The Glade 4.0

Farther is new here, so he doesn't a lot of baggage from over the years. All he has is his toothbrush and a towel, while most people here have 4-5 bellhops worth of suitcases.

Well, I really don't want to push any buttons or build up any baggage. I appreciate Monte for his answers so far. And I respect his right to hold those opinions. I hope he won't take it as an attack that I do not agree with his position. It seems logical to me that when "X" can make demands of "Y", then "Y" is less free to some degree or another. For instance, speech is both a freedom and a right because there are no requirements placed on "X" in order for "Y" to exercise his right.

Not so with health care. For "Y" to exercise such a right, there must be a requirement put on "X". Therefore, health care may be defined as a right, but freedom will be lost to make it so. Given a choice between freedom and rights, I choose freedom.

Thank you, Monte, for the back and forth. I appreciate the courtesy.

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

Yes, rights do include limitations on freedom. Think about it - you are not free to yell fire in a theater. Your right to free speech does not grant you the freedom to plan, via spoken word, a crime. Your right to property does not grant you the freedom to own a nuclear device. Your right to create a drug does not give you the freedom to offer that drug on the market without some form of consumer protection.

Freedom is a word we toss around a bit too lightly. Freedom is nice but unlimited freedom is just anarchy.

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 really wish I had bought one of the Hotel Betelgeuse towels being sold at a WesterCon so many years ago before the copyright police shut them down.

Random thought, nothing to see here, move along.

No, it isn't.

Your definition of a right is not only fantasy (that some unnamed creator granted humankind their rights), but it's also entirely impractical.

A right and freedom are not the same thing. Liberty and license, etc. You have rights, but those rights are limited, not just in so far as they directly infringe on another person's rights, but in so far as they can adversely affect the public good. For example, your right to produce a product is limited somewhat by the public's interest in breathing clean air.

Rights are not absolute. They are established by society (government), and the understanding of those rights evolves as society progresses.

Dejavu.

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.

Yes, rights do include limitations on freedom. Think about it - you are not free to yell fire in a theater. Your right to free speech does not grant you the freedom to plan, via spoken word, a crime. Your right to property does not grant you the freedom to own a nuclear device. Your right to create a drug does not give you the freedom to offer that drug on the market without some form of consumer protection.

Freedom is a word we toss around a bit too lightly. Freedom is nice but unlimited freedom is just anarchy.

Not actual rights. Artificial rights, perhaps. I am free to not shout fire in a theater. I am free to not plan a crime, etc. Health care rights, as I understand you, do not provide me with that option, because "X" demands something of "Y", whether it be increased taxation or forced purchase of government mandated insurance, or whatever. I use "X" and "Y" to keep this impersonal, but "X" should never have the right to demand anything of "Y" without "Y"s consent. That puts "X" in a position of tyrant and dictator, and I do not care how benevolent "X"s intentions are. It's just plain wrong to do.

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.

You're argument is that there are limits to your absolute rights and they can be infringed apon, because they have been infringed apon, and therefore they are not absolute. That is, by definition, circular logic.

Not to mention your blatant strawman. I have never once made the claim that natural rights come from any sort of diety.

Not actual rights. Artificial rights, perhaps. I am free to not shout fire in a theater. I am free to not plan a crime, etc. Health care rights, as I understand you, do not provide me with that option, because "X" demands something of "Y", whether it be increased taxation or forced purchase of government mandated insurance, or whatever. I use "X" and "Y" to keep this impersonal, but "X" should never have the right to demand anything of "Y" without "Y"s consent. That puts "X" in a position of tyrant and dictator, and I do not care how benevolent "X"s intentions are. It's just plain wrong to do.

So I contend that learning Blade fighting Skills. Rapier, Epee and Foil, is a right of every person. after all it's education.

tentative schedule puts me is San Antonia
the middle of next month. Shall I bring my bag and mask, I'm a little rusty, but open floor Florentine, actually sounds like fun.

So I contend that learning Blade fighting Skills. Rapier, Epee and Foil, is a right of every person. after all it's education.

tentative schedule puts me is San Antonia
the middle of next month. Shall I bring my bag and mask, I'm a little rusty, but open floor Florentine, actually sounds like fun.

Not actual rights. Artificial rights, perhaps. I am free to not shout fire in a theater. I am free to not plan a crime, etc. Health care rights, as I understand you, do not provide me with that option, because "X" demands something of "Y", whether it be increased taxation or forced purchase of government mandated insurance, or whatever. I use "X" and "Y" to keep this impersonal, but "X" should never have the right to demand anything of "Y" without "Y"s consent. That puts "X" in a position of tyrant and dictator, and I do not care how benevolent "X"s intentions are. It's just plain wrong to do.