The Glade 4.0

We are still going under that assumptive "if" are we not? Or did you somehow shift away from that assumption magically between replies and did not tell me?

No matter, I've demonstrated the logical end point of that position.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Ah yes and thus also is every philosophical term and every definition in every language.

Now that you've shown all communication to be a logical fallacy what shall we do?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

So drop it - he doesn't agree with your definition or derivation of "rights".

Fair enough.



What's that - drop it?

Well if so I invite him to explain his philosophy in terms of his own using and to not borrow terms from another thus inviting confusion.

If I decided to call "red" green I doubt I would find much solace in the fact that I am in complete agreement that I should only drive through a traffic light on a green light.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmo, how about you just state what your opinions and backing are instead of trying to debate tactic me and pick apart my argument.

I'm mildly curious to see your argument, but have absolutely no interest in playing Socratic method with either you or Khross.

Well, "we" should stop claiming "I've shown may times in the past" and assertions to that same effect unless we can actually craft our position without recourse to logical fallacy, I'd say.

oh, and false dichotomy

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No one. Long story short, I don't think the concept of ownership works when we're talking about people, whether it's "owning" oneself or owning someone else.

This is the only argument that is logically consistent. I give it a 10.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I see. Aizle - you had better adopt Elmo's philosophy or you will die in a fiery auto accident.

You are assuming that a certain body has authority to define the concept of rights, when in fact it does not.

In fact, anyone can redefine it any time they wish. Just ebcause someone styles themself a philosopher and writes extensively about whatever does not mean he appropriates a concept he is discussing or that he gives an authoritative definition.

Your examples about red being green and cats being dogs reveal that you are tacitly claiming that your definition of rights is "correct" and anyone else's is "incorrect", while at the same time trying to avoid overtly stating that same thing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

In Libertarian Elmostan definitions define YOU!

What word would you use then? Moreover, what are your specific objections to use of the word "ownership"?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I suppose this is true if you believe specificity of language for the purposes of communication has no value.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Voting people into slavery is an extreme example (not to mention nearly impossible under our current government dynamic) However the point I was trying to make is what governments do is protect some of your rights by limiting others. Do they always make the right call? probably not. However it's impossible for a government to protect all of everyone's rights in every case, because rights overlap.

Certainly the mark of a good government and the crux of all political debate is where to draw these lines. Personally I put life first, followed by freedom from bonadge, equal treatment under the law (that includes racial discrimination by those holding business licenses and zoning easements from the government) and freedom of worship/conscience. Property and such follow close after.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

What rights of mine are they protecting by limiting (read: infringing on) others?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

made some edits. They limit everyone's rights in the same manner. You're protected from signs that say "White people need not apply" same as other races are.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

You have the right to specific employment opportunities with private citizens?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No, but you have the right to equal treatment under the law. I'm not saying we should have quota's or not hire the most qualified candidate here. I'm just saying we should treat people as if they are people, and not some other species just because their skin is a different color.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Equal treatment under the law is not the same as equal treatment by Ben and Jerry's. Ben and Jerry's is not the law.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

This is not an issue of specificity of language.

For one thing, "specificity of language" is frequently used on this board to turn the issue into one of semantics, then claim one's opponent is wrong because he's using the wrong word. This claim suspiciously occurs when no word with the precise meaning a person wants to convey exists, but another word is commonly used that way even if it doesn't have that precise definition. It also occurs when one term or the other has connotations or predjudices attached to it that are convenient.

For another thing, we are talking about a concept. A concept goes beyond the definition of a word. The word for the concept could have a number of dictionary definitions, each equating to a different concept of rights. Trying to claim only one of them is correct becuas eof "spcificity of language" is essentially saying that a semantic nitpick is more important than the issue, and the semantic nitpick is decided by appealing to one's own authority in any case.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's not what he said. He said they are being applied evenly to everyone.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE:

Pure concepts, because they have no tangible representitive in reality, are utterly dependant on the specificity of language; much moreso, in fact, than an idea that translates into something perceptible by touch, and who's characteristics can be easily defined by the senses.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

...

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I believe there's a(n in)famous quote here lost to the sands of previous Glades about "Kaffis-cool" that applies, here, DE.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades