Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:35:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5196 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > And I'm not sure it's even an aplicable idea since what we're talking about • it
> > the legislation of morality. It is simply an opinion.
>
> You admit to being angry / bitter and use terms such as theft... it is
> difficult to take your argument seriously as it sounds so subjective.
Um, well, I think most people get angry sometimes. That doesn't mean that they
can't be objective. And is it your contention that the use of the term 'theft'
is a clear indicator of subjectivity? I have yet to hear you or any other
liberal disprove my assertion that taxation is thievery. (Or even to address
it beyond mocking it and me.) Why should I fail to call taxation theivery? I
think quite honestly that it is the most objective assessment of taxation
possible.
> > > This is all very circular.
> >
> > Why won't you just tell me what you think?
>
> I did before... that is why I said "This is all very circular."
You might have told me some things that you think...though you tend to allude
to them instead of just stating it outright (and I have no idea why)...but you
failed repeatedly to answer simple questions about what you think. I still
have no idea why you think prostitution should be illegal. And we never even
touched on polygamy. What I am to conclude based on your unwillingness to
assert or defend your beliefs? Normally it means that one is incapable of
doing so. If that's your situation, why not at least say something like "I
think it's evil and wrong but I can't explain it logically?"
I see that our argument is circular. I keep asking what you think and you keep
either a) not answering, b) alluding to attitudes that I can't pin down, or
most recently c) falsely claiming that you've answered in the past. The circle
here is that I want you to tell me why you disapprove of my beliefs, and you
just want to disaprove.
> > > Nope. I was saying I must be a prude by _your_ standards.
> >
> > Well, sure, I suppose so. But you think my standards are somehow askew? I
> > generally attribute prudish attitudes to some form of discomfort
> > (jealousy? fear? anger?) at the knowledge that other people are engaging in
> > pleasurable sexual activity that for whatever reason the prude is not
> > comfortable engaging in himself. So if someone is uncomfortable with
> > sexuality, they are exhibiting prudishness.
>
> It is not an important point, but you are still very subjective.
What do you mean? Of course it's subjective, if you mean our prudishness, it's
all about attitude and unconcious illogic. If you mean that my definition of
prudish is subjective, then I would appreciate (very much!) an objective
definition and a brief explanation of the essential differences between that
definition and my own that makes it objective.
> > That's a little different than how I think of it, but it's about the same. I
> > wonder if my vernacular understanding is more along the lines of what • everyone
> > else means too? Or am I overemphasizing part of it?
>
> Possibly.
<twitch>
> > > I'd strive for change.
> >
> > Well, that's what I do too, but you don't seem happy with it.
>
> But my response was to an extreme hypothetical situation within an extreme
> hypothetical situation within – you just don’t like democracy.
So? Of course I don't like democracy. I live in one. If I lived under a
dictator, a democracy would seem great.
> > > If an indivdual has only property which has no value, in your dreamland,
> > > would s/he have the right to education, healthcare, food?
> >
> > Of course not. There is no right to goods. They would have an equal right
> > to seek those things, but not a right to receive them.
>
> OK. Like I said - no property, no rights.
No, whether or not one has property, one does not have the right to free goods.
And they do (still regardless of their wealth) have other rights.
Your logic (such as it is) is like saying that in the UK, since people don't
have a right to free land, but they do (sort of) have a right to own it, that
you live in a "no property, no rights" land too. But of course that's equally
absurd as your claim about Libertopia.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) I'm not calling myself a liberal, but to address this would require that one knows what you mean by taxation and thievery. I agree that taxation without representation is thievery, but I doubt that is what you are saying. What if there were a (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) I'll answer this once search is working again. (...) I'd argue that it is more important that a society ensures its citizen has the right to shelter & sustenance... before any other right. In your dreamland, those within it have all sorts of (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) You admit to being angry / bitter and use terms such as theft... it is difficult to take your argument seriously as it sounds so subjective. (...) I did before... that is why I said "This is all very circular." (...) It is not an important (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
