Subject:
|
Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:41:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
979 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > Uncritical thinker!
> >
> > I think I am being critical... and you don't like it! Call me what you want
> > Larry, I'm pretty thick skinned.
>
> From the definition of "critical" (1) (and I am surprised that I have to
> explain this to a Doctor, actually. What kind of doctor are you, again?)
PhD
...
> You are "critical" in the sense of
>
> 2 a : inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably
>
> because indeed, you do criticise, over and over and over. Just look at all
> your posts to, for example, admin.general. Sniping, asking inane questions,
> rattling off one-liners to those who try to explain justify or amplify, etc,
> then not being satisfied with the outcome when the owner says "this is how
> it's going to be" and bringing up the same points again.
Yes you are correct. Even though I have a lot of respect for TL, I don't
think he is correct all the time. No big deal really. If it were TL could
change the T&C.
>
> but you are not a "critical thinker" in the sense of
>
> 2 c : exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation
>
> because you don't exhibit those behaviours. I certainly haven't seen any
> judicious evaluation.
If you mean I don't agree with you, you are correct.
>
> This is off-topic.debate not off-topic.sarcastic-one-liner... taken from the
> definition of "debate"(verb)
>
> b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments
>
> That's what the charter here is, for reasoned debate. Not just repeating
> over and over the same hackneyed statements.
I'm not sure I am doing that. I have no problem tackling the issues, but you
have a habit of squirming and avoiding the issue. You also have a tendency
to play to the crowd rather that answer the points - but I accept that may
be part of debating, if one is skilled enough.
>
> I and others have in the past given lots and lots of explanation,
> justification, etc. for what we say and if I choose to ignore your request
> that I explain something again, it's not dodging the issue, it's just
> refusing to do your homework for you.
Call it what you want Larry.
>
> > > Strangely enough, the siamese twin decision you cited, Scott... that
> > > decision actually DID use a rights based calculus. Are you saying you
> > > disagree with the approach they used? Or is it only applicable to siamese
> > > twins? Or what? Or didn't you think that far ahead when you decided to cite
> > it?
> >
> > I choose to evaluate each issue on its merits. I do not just stick to an
> > dogmatic agenda just on principle, no matter how illogical the extreme. I
> > have compassion for my fellow man - even those whom I have never met.
>
> Answer the questions, will you? This is a new example that you brought up,
> now you won't say whether you agreed with how the Lords carried out their
> decision. My position is that you need a coherent system and a consistent
> one. It's not dogmatic to use a consistent system. Merely fair. Feel free to
> pose a well thought out real life example where a rights based calculus came
> to an unjust or totally incorrect outcome, and we'll all critically examine
> it. If you can find one, that is.
I agreed with the end result, To be honest on this, have no idea what the
fine detail of the law lords thinking was. I looked at it from that angle
that the solution which was reached has the highest chance of a life being
saved. I think the rights of the parents should have been overruled, my
thinking is the same with JW blood transfusions - a broadly analogous situation.
>
> > I do not want to "insinuate" they are antisocial. I want to STATE they are.
>
> Sorry. Stipulate that you've said it. Now prove it. We've demonstrated how a
> rights based system will ultimately be fairer for all. Refute that, but do
> it without regard to whining about feelings.
From The LP
"To transfer control of education from bureaucrats to parents and teachers
and encourage alternatives to the public school monopoly, the Libertarian
Party would"
With the best will in the world, how can individual parents and teachers
strategically plan a nation’s education? Governments can and plan for the
future and are able to direct focus to areas where there is a lack of skills
or ability.
From The LP
"To transfer control of education from bureaucrats to parents and teachers
and encourage alternatives to the public school monopoly, the Libertarian
Party would"
This would essentially move funds invested in state schools to subsidise the
private sector. Parents who could afford to move their children to a better
school could do so, those who could not would be left behind in the
underfunded public sector. This was an issue for state funded care in the UK
a few years ago, it was kicked into touch for the reasons I give. Further,
higher education system is largely privately funded(?), what is its product
like – I hear you IT revolution has been based considerably overseas skills?
From The LP
"The Democrats and Republicans have destroyed jobs by:
taking money consumers and businesses would otherwise use to purchase goods
and services"
I can not see how lowering taxation in such a way would not result in much
higher inflation?
>
> > > that all I care about is my own personal accumulation of wealth
> > > (while Scott contributes far less to the growth of this little LEGO
> > > community here, our only interaction by which to judge him, than I do),
> >
> > So because you assume you contribute to LUGNET more than I, that makes you a
> > better man than I? What a preposterous frame of mind you have.
>
> I'm not assuming. Your "contribution" consists of flogging your stuff in the
> auction group, and sniping at how things are run, and posting uncritical
> criticism and one liners to the debate group.
That is your perception.
> But that's not my point. My
> point is that *all* I have to judge you on is what you do here.
It is a very window Larry.
> You may do
> wonderful things elsewhere, who knows?
I try Larry.
> Based on here, based on this society
> (hardly important to the larger scheme) that's what I see.
:0
>
> > So I support looting now do I? I shall have to remember that. I've got a few
> > hours spare tonight.
>
> Looting by governments, yes. I'm not saying you personally loot. How
> surprising that the distinction is lost on you. Uncritical thinker!
You may feel I may support looting, but at least I don't support a party
which finds instigation of rape, assault, demeaning or exploitation of women
acceptable.
You calling the government which you countrymen no doubt voted for enforcing
the law of you land shows you contempt for you fellow man.
>
> > > Laughable on the face of it, really. Uncritical thinker, safely ignorable.
> >
> > Ignore me than Larry. You keep saying you do, but then you come back for
> > more of my thoughts.
>
> You're right. I just want the historical record to be clear on what I mean
> when I characterise you as an uncritical thinker.
History will show that that I am a critical thinker. Your local University
library may well hold some of my publications.
> And now it is clear. From
> now on I will try to do better at ignoring you unless you change your ways
> and start debating rather than spewing.
Larry, debate the issues and I'll answer them. I can't solve your problems
if you are not clear. I have no idea what you are talking about when you
mention looting etc. It may help get it all off you chest by rambling on
non-senseally, and passing the occasional attempt at an insult - but its not
very understandable to me to be honest.
Just take a deep breath. Count to 10, and tell me all about it.
:)
Scott A
>
> 1 - all definitions from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion...
|
| (...) Scott, think this through, and give an answer: what superior power of decision making does the government (which is a collection of people) have that any other collection of people could have? What makes the legislatures and other government (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
