Subject:
|
Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:59:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
998 times
|
| |
|
|
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?) ...
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 oneliners 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.
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.
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 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.
> > 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 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.
> > 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. But that's not my point. My
point is that *all* I have to judge you on is what you do here. You may do
wonderful things elsewhere, who knows? Based on here, based on this society
(hardly important to the larger scheme) that's what I see.
> 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!
> > 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. 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.
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...
|
| (...) PhD ... (...) 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. (...) If you mean I don't agree with you, you are correct. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion...
|
| (...) I was not trying to hide that Larry. And I did alert any readers to that fact - which is what you chose not to answer my questions. That aside, looking at the tone of some of the LP aims, I feel that they do not care too much for the rights of (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
