Subject:
|
Re: Is space property?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:52:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
171 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes:
> > Chris, you're hypothesizing in the absence of definitions.
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> I'm not sure I follow. I just went back and reread my note, looking for
> unclarity or definitionless terms. The only thing that I really came up with
> is the concept of rights. Rights are definately up in the air as far as a
> definition. But is that what you meant?
Well, yeah, that's the central concept, isn't it? If you're trying to apply and
extend a concept but you don't really know what it is to start with, muddle will
result. (The irony is that you're trying to go into space when it is grounding
that should concern you...)
I'm sticking to short remarks. I seem to write well here only in brief or book-
length modes.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is space property?
|
| (...) and (...) will (...) I've been thinking about this. I have at various times thought that rights are: A) immutable truths based on the nature of our humanity, B) make believe, C) legal constructs saying what we can do, and D) fuzzy terms that (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is space property?
|
| (...) Hi Erik, I'm not sure I follow. I just went back and reread my note, looking for unclarity or definitionless terms. The only thing that I really came up with is the concept of rights. Rights are definately up in the air as far as a definition. (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 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
|
|
|
|
