The Glade 4.0

Might makes rights.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Eh, I'll play along. My answer, however, depends on how you define the concept of ownership. What does the word "own" mean in the context of your question?

Eh, I'll play along. My answer, however, depends on how you define the concept of ownership. What does the word "own" mean in the context of your question?

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

I understand the question begging an assertion one way or the other on whether someone is "property".

Are you the ultimate authority who determines how you are used (think and or act)?

What I'm getting at is that words like ownership, property, authority, etc. already incorporate too many assumptions and associations to be useful starting points for the analysis. I think a better starting point is to simply say that no one is more closely connected to, invested in, self-identified with, or affected by me than I am. That just seems factually undeniable as a matter of basic biology. Getting from that to "ownership" requires either a leap or a bridge that hasn't yet been provided.

Getting from that to "ownership" requires either a leap or a bridge that hasn't yet been provided.

Since we are now asking hyperbolic questions, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?"

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Since all rights are interelated in the philosphy this is a yes or no question.

You cannot have some rights without having a logical contradiction in your ideas.

So. Rights good idea or bad idea?

Perhaps I could expose Aizle's flaw another way:

Aizle - who gets to choose for you which rights are good and bad for you?

"in the philossophy"? Who's philosophy? Not his, I bet, so your question is flawed.

If his are not then he is not discussing rights.

If we are to assume that rights are man-made constructs, then we can assume that the one who decides whether the are good or bad for you would be "man". This would, I assume, be the "people" or "government" acting on behalf of the "people".

no true scottsman

If his are not then he is not discussing rights.

No true cat is a dog. Going to argue this definition as well?

faulty comparison

If his are not then he is not discussing rights.

You know in order to show a fallacy you actually have to...show it.

Its not a subjective determination as to what makes a right.

So are rights good ideas?

So, if he does not agree with your philosophy on rights, his philosophy on rights is automatically flawed?

Thus you support a system

in which others "the people" or "government" (acting in whatever way they choose) has complete authority to make any decision regarding your life they or it like and to back that up with use of the force of the collective?

I just want you to understand exactly what you can no longer argue against or for

when you support such a system.

OR, you could recognize your propensity to include fallacy in your arguments.

I'd rather not derail the argument.


The way you argue them they are.

9. a. A legal, equitable, or moral title or claim to the possession of property or authority, the enjoyment of privileges or immunities, etc.; (by extension) an entitlement considered to arise through natural justice (whether or not enshrined in legislation) and which is applicable to all members of a particular group. Cf. sense 11. Freq. in pl. and with modifying word.
The rights commonly proposed by thinkers of the 17th cent. were natural rights, i.e. powers of acting in conformity with natural law. As belief in natural law fell away, moral rights and human rights, such as to life and liberty, came to be recognized as universal and to follow from being human.
See conjugal, fishing, mineral, moral, State rights, etc.; animal, children's, civil, human, minority, natural rights, etc., at first element; also BILL OF RIGHTS n., Declaration of Rights at DECLARATION n. 6, Petition of Rights at PETITION n. Phrases 1.

OE Agreement between Bishop Wærfer & Æelwold (Sawyer 1441) in F. E. Harmer Sel. Eng. Hist. Docs. 9th & 10th Cents. (1914) 24 a sona was Eelwald æs wordes æt he no es rihtes wisacan wolde. a1400 (a1325) Cursor Mundi (Vesp.) 3544 ou sal neuer forth fra to night In i forbirth do claim na right. 1489 (a1380) J. BARBOUR Bruce (Adv.) I. 78 He suld that arbytre disclar,..And lat him ryng that had the rycht. 1491-2 Rolls of Parl.: Henry VII (Electronic ed.) Parl. Oct. 1491 §13. m. 6, All suche right, title, interesse, cleyme..as they..have in any of the premisses. 1525 LD. BERNERS tr. J. Froissart Chron. II. lii[i]. 188 Let the ryght go to the ryght. 1544 tr. Littleton's Tenures (1574) 96 b, The donee to whom the release was made then had nothinge in the land, but onely a righte. 1612 Brechin Test. II. in Dict. Older Sc. Tongue f. 213v, Gif my bearne die that e will lat hir inioy the heretable richt. 1681 J. DALRYMPLE Inst. Law Scotl. (1693) II. i. 161 All Real Rights are either that original Community of all Men,..Or the Interest which Possession giveth, or Property. 1706 G. STANHOPE Paraphr. III. 334 After all our boast of Settlements and Estates, nothing is or can be settled, but the Fee and Original Right in the great universal Lord. 1768 L. STERNE Sentimental Journey I. 1 Strange!.. That one and twenty miles sailing..should give a man these rights. 1818 W. CRUISE Digest Laws (ed. 2) I. 172 The husband is entitled to all those rights and privileges which his wife would have had if she were alive, and which were annexed to her estate. a1853 F. W. ROBERTSON Lect. (1858) 747 Rights are grand things,..but the way in which we expound those rights..seems to me to be the very incarnation of selfishness. 1893 H. D. TRAILL Social England Introd. p. xiii, Association, however, necessarily creates rights and duties; from rights and duties spring law and government. 1915 F. M. HUEFFER Good Soldier IV. i. 226 She was really enraged when, after the invention was mature, he made a present to the War Office of the designs and the patent rights. 1963 B. FRIEDAN Feminine Mystique iv. 83 It is a cliché of our own time that women spent half a century fighting for ‘rights’. 1989 Aircraft Illustr. Feb. 74/1 Included in the change-over was the entire responsibility for international air transport affairs and, in particular, the authority of negotiating traffic rights. 2006 Observer 9 Apr. I. 11/2 Universalists argue that certain rights and protectionsfreedom of speech, democracy, the rule of laware common or, at least, should be available to all people.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Its not a subjective determination as to what makes a right. Its been differentiated for a long time Taskiss