The Glade 4.0

Do they write them before or after the fight? Is the fight ever because of those codes?

Folks that win the fights don't let the losers write codes and they're not rights 'till they're codified.

How closely they resemble the pre-fight dreams and desires of the winners varies, but 'till they're codified, they're not rights.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Practically speaking? Of course not.

Logically and morally speaking? Sure it does.


Utilizing a weak analogy:

The following is not logically and morally consistent:
I believe that all parents should raise their children as they see fit. If, however, "how they see fit" does not include teaching them to accept gay parents and understand gay sex by age 5, I am going to force them to teach their children those things.

The following is:
I believe that all parents should raise their children as they see fit. If, however, "how they see fit" does not include teaching them to accept gay parents and understand gay sex by age 5, I am going to lament how they raise their children.

This can be extended to all larger levels of "community," up from the familial level to the national or alleged "global" community.

Except that you have regularly derided systems based on inherent rights in this thread. Calling them "silly," "out of touch," and other things I can't remember off the top of my head that indicate inferiority.

I agree entirely. But since Aizle (and others) hold the opposing viewpoint to me on this, I'm trying to understand their viewpoint.

At minimum, I'd like them to defend it more logically than with, essentially, "my advocated system is better because the other choice is silly."

Can you clarify then, because that really seems like what you are saying. Also, I'd be interested in knowing exactly how these rights come into existence if they are simply birthed from nothingness through simple successful and often mindless brutality.

So rights are laws?

The can be, but it's not necessary. It's most easily recognized when they are, but that's just a convenience.

They're codes, written and unwritten, but I can't think of any off the top of my head that are unwritten "rights", but plenty of unwritten codes. The winners communicate them then impose them. Sometimes they're comprehensive, sometimes they aren't. Sorta like how everyone was created equal in 1776, as long as you were a property owner. And that changed to include non-property owners, and changed again to say blacks were equal but they really weren't, etc, etc, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like freedom and equality and such to be recognized as a right due to the inherent nobility of mankind... it's a really nice thought... but there ain't no such thing. History has proved that.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

How is this code distinguishable?

Codes, plural - and they're distinguishable 100% by their enforcement.

That's pretty much my entire point.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Are there any rights that aren't enforced?

It'd hardly be a right if it weren't, wouldn't you say?

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

So, you ask questions but don't answer?

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

I think you should answer his question in the spirit of avoiding being in the "I ask questions but don't answer them" camp.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Oh look, we're having a civil conversation and you come along. Nice of you to fail to contribute anything except wasteful paternal scorn.

Should I not do that in the future?

Ok, although it's only going to derail the conversation terribly, and take a **** all over the thread:

Yes. They would be rights if they were, in fact, rights.

No, you go right ahead and consider that I'm being dickish.

I get that way when I get the impression someone is playing games, setting up what they imagine are clever ambushes. One way I get that feeling is when I get interrogated and get no answers or crap answers for honest questions.

I'm feeling pretty dickish at the moment.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

I had been enjoying the exchange.

They would be rights if they were, in fact, rights.

Are there any rights that aren't enforced?

You look up the word "exchange".

This, by the way, doesn't qualify in my book. It's a crap answer to this question.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Parental scorn?