Debate : 24266


Off-Topic / Debate / 24266

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Then we disagree. (...) Yes, but neither are you "all for" sex either, unless you are willing to advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There is no difference except in degree. (...) Of course. Do you have another (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Thomas Stangl

(...) Really? Do tell... (...) I don't exactly know what reality you live in anymore, John (if I ever did), but I've got news for you - the Nuclear Family is a 20th C construct, and it is falling by the wayside. It is anything BUT the norm anymore. (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Take a look around. I think you are denying the obvious. What would you assert the foundation of our society is? (...) (snip) (...) I didn't say it was the norm, just the foundation. (...) I doubt it. Cultures with strong, nuclear families (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Thomas Stangl

(...) Judging by stats today? The foundation is just as likely to be Divorce as it is to be Marriage. 50% goes both ways, bub. (...) The foundation of what? {Your} idea of what the US should be? Ignoring the fact that it is a 20C construct? (...) (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) That really depends on the animal - the smarter they are the more they can move away from "instinct". My bird can put words, individuals, and activities together without me attempting to teach him in the slightest. The dog can do the same, if (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) The Talking Dog A guy walks into a bar with a dog under his arm, puts the dog on the bar and announces that the dog can talk and that he has $100 he's willing to bet anyone who says he can't. The bartender quickly takes the bet and the owner (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yup, that's always been a good one. :-) But as if on cue to back me up: (URL) "Research Finds Dogs Understand Language" I didn't need research to have figured this out. My dog brings the right toy when I ask for it (tug-of-war, squeeky, ball), (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) I practically worshipped Gary Larson, but I digress;-) Okay, I admit that some animals can learn some things. Perhaps this debate should have begun at the topic of sentiency. Can we not agree that, while being mammels, we are vastly different (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) For the most part, yes, but at the same time, less so than we thought. For a very few species, I start to suspect that David Brin is right about "uplift" being just around the corner. I'm kind of amazed that scientists have dragged their heels (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Scott Arthur

(...) A mixture of greed and fear. Scott A (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Don Heyse

(...) I hope you don't truly believe that, because it's just plain wrong. Society is based on extending the relationships learned early on in the family environment (whatever that may be) to encompass people in the neighborhood, and then beyond that (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Scott Arthur

(...) I was being cynical. I see too many parents working very long hours (to the detriment of their health, marriage & family) so that they may buy items they don’t need as they fear not conforming. Twenty years ago a “family day out” would be a (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Don Heyse

(...) Oh, silly me. Perhaps you could adopt one of these emoticons for when you're in cynical mode. >:-> Cynical; Devil-like; Really devilish remark; Has a crew cut; Leering >;-> Cynical wink; Irony; Winky and devil combined (a very lewd remark was (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Scott Arthur

(...) I think France has the most hols in the EU(?). I only get 6 weeks + 10 days public holiday. ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) No one thing!!! People often pull this "sky is falling" gimick about some trivial little detail claiming that a change will cause the collapse of society. If we granted universal marriage rights to homosexuals -- as we would if we were a (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) And....? (...) How do you know? How do you claim to understand all of the social ramifications of such a shift? You can't even cite any historical references because such a proposition is unprecedented. Forgive me if I pass on your little (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You keep asserting that the nuclear family is the foundation of society. I guess I thought you meant that the nuclear family is the foundation of society. Silly me. (...) It would improve it! (...) I think you left out some of the respect due. (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) All I am asking is upon what do you believe our society is based. If you think it is a myriad of things, fine. What are they? (...) Upon what exactly do you base your assertion? (...) What I mean is that you are asserting things for which you (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll cite the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. You even know the amendment... it's the one that discusses the right of citizens to associate (or not) as they choose. Then I'll cite contract law in general. People can enter into (or not (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Leonard Hoffman

(...) Oh my god, Larry. That was beautiful. Perhaps the single best post I've read in OTD ever. -lenny (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) You are deliberately misinterpreting the Bill of Rights. Of course that Amendment had nothing to do with the concept of marriage. (...) The definition of marriage is the union of one man and one women. NO gay person is excluded from entering (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) A definition. NOT The definition. This point seems lost on you. Which is why you lose the debate. By definition. (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) What is your point? Don't be such a coward. Define it! (...) You mean by changing definition. JOHN (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Merriam-Webster: marriage: (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage Foul ball (counts as Strike one). You are using the term "marriage" to mean "traditional marriage", (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) Speaking of changing definitions-- I wonder how old that definition is! (...) Okay, can't you see how wrong and biased that is! Astonishing! (Evil indeed;-) (...) You green-eyed bigot! :-) Why do you draw the limit at 2??? How do you feel (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Indeed. (...) Not my cup of tea. (...) Hmm... Not my cup of tea either (I think my daughter has more sense than that) (...) Not my cup of tea either (my mom had issues, and we never had a very handsome dog) If you can get informed consent from (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Wait a minute...you said to go look it up. Did you mean in the Bible? I assumed you meant in the dictionary. (...) What?!? Encarta is the most widely used tool for elementary-school research in the United States. I thought you wanted us to (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Pedro Silva

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: As long as no one is being harmed, they should go for it. The (...) I just knew there was someone out there who thought exactly the same as I did... well put, Chris! Pedro (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Scott Arthur

(...) My feeling is that it is the responsibility of government to ensure our children are provided with the best possible opportunities in childhood. It just so happens that children who are cared for by parents who are in a stable relationship (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Hopefully you mean "best possible within economic reason." Also, I'd like to see how the "stable relationship":"good start" metrics are compiled (you're reporting actual findings, right...not just opinion or impression?). Further, since I know (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Scott Arthur

(...) These are my phrases and the terms I've used are subjective. I suppose I'm just reflecting the view that most married ppl accept without really questioning it. If you want to "upset the apple cart", why not show me that I should question it? A (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) that was the best they could do. And I'll point out that I don't question the validity of any of the journals that they're referencing. Their main points were: (...) I think this is sort of putting the cart before the horse since it makes all (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) I did. Notice -->Bruce<-- chose a secondary definition, not the primary one. The cheek:-) (...) THIS IS PRECIOUSLY MY POINT!!! (I'm screaming, but not at you). This is what our kids are being taught! It's REVISIONIST and WRONG! (...) Then I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I knew that. What I don't know is why. Why are you opposed to those in particular? (...) I can absolutely respect yor right to believe that and even to belong to an organization that believes that, such as a church. I would rather see marriage (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Frank Filz

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzIL24.D99@lugnet.com... (...) they (...) apply to (...) about (...) There is a lot of baggage associated with marriage that should be available to any couple. The problem with (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) Practical and other utilitarian arguments aside, let's just say they go against my religious belief system. (...) Life is hard; it's no excuse. I'd say you may be correct and that that realization is irresponsible. (...) Unfortunately, that is (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Where's the harm? From one side of the issue, they get to be rid of those disgusting deviants once and for all. From the other, they get to be rid of the backward, protruding-forehead, neanderthals that have been stifling progress. It sounds (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Fair enough. When the Government and your church leaders tell you that you must accept the marriage of gays within your church, you can protest all you like, and I'll be right there with you in expressing that feeling. Unfortunately, that's (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Frank Filz

"Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:HzMHDG.1E6q@lugnet.com... (...) mean, wow, (...) caused a (...) Yea, anyone who is at least nominally a Christian who isn't Catholic has no business worrying about splitting churches. If (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) And nations! Like during the War of Northern Aggression? Chris ;-) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You mean the "War to Defend the 'Right' to Hold Slaves"? But ya, like that. (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "And Bullwinkle "War Between the States"-hips his way down the field for Wossamotta U.... (I suppose one had to watch the episodes to get the civil-swivel-war between the states running gag) -->Nuthin' up m'sleeve, Presto!<-- (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) ROAR! (Guess I don't know my own strength!) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —James Powell

(...) The issue that I see is that the government (at least, the US federal one) does not recognize any other association for the purposes of financial gain. You can't tell me that the institution of marrage is sacredly between 1 man/ 1 woman, for (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I agree with everything James wrote, but I think the truly beneficial course of action is for the government to get out of the business of certifying certain interpersonal contracts as having special value. The People should be free to (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I'm innocent! Ambrose Bierce is to blame! Or that little shoulder devil that whispered in his ear... (...) Ewww...wwwuuuuuuue! My brother never picks up his socks! But then, I know two brothers who married two sisters.... (...) I suppose if (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) I'm so provincial-- I hadn't even heard of the Devil's Dictionary:-/ (now I get your smiley:-) (...) How efficient:-) (...) I think even the Mormons would protest that one! (...) HI-O! (...) Everyone else is-- except Scott!!!! 8^O JOHN (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Uh, no. You got it backwards. Bruce appears to be on the side with the rest of us. Chris (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) So, John, do you oppose all change in definition? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not sure why you're missing my point. I'm OK with any sort of union between any number of people (or, if in future other species are uplifted or discovered such that they can give informed consent) or other species as long as everyone (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —David Eaton

I have to admit, being a Massachusetts-ite, this subject line piqued my interest. Pardon while I crash the party... (...) Doesn't it though? I think Larry quoted the rights quite accurately. But you can get more specific than that if you're (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) I have no problem ending such inequities WRT to married couples verses gays. You don't have to redefine marriage to correct those wrongs! (...) I agree. (...) You assume incorrectly! The government is a terrible arbiter of right and wrong! (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But you also seem to believe that the majority should be able to make anything illegal if it offends their sensibilities. Right? (...) Why? John, you have asserted time and again that I can't know what the result of making the changes that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —David Eaton

(...) Don't you? I mean, the way US laws are written, I believe there are rights provided to married couples that wouldn't be to anyone under something like 'civil unions'. Speaking of which, is that what you're advocating? If so, how would a 'civil (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Frank Filz

"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIHou.1yEv@lugnet.com... (...) example. (...) they (...) you (...) wives (...) could take (...) able (...) Insurance companies have always had to deal with an unbounded number of dependants - (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Thomas Stangl

I don't see a problem with this either, except.... Some insurance companies essentially provide a "Bulk Discount" for dependents - the more you have, the less you pay per dependent. I think this is wrong. You are encouraging multiple dependents in (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) And that's all a matter for the individual insurance companies to work out with their customers, right? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Absent regulation preventing them from doing so, yes. However, in the world today insurance companies are heavily regulated as to who they can or can't cover and how they go about determining risk factors or premiums. So, no. Unfortunately. (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —David Eaton

(...) Huh-- I guess I'm not familiar enough with it not having any spouses or dependants of my own :) I guess basically the extreme case I'm trying to avoid by limiting the number of marriage participants is to keep someone from, say, getting 1600 (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Does it? Why must marriage be a special case of contract? (...) I think that if polygamy became popular the insurance companies would have ways of covering their budgets worked out way before it mattered. It is frankly startling to me that (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —David Eaton

(...) As I noted to Frank, if the system is set up to handle polygamy in a balanced way, then I'm all for it. My goal isn't to restrict marriage in any way, but more to prevent people from abusing it as a legal loophole. (...) Again, the only reason (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —Frank Filz

"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIopJ.12np@lugnet.com... (...) participants (...) book, if (...) isn't (...) Hmm, but there are genetic conditions that are far more predictable in damaging children. Should we not allow (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Can you say Gattaca? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —David Eaton

(...) Good point. Hmm.. I'm not sure. Certainly as I mentioned, marriage isn't the issue in that case-- I'm still fine with brothers & sisters and people with disease X marrying. Procreation? Hmm. I guess it seems sort of cruel to me to have a child (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gay Marriage —Richard Parsons

(...) Nicely put. And it also nice to find myself on the same team as Larry (at least occaisionally :-). Richard Still baldly going... (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Gay Marriage —John Neal

(...) A reason to give one pause in its own right! :-) JOHN (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

John, I want to go back and apologize for saying that one thing or another that you wrote sounds dumb. It was a stupid way for me to communicate. (...) OK, I'll approach this seriously. To claim that our society is "founded" upon any thing(s) (by (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Xenophobia —Scott Arthur

(...) Your comment appears a little xenophobic. Even if you are right, what is the big deal about immigrants being Muslims? Anyhow, in 40 years time your descendants’ 1st language will be Spanish. ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Xenophobia —John Neal

(...) Well, in case you hadn't noticed, their is a titanic struggle for the heart and soul of Islam, and the extremists appear to be gaining the upper hand, and they aren't too keen on the ideas of freedom and democracy. (...) Doubtful. Maybe the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Xenophobia —Scott Arthur

(...) Actually, I hadn’t noticed this “struggle”. Care to share your source? (...) Are these the same Islamic "extremists" that Reagan supported? (...) ...and there lies the error in your argument. Many of the Muslims in the EU come here for freedom (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Xenophobia —John Neal

(...) I forgot whom I engaged. Nevermind. JOHN (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Xenophobia —Scott Arthur

(...) …and I forgot you seldom feel the need to substantiate your opinions & tend to delete points you don't want to answer. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Xenophobia —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) My son is already not Aryan Pure, so it matters not to me. The school he goes to is heavily Chinese and Korean, anyway, so I figure if he learned those languages along with Spanish it would just make him that more adaptable. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The line that I draw is at victimization. That's not arbitrary. If no one is being victimized then what they're doing is OK. I'm not offended by either incest or bestiality aside from the difficulties in obtaining informed consent. Why should (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) This, too, is moral relativism, which you have alternatively embraced and reviled in earlier posts. As far as incest goes, you have (URL) previously acknowledged> that incestuous relationships are wrong because they conflict with cultural (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) I realize this and I believe in an absolute morality, but he doesn't. I am trying to appeal to his sensibilities, not mine (which I know he flatly rejects). I am arguing on his turf, as it were. (...) I assume you are talking about when I (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) But you're wrote "You draw your lines, I draw mine." That is an explicit statement of self-imposed limitations. Is that your intent? Or do you really mean "You draw your lines, I adhere to absolute lines drawn out for me by millennia-old (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Thank you for that clarification. I meant that I choose lines that I believe are absolutely drawn out. My point was that I am not the only one who adheres to drawn lines. We all do. (...) Eh, when the perspective is from the Creator of the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile." One person's 'perversion'(1) is another person's societal norm. What makes something a perversion? A (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) Um, these rights are already very easy to take away. George W. Bush has, for example, taken them away from a whole bunch of people, both as Governor and as President, both here and abroad. Is Dubya so powerful that he can supplant the Will of (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal

(...) Sure, IRL, but I was speaking theoretically, as I believe were the FF. Merely because someone is able to oppress me and take away my rights doesn't justify it. (...) That is precisely why I claim they are divinely-endowed, so that no one has (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) When you are oppressed you retain your rights. There are only two ways to be rid of rights: to surrender them (dangerously easy to do by mistake), and to have them taken from you through due process as established by the US Constitution. I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) I can accept your formulation more readily because it doesn't appeal to deus ex machina, but I'm not comfortable with the notion of "inherency." How is inherency identified/verified, and who gets to decide what is inherent? Hmm. Now that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The problem here is the conflation of legal notion with absolute reality. Rights are the legal/political expression of an aesthetic that nearly everyone (involved in the discussion) supports. While I wrote before that I was siding with John, (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Frank Filz

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzICys.15Iv@lugnet.com... (...) as if (...) The (...) same (...) I've definitely had some trouble with the origin of rights. They feel inherent, yet it also seems generally accepted (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

I've written here before that I think it would be more valuable to reframe the entire notion of rights as responsibilities. I think the absolutism of rights is easy to get tripped up on. (At least for me.) (...) One common stance is that an entity (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) This is a very nice summation, overall. (...) A good distinction to bear in mind. I don't think I have the ammunition to prove my case scientifically, so I should probably say I'm aiming for the philosophical angle. To clarify: By "inherent (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

Given that explanation, I think we both agree that discussion of "inherent rights" must assume that it is a social/legal construct. And that discussions of these general topics might be better served focussing on "inherent preferences." At least (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler

(...) But it does demonstrate irrefutably that those rights are not inalienable, contrary to the assertion of the founding fathers. Inalienable rights that can be taken away aren't very inalienable. And in all practical ways, rights that are utterly (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think you just said that it's sick because it's sick. Is that really what you meant? (...) I have, over and over -- across the years, claimed that the rights of the majority and the minority must both be set up so that they do not conflict (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)