Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:34:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5250 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
I'll answer this once search is working again.
>
> > > > 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.
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 hypothetical rights which are
useless without property to give them access to it.
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Is land a good? (was: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 )
|
| (...) I think I get it (or at least part of it). You are envisioning the scenario in which (just as an example) a person has no wealth at all, and those with wealth prevent him from obtaining any. Or even worse, fail to yield a place for him to (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) it (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
