zealand did indeed have a death penalty. cite


Lance Kennedy wrote:The right to life, in my opinion, is the most important right of all, and should be written into the constitution of every nation. That means, among other things, no death penalty.


OK, thanks for clarifying that. It seems we both agree on that point.

Now I have more questions:

1. Why do you feel the right to life should be included in every nation?

2. How about the right to liberty?

3. How about the right to security of person?

All those are from Article 3 of the UN Declaration.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:33 pm

Life, liberty and security should all be part of the laws of every nation.

Let me see if I can clarify another point.
When I read your posts, it seemed that your idea of "rights " was something fuzzy and meaningless. A bit like a religious statement about rights being from the deity. My view of rights is more legal. It is what the law of the land specifically gives to us. Your idea would appear to make breathing a right. My idea would not, since breathing is not specifically listed as a right in any legal system.

There are lots of words in the English language (probably any language) which are fuzzy because no two people see the meaning quite the same way. Words like justice, or wisdom, or spirituality. In this case, we are dealing with the word "rights " which is the same, different for every person. Unless that is, you can nail its meaning down. I nail it down by using it only for those things given as rights in law. In my country, there is a specific piece of law known as the Human Rights Act, which details such matters. Breathing is not listed there.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:55 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Life, liberty and security should all be part of the laws of every nation.


Yes, I agree.

But why do you say that? Please explain what the justification is for saying that?

I already know what my justification is, but it seems you do not agree with it, so I ask how you  justify it.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Let me see if I can clarify another point. When I read your posts, it seemed that your idea of "rights " was something fuzzy and meaningless. A bit like a religious statement about rights being from the deity.


Except you know I do not believe in any deity.

I am using the term "inalienable rights" the same way the UN Declaration uses the term. And I use the term "natural rights" to mean the same thing.

Does that help?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:59 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Breathing is not listed there.


You might wish to choose a different example to make your point.

The right to breathe is subsumed in the right to life. The right to life is meaningless without also the right to breathe. That's why there are air pollution laws, to help protect the people's right to breathe (clean air).

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:59 am

Why life, liberty and security ?
I have told you before, Xouper, that I regard the U.N. human rights as the best. The US, though, is not so good.

Note that I draw a clear distinction between a right and an inevitability. If something cannot be taken from you without killing you, it is not a right. Except for life itself, of course. If you take something, and kill in the process, you are taking away the right to life. Not this fictional right to breathe. If something like the pursuit of happiness cannot be taken from you, it is not a right. A right by its very nature is something that is given, and can be taken away.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:43 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Why life, liberty and security ?


You were the one who brought them up. I'm just following your lead.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Note that I draw a clear distinction between a right and an inevitability. If something cannot be taken from you without killing you, it is not a right. Except for life itself, of course. If you take something, and kill in the process, you are taking away the right to life. Not this fictional right to breathe.


I'm not following what you are trying to say here. Give me some other examples of what you mean.


Lance Kennedy wrote: If something like the pursuit of happiness cannot be taken from you, it is not a right.


Again, I'm not following your logic here. If you put someone in jail, have you not deprived him of the pursuit of happiness?


Lance Kennedy wrote:A right by its very nature is something that is given, and can be taken away.


The UN Declaration of Rights does not agree with you.

You have still not answered my question.

Why do you say life, liberty, and security of person should all be part of the laws of every nation?

Please explain what the justification is for saying that?

I already know what my justification is, but it seems you do not agree with it, so I ask how you justify it.

My guess is that you are avoiding the question because either you don't know how to justify your position, or you realize that no matter how you answer, it will undermine your claim about where rights come from.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:18 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:X = Since TJ's words were clear and easy to understand, the only misunderstanding is on your part. Typical you would not get it.


Let the record show bobbo's only purpose in that post is to attack me personally, without adding anything of substance to the conversation.

substance by bobbo and rest of the World: "TJ's words were clear and easy to understand"

substance by X and other Deniers: "only what I agree with"
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:23 am

:roll:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:30 am

qed
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:10 am

:roll: :roll:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:13 am

I'll stop.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:44 am

OK

Why life, liberty and security ?

I have said before that my personal ethical code towards others is the greatest good to the greatest number. Giving the right of life, liberty and security fits this ethic.

As I have said before, rights are gifts. Those in power give rights to those under them. Breathing is not a right because everyone breathes. It is an inevitability, not a right. So is the pursuit of happiness. You cannot stop people pursuing happiness. A person being stretched on the rack will try to ease the pain by changing position. That is a form of pursuing happiness, futile though it may be. You cannot stop people making the pursuit, even if you can stop them achieving it. Since you cannot remove the pursuit of happiness, it is not a right.

Putting someone in jail may stop a person achieving happiness, but cannot stop him pursuing it. Since you cannot take away the pursuit of happiness, it is not a right.

Free speech is a right. Many societies have not had it. Anyone trying to exercise that free speech where the right has not been given is liable to punishment, or even execution. The right can be given , and those in power can take that right away.

You, Xouper, are labelling things that are inevitable as rights, where they are not. Gravity makes things fall, but that is not a right, since it is not given and cannot be taken away. The love of a mother for her child is not a right for exactly the same reason.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:56 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: Putting someone in jail may stop a person achieving happiness, but cannot stop him pursuing it. Since you cannot take away the pursuit of happiness, it is not a right.

ummmmm...... I don't think shifting your position on the rack should be thought of as any pursuit of happiness. IIRC..."pursuit of happiness" is one of those old timey concepts that does not have the meaning we give it today. "The pursuit of a good life well lived" is what I remember. Achieving happiness today is not being put in jail for petty offenses, access to a legitimate court system, protection by and from police and so forth.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:13 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:OK

Why life, liberty and security ?

I have said before that my personal ethical code towards others is the greatest good to the greatest number. Giving the right of life, liberty and security fits this ethic.

As I have said before, rights are gifts. Those in power give rights to those under them. Breathing is not a right because everyone breathes. It is an inevitability, not a right. So is the pursuit of happiness. You cannot stop people pursuing happiness. A person being stretched on the rack will try to ease the pain by changing position. That is a form of pursuing happiness, futile though it may be. You cannot stop people making the pursuit, even if you can stop them achieving it. Since you cannot remove the pursuit of happiness, it is not a right.

Putting someone in jail may stop a person achieving happiness, but cannot stop him pursuing it. Since you cannot take away the pursuit of happiness, it is not a right.

Free speech is a right. Many societies have not had it. Anyone trying to exercise that free speech where the right has not been given is liable to punishment, or even execution. The right can be given , and those in power can take that right away.

You, Xouper, are labelling things that are inevitable as rights, where they are not. Gravity makes things fall, but that is not a right, since it is not given and cannot be taken away. The love of a mother for her child is not a right for exactly the same reason.


That has got to be some of the dumbest {!#%@} I've heard on this forum from someone who isn't a woo.

The UN Declaration says certain rights are inalienable. You say they are wrong.

You say putting someone in jail doesn't stop him from running his donut shop, or whatever pursuit he used to be free to pursue.

You say rights are "gifts" but then claim you have the right to tell the government what "gifts" they must give you.

Sheesh.

:roll:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:34 am

Not to "go with" Lance's definitions just shows your inflexibility. You can only think one way with one conclusion.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:51 am

bobbo_the_troll wrote:. . . You can only think one way with one conclusion.


Hey look, the troll is calling the kettle black.

Stoopid troll.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:01 am

Ha, ha.............you keep not understanding what you are saying. Kettles are black. You are agreeing that is your color. The open question remains what color I am.

You get the issue is not about color.............right?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:39 pm

Xouper is back to his old ways of seeing everything only through his own view point.

To Xouper.
Please try to understand that your own narrow view is not the only way to see things. I talk of the pursuit of happiness being something everyone is engaged in regardless, and you have hour own idea and cannot see past it. Happiness is a goal, and mostly is not achieved. Pursuing it, though, is something we all do, most of the time. I did not say a person in jail can continue running his donut shop. That is yet one more of your long string of straw men. I said that being in jail does not stop you pursuing happiness. In that situation, you are even less likely to achieve it, but pursuing it is still the game.

Rights are not inalienable. I do not care are who says they are. That is simply not true. Rights can be, and have been, taken off people numerous times. It would be valid from one point of view to say certain rights SHOULD be inalienable, but that is something else. For example, take the business of jail. The right to liberty is taken off a person put in jail. So the right to liberty is not inalienable. Saying rights are inalienable is rhetoric, not reality.

I am interested in what is practical and real. Not what is part of a body of utopian fiction.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:22 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper is back to his old ways of seeing everything only through his own view point.


Hey look, another pot calling the kettle black.


Lance Kennedy wrote:To Xouper.
Please try to understand that your own narrow view is not the only way to see things.


To Lance.
Please try to understand that your own narrow view is not the only way to see things.


Lance Kennedy wrote: I talk of the pursuit of happiness being something everyone is engaged in regardless, and you have hour own idea and cannot see past it.


I talk of the pursuit of happiness being an inalienable right, and you have your own idea and cannot see past it.


Lance Kennedy wrote:I did not say a person in jail can continue running his donut shop.


Then you admit he has been deprived of that particular pursuit of happiness.

You admit that being in jail reduces a person's choices in the ways available to him to pursue happiness.

Well done Lance, you just refuted your own argument.


Lance Kennedy wrote:I said that being in jail does not stop you pursuing happiness.


And yet just above you said being in jail stops someone from pursuing his donut shop, which is his chosen way of pursuing happiness.

You are not making any sense here, Lance.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Rights are not inalienable. I do not care who says they are.


Rights are inalienable. I do not care are who says they aren't.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Rights can be, and have been, taken off people numerous times.


Inalienable rights cannot be taken from anyone. By definition. They can only be violated.


Lance Kennedy wrote:I am interested in what is practical and real. Not what is part of a body of utopian fiction.


I too am interested in what is practical and real. Not what is part of a body of your distopian fiction.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:27 pm

bobbo_the_troll wrote:Ha, ha.............you keep not understanding what you are saying. Kettles are black. You are agreeing that is your color. The open question remains what color I am.

You get the issue is not about color.............right?


Let the record show bobbo still doesn't get it.

Stoopid troll.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:38 pm

Xouper

You still do not get it.
The pursuit of happiness is not the same as getting happiness. Not running a donut shop does not stop you pursuing happiness. Sure, your choice might be to run a donut shop and that choice is taken away, but the pursuit goes on.

And the word inalienable means cannot be taken away. Yet rights are taken away all the time. So by definition they are not inalienable. Calling them something they are not is pure rhetoric. And bull-shit rhetoric at that. An intelligent guy like you, Xouper, should not fall for bull-shit rhetoric.

In fact, human rights by their very nature are given, and therefore can be taken away. Using the word inalienable for rights is an oxymoron.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:21 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

You still do not get it.


Lance, you still do not get it.


Lance Kennedy wrote:The pursuit of happiness is not the same as getting happiness.


I did not ever say it was the same thing. Not once, ever. I know full well the difference.


Lance Kennedy wrote: Not running a donut shop does not stop you pursuing happiness. Sure, your choice might be to run a donut shop and that choice is taken away, but the pursuit goes on.


Limiting one's choices in the ways to pursue, is a limit (an infringement) on the pursuit of happiness. By definition.


Lance Kennedy wrote:And the word inalienable means cannot be taken away.


Agreed. And that's why the UN Declaration says that certain rights are inalienable.


Lance Kennedy wrote: Yet rights are taken away all the time.


No, they are not taken away.

They are merely violated. Sometimes justifiably, and sometimes not.

It is not a mere semantic quibble, it is a huge conceptual difference with huge moral consequences, which you have repeatedly refused to consider.

You repeatedly avoid answering the question how you know that nations should "gift" you certain rights.

You avoid answering because either you have no answer, or you know full well that your answer undermines your whole argument.

Sorry, Lance but your argument has been revealed as self contradictory.

You can prove me wrong by answering the question. But you won't answer it because you know full well the answer will hurt your argument.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Calling them something they are not is pure rhetoric. And bull-shit rhetoric at that.


Calling inalienable rights something they are not is pure rhetoric. And bull-shit rhetoric at that.


Lance Kennedy wrote:An intelligent guy like you, Xouper, should not fall for bull-shit rhetoric.


An intelligent guy like you, Lance, should not fall for bull-shit rhetoric of calling rights alienable.

The UN didn't fall for it, but you do.


Lance Kennedy wrote:In fact, human rights by their very nature are given, and therefore can be taken away. Using the word inalienable for rights is an oxymoron.


That's the BS rhetoric you keep repeating. Without a shred of justification for it.

Whereas the UN Declaration of Rights clearly says certain rights are inalienable, and there is plenty of justification for that in several centuries worth of published explanations, justifications, and reasoning.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:23 am

Xouper

History tells you that rights can be taken away.

For example, in WWII, in Britain which is a democratic and relatively free country, the right to free speech was removed. Certain topics had to be kept taboo. Remember the slogan, " loose lips sink ships. " People who spoke of the forbidden topics could end up in prison. In times of political crisis, the right to free association is often removed. Liberty removed with curfews. And so on.

Calling rights inalienable is just naive. Rights can be taken away and frequently are taken away.

How do I know that nations should gift me certain rights ?
For a start it is not to me personally. Rights are given to the people as a whole. Which rights ? The ones that improve human welfare. The right not to be enslaved for example, clearly improves welfare, since slaves are generally treated very badly. The right of free speech improves welfare by permitting important topics to be discussed, and appropriate actions planned to improve everyone's lot.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:02 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

History tells you that rights can be taken away.


No, history tells us that rights can be violated.

Big difference. And it's not just semantic, as I already explained and you have not refuted.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Calling rights inalienable is just naive.


Calling rights alienable is just naive.

Even the UN Declaration of Rights does not agree with you.


Lance Kennedy wrote:How do I know that nations should gift me certain rights ?


Finally, you acknowledge my question.


Lance Kennedy wrote:For a start it is not to me personally. Rights are given to the people as a whole.


If by that you mean that those rights apply to each and every person as an individual, then I can agree with that.


Lance Kennedy wrote: Which rights ? The ones that improve human welfare. The right not to be enslaved for example, clearly improves welfare, since slaves are generally treated very badly. The right of free speech improves welfare by permitting important topics to be discussed, and appropriate actions planned to improve everyone's lot.


OK, you have identified some of the rights we are talking about. I'll accept your claim that those rights improve one's "welfare".

But you have still not answered my question.

How do you justify demanding that the government "gift" you any of those rights?

How do you justify demanding that the government "gift" you an "improved welfare"?

Maybe it would help if I asked it differently: Why do you feel entitled to those rights?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:22 am

Actually, the question is kind of a straw man, since I have never said I demanded those rights. Rights are a gift. I appreciate them, but have never had to demand them, because I live in a free country and those rights were gifted to myself and other citizens of NZ.

There are other rights that we have not yet received, but may in the future. For example, there is a lot of talk of a government granted minimum income to everyone. It may happen in the future. If so, it will be a gift from those in power, and will be seen as a right. Here in NZ we have a right to government funded health care. Within certain limits to be sure. Ditto a right to free education to the end of high school. Those rights are not inalienable, since they could be taken away. A sufficiently nasty financial crisis would do it.

I think, Xouper, that the problem is that, in spite of the fact that you are not stupid, you are vulnerable to propaganda. You show that you swallow and believe the pro gun propaganda put out by the gun makers and their minions. You are are showing here that you swallow and believe the political propaganda about "inalienable " rights. It is bull-shit.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:35 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Actually, the question is kind of a straw man, since I have never said I demanded those rights.


OK, you got me there. ;) Technically, that's correct, I did not see you use the word "demand".

You said you "should" have those rights. So let me rephrase my question:

Please explain why you feel you "should" have any rights at all?

And it is not sufficient to merely say because that will improve your "welfare". Of course it improves your welfare, that goes without saying. It goes without saying that you are better off with rights than without them. I want a deeper explanation than that.


Lance Kennedy wrote:There are other rights that we have not yet received, but may in the future. For example, there is a lot of talk of a government granted minimum income to everyone. It may happen in the future. If so, it will be a gift from those in power, and will be seen as a right. Here in NZ we have a right to government funded health care. Within certain limits to be sure. Ditto a right to free education to the end of high school. Those rights are not inalienable, since they could be taken away. A sufficiently nasty financial crisis would do it.


Here you are talking about legal rights, which is different from natural (inalienable) rights.

See for example, this site, which you allege is "political propaganda":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

I agree that minimum wage is not an inalienable right. It is a legal right granted by the government, and can be taken away by the government.

Perhaps that is where our disagreement comes from, you seem to be saying all rights are "legal rights", whereas the UN says certain rights are "inalienable rights".


Lance Kennedy wrote:I think, Xouper, that the problem is that, in spite of the fact that you are not stupid, you are vulnerable to propaganda.


I think, Lance, that the problem is that, in spite of the fact that you are not stupid, you are vulnerable to propaganda.

You buy into the gun-grabbers propaganda. You buy into the propaganda that the Second Amendment is for militia only, and other misunderstandings about it.


Lance Kennedy wrote:You are are showing here that you swallow and believe the political propaganda about "inalienable " rights. It is bull-shit.


So now you're saying the UN Declaration of Rights is political propaganda?

Amazing. What chutzpah.

I'll have to remember that the next time you cite that particular UN document as an authority on anything.

Sorry to burst your delusion, but I don't get my ideas about inalienable rights from political propaganda, I get them from some of the greatest political thinkers and philosophers in recent history (the past few hundred years).

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:16 am

Whoever talks of inalienable rights is talking crap. The thing is that in practical terms, any right can be removed by the government. So by definition, it is not inalienable. Describing it that way is rhetoric and political propaganda, not reality.

The U.N. human rights is a recommendation, as I said. The fact that overall it is wonderful does not mean every little bit is correct.

Because each and every right is given by the people in power, and can be removed, they are legal. The term "natural rights" is just so much extra bull dust. Just as there are no god given rights, there are no natural rights. Because there is no entity called nature to give rights. They are given by people in power, not by deities, natural or otherwise.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:35 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Whoever talks of inalienable rights is talking crap. The thing is that in practical terms, any right can be removed by the government. So by definition, it is not inalienable. Describing it that way is rhetoric and political propaganda, not reality.


You keep repeating that same BS mantra without ever giving any justification for it.

You have not made your case.

And you have still not answered my question why you feel entitled to any rights. Your narrative is self contradicting.

If that's all you got then there is nothing more to discuss.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10225
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:33 am

I have not said that I feel entitled to rights. I have said I appreciate the rights I have. Rights get granted for a range of historic reasons. I inherited the British system which is pretty damn good, and I am happy about it.

But the big flaw in your own reasoning is that you accept the pseudo religious statements of people with obsolete belief systems. There are no inalienable rights, because each and every right you might call inalienable has been taken away from people at some stage. Since inalienable means unable to take away that shows with 100% certainty that the whole idea is nuts.

Come on, Xouper. Are you a rational and practical person or are you religious and superstitious ? If someone says something cannot be destroyed and then you see someone else destroy it, does that not show the first guy is wrong ? If some politician or idiot philosopher says something cannot be taken away and then you see it taken away, does that not prove the idiot was wrong ?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Las Vegas

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:04 am

Let's assume that you would be picked as one of the first Mars Colonists, going on a few months trip to the Red Planet and spend years, possibly the rest of your lives, in small quarters with many other people, working to keep everything going so not everyone dies.

How many of the rights in the either the US constitution or the UNDHR would you have?
Certainly not the right to own a gun.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:20 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have not said that I feel entitled to rights.


You said the government "should" give you certain rights. How is that different from feeling entitled to those rights?

What do you think the word "should" means?

When you say the government should give you rights, you are claiming they have an obligation to do so. That's what the word "should" means in this context.

If that's not what you meant to say, then choose a different word than "should".


Lance Kennedy wrote:But the big flaw in your own reasoning is that you accept the pseudo religious statements of people with obsolete belief systems.


Nope. I do not accept those things, ergo that cannot be a flaw in my argument.

This big flaw in your argument is that you have not (and cannot) justify your position, despite repeated requests to do so.

You merely repeat the same old mantra over and over and over. Sorry, but mere repetition does not count as justification of your position. But apparently that's all you've got.


Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . that the whole idea is nuts.


Now you know how I feel about your ideas on the matter.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Come on, Xouper. Are you a rational and practical person or are you religious and superstitious ?


I am not religious or superstitious. You already know that. I do not say rights come from any deity, since I do not believe there is such a being, and you already know that.


Lance Kennedy wrote:If someone says something cannot be destroyed and then you see someone else destroy it, does that not show the first guy is wrong ?


You have not shown that natural rights have been destroyed, you have only shown that they have sometimes been violated. Not the same thing.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:22 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Certainly not the right to own a gun.


Why not?


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest