Las Vegas

Duck and cover
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:30 am

EM: congrats. clever fresh look at the subject. Sadly..... for me it fell apart at the recognition that a space mission to Mars is not analogous to the operation of a society. Just to begin with: no one volunters to join Space Ship Earth and its not a limited engagement.

But ......... its still worth thinking through.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:31 am

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Certainly not the right to own a gun.
Why not?
A stray bullet, or even one hitting the mark could kill everyone on board? That kind of autonomy??
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:42 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Certainly not the right to own a gun.
Why not?
A stray bullet, or even one hitting the mark could kill everyone on board? That kind of autonomy??
Not necessarily.

Example: A accidental hole about the size of a dime in the Russian space station Mir did not kill everyone. No explosive decompression. Although it was an emergency, and air was leaking out, it was handled and no one died.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:00 am

Well X. Good demonstration of how far crazy will go.

What you don't deal with is that when you advocate such extreme policies, you lose whatever credibility you might have had on ideas closer to reality. I assume in the best of all designed worlds you would allow each crew member to have their own tactical nuke as well?

...............good boy.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13184
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:43 am

I did not say natural rights had been destroyed. I said they had been taken away, many, many times. Since inalienable means 'unable to be taken away' this means with 100% certititude that they are not inalienable. You might choose to replace 'taken away' with "violated", but the different word does not change the reality.

Simple. There are no inalienable rights. That is a piece of propaganda and is total bull-{!#%@}.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:46 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well X. Good demonstration of how far crazy will go.

What you don't deal with is that when you advocate such extreme policies, you lose whatever credibility you might have had on ideas closer to reality.
You seem to have the delusion that I care what you think.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I assume in the best of all designed worlds you would allow each crew member to have their own tactical nuke as well?
You assume incorrectly.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:49 am

Why would you infringe on the personal autonomy of crew members to have personal nukes? Where do you draw the line then...........assault rifles? Yes or No???
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:06 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:If someone says something cannot be destroyed and then you see someone else destroy it, does that not show the first guy is wrong ?
xouper wrote:You have not shown that natural rights have been destroyed, you have only shown that they have sometimes been violated. Not the same thing.
Lance Kennedy wrote:I did not say natural rights had been destroyed. I said they had been taken away, many, many times.
Gee, what were those words in your previous post that I highlighted in yellow? Up to that point you had been talking about rights being taken away and then suddenly you switched to using the word "destroyed".

I will accept your explanation that you had something else in mind, and merely got sloppy in the way you expressed yourself, but shirley you can see how I arrived at the interpretation I did?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Since inalienable means 'unable to be taken away' this means with 100% certititude that they are not inalienable. You might choose to replace 'taken away' with "violated", but the different word does not change the reality.

Simple. There are no inalienable rights. That is a piece of propaganda and is total bull-{!#%@}.
You merely repeat the same old mantra over and over and over. Sorry, but mere repetition does not count as justification of your position. But apparently that's all you've got.

This big flaw in your argument is that you have not (and cannot) justify your position, despite repeated requests to do so.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:10 am

bobbo_the_troll wrote:Why would you infringe on the personal autonomy of crew members to have personal nukes? Where do you draw the line then...........assault rifles? Yes or No???
Image

I will not be fooled again by troll bait disguised as a question.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:15 am

Wouldn't troll bait being put out make you the troll?

..........Just wondering.

I actually "think" that saying Space Ship crews should have access to guns is troll bait. What kind of idiot would actually believe that? And if that..............then were is the line?

Fair questions.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:57 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Wouldn't troll bait being put out make you the troll?

..........Just wondering.

I actually "think" that saying Space Ship crews should have access to guns is troll bait. What kind of idiot would actually believe that? And if that..............then were is the line?

Fair questions.
Image

Troll trying to troll with bait looking suspiciously like "fair questions". Not fooled again.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:25 am

.......... because everyone agrees guns in space is a good idea.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:39 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:.......... because everyone agrees guns in space is a good idea.
Image

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:52 am

I'll stop.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13184
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:27 pm

Major misunderstanding on your part Xouper.

When I mentioned something being destroyed, I was arguing using a comparison. I did not say rights being destroyed and I did not mean rights. You clearly missed the point. Read it again.

But I have proven my case, many times. Inalienable means cannot be taken away. Yet each and every one of those rights you call inalienable have been taken away numerous times from numerous people. Therefore they are not inalienable.

Do you know, Xouper, what it is called when someone believes something in spite of very strong evidence (dare I call it proof? ) to the contrary ? It is called faith. And the person with those beliefs is described as a religious believer. Your faith in inalienable rights is religious in nature.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:01 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Major misunderstanding on your part Xouper.

When I mentioned something being destroyed, I was arguing using a comparison. I did not say rights being destroyed and I did not mean rights. You clearly missed the point. Read it again.
OK, I will accept your clarification on that point.

My "misunderstanding" was neither intentional nor malicious.

What you wrote could legitimately be interpreted more than one way. Initially I only saw one way, and you are now saying there is another way. OK, I will accept your word for that. However, you cannot legitimately say that your sloppy writing did not have any ambiguity in it. Nonetheless, these things get resolved by working together, not fighting with each other.

Lance Kennedy wrote:But I have proven my case, many times.
No, you haven't. You have merely asserted it.

You have only shown that rights can be violated, you have not shown they can be taken away.

As I have explained repeatedly, the difference is not trivial, there are significant moral consequences. And you have offered nothing at all (beyond mere hand-waving) in rebuttal to my objection.

A direct consequence of your position is that you do not have the moral authority to say the Nazis were wrong to "take away" the rights of the Jews (and the atheists).

That is the fundamental flaw in your argument.

When you try to argue you do  have that moral authority, then you are (in effect) asserting an inalienable right. You are (in effect) arguing that the government cannot take away your right to object to their behavior.

Your argument is self contradictory.

If rights can be taken away, as you claim, then when the government takes some of your rights, you have no moral authority to say they "should" be given back. That is the flaw in your argument.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Do you know, Xouper, what it is called when someone believes something in spite of very strong evidence (dare I call it proof? ) to the contrary ? It is called faith. And the person with those beliefs is described as a religious believer. Your faith in inalienable rights is religious in nature.
Despite all the evidence I have posted to support my position and refute yours, you have done exactly what you accuse me of doing.

Example: The UN Declaration of Rights clearly says that certain human rights are inalienable.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html wrote:Preamble: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, . . .
You dismiss that by calling it "political propaganda". You've got some mighty big chutzpah there.

You believe in your position in spite of very strong evidence to the contrary. To use your own words, that's called faith.

And to use more of your own words, the person with those beliefs is described as a religious believer. Your faith in alienable rights is religious in nature.

Well done, Lance. You have described yourself quite well.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13184
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:35 pm

Xouper

Keep this simple. Talking about me having or not having moral authority is pure red herring.

My assertion here is much simpler. There are no inalienable rights.

This has nothing to with "should or should not", or moral authority. It is just, are there inalienable rights ? Trying to relabel the alienating of rights as violating does not change a damn thing. If rights are inalienable then by definition they cannot be taken away. But not only can they be taken away, but they HAVE been taken away, more times than can easily be counted. So, the conclusion is simple. There are no inalienable rights.

Quoting politicians who say rights are inalienable does not change the truth. No rights are inalienable, because they can all be taken away. Your belief in inalienable rights, in spite of the very obvious reality, must be called a kind of religious faith. A good skeptic will face truth and accept it. Only those who are irrationally religious accept a belief that is patently wrong.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 12005
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Las Vegas

Post by TJrandom » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:28 pm

And here we dither away, and others too across America, doing nothing but argue our points while the next mass murderer – yet at this very moment a law abiding citizen, unimpeded, acquires his arsenal which he will use to violate the rights, and indeed the lives of many.

That a government has lost the ability to address the ills that plague its society, IMO, is a sure sign that it has lost legitimacy. Sad.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 9249
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Aztexan » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:59 pm

This is a christian nation
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:53 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Keep this simple. Talking about me having or not having moral authority is pure red herring.
Nope. It is directly on point to where rights come from.

It is directly on point as a rebuttal to your claim that there are certain rights the government "should" give you. You are in effect making a moral claim about what the government ought to do.

So it is very much on point to discuss that part of your claim.

Lance Kennedy wrote:My assertion here is much simpler. There are no inalienable rights.
Repeating a mantra does not make it true.

Here's the big flaw in your argument: If the government decides to take your liver without your consent, you have no grounds to say they are wrong to do so.

And you have never submitted any kind of rebuttal to that flaw. Instead you just keep repeating your mantra like some kind of religious pinhead.

Lance Kennedy wrote:This has nothing to with "should or should not", or moral authority.
Yes it does. You said there are certain rights that the government "should" give you.

And yet you have never explained how you justify saying that, even after repeated requests to do so.

You keep avoiding the question, most likely because you cannot justify that claim. Instead you just repeat your mantra like a religious zealot.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Quoting politicians who say rights are inalienable does not change the truth.
You haven't even managed to quote anyone. Not a single source.

Furthermore, I have quoted more than just politicians, I have also cited some of history's greatest thinkers on the matter.

My position at least has some historical, rational, and moral justification, which I have clearly spelled out in great detail in various threads where we have had this conversation. And you have not managed to refute any of it, other than to stick you head in the sand and mumble "You're wrong."

Your position has merely your personal opinion. Nothing more.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Your belief in inalienable rights, in spite of the very obvious reality, must be called a kind of religious faith. A good skeptic will face truth and accept it. Only those who are irrationally religious accept a belief that is patently wrong.
Your belief that all rights are alienable , in spite of the very obvious reality, must be called a kind of religious faith. A good skeptic will face truth and accept it. Only those who are irrationally religious accept a belief that is patently wrong.

If we merely add up all the evidence for and against, it's all on my side, and none on yours.

Sorry, Lance, but you have not made your case, despite repeated requests to do so.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13184
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:03 am

Xouper

There is a gap in your understanding of my position. I said there are certain rights governments should give. This is not the same as saying I have moral authority. It is simply a personal opinion, which happens to be shared by most people in western civilisation.

And I really do not give a stuff how many great thinkers say rights are inalienable. Most great thinkers throughout history also say there is a God, and I know you disbelieve that. Great thinkers are products of their time, and the passing of time shows many are wrong, wrong, wrong.

On this issue it is simple. Inalienable means cannot be taken away. If it can be taken away, it is not inalienable, regardless of how many great thinkers say it is. If a great thinker says that something that so very obviously can be taken away, cannot be taken away, does that make it correct ? Obviously not. If Descartes says black is white, does that make it white ? Well duh !!!

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:08 am

TJrandom wrote:That a government has lost the ability to address the ills that plague its society, IMO, is a sure sign that it has lost legitimacy. Sad.
That's an interesting point.

Look at the failure of government to do anything about the gun murders in Chicago, which kill some 50 people each and every month, year after year. Has the liberal city government lost its legitimacy? I think you might have a valid point.

Look at the failure of government to prevent mass shootings in France in the past few years, which have resulted in far more people dead than in the US in the same time frame, not just in absolute numbers but even more so as the per capita homicide rate.

Look at the failure of government in Mexico and Brazil, for example, where they have fewer guns per capita but a gun murder rate five times higher than the US. Every week it seems, I read news items about how out of control things are in Mexico.

Have those national governments lost their legitimacy?

Now, I am not suggesting that the failures of other countries is some kind of excuse for the US. It's not. The US should be able to do better than it has.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:24 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

There is a gap in your understanding of my position. I said there are certain rights governments should give. This is not the same as saying I have moral authority. It is simply a personal opinion,
And yet you have never explained why you feel justified in having that opinion.

I don't think you can  justify your opinion without also contradicting your claim that all rights are alienable.

And if the government takes away your right to have that opinion, then what?

That is the fundamental flaw in your position.

Lance Kennedy wrote:And I really do not give a stuff how many great thinkers say rights are inalienable. Most great thinkers throughout history also say there is a God, and I know you disbelieve that. Great thinkers are products of their time, and the passing of time shows many are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Except they are not wrong about everything.

In each case where they were wrong, it has been shown why they are wrong.

In the case of inalienable rights, you have not shown they are wrong. You nave merely stated an opinion, without ever giving any justification for that opinion.

If Descartes were to say black is white, it is easy enough to refute that.

But is Descartes wrong about everything he said? Of course not. And you know that.

If you want refute a claim made by one of the great thinkers, then you must justify why they are wrong. It is not sufficient to mere state they are wrong, or that others have been wrong, as you are trying to do here.

So basically, you have nothing, Lance. You have merely your opinion.

And on a skeptic forum, that is not good enough.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13184
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:37 am

Xouper

Re Mexico
I came across an interesting comment on a web site recently. It said that most of the killings in Mexico were not actually murders. They were war deaths. Mexico is at war. Drug lords versus government troops. There are all the events of other wars. Pitched battles. Invasions and retreats. Ambushes and assassinations. In war, the death rate always rises.

On the fictitious inalienable rights. It is not my opinion. It is fact. If you tell me that pitch is white and I put a colorimeter on it and show it is black, then you are wrong.

If you say rights are inalienable (cannot be taken away) and I show you they can be taken away, then you are wrong.

I have done this. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Your stubbornness in refusing to accept this is reaching the point of crass stupidity.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:40 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Re Mexico
I came across an interesting comment on a web site recently. It said that most of the killings in Mexico were not actually murders. They were war deaths. Mexico is at war. Drug lords versus government troops. There are all the events of other wars. Pitched battles. Invasions and retreats. Ambushes and assassinations. In war, the death rate always rises.
So, you believe someone when they label them as war deaths and not murders. But you won't accept that the UN labels certain rights are inalienable. Cherry pick much?

The point remains, the Mexican government is not solving the ills of its society. Whether the illness is called "war" or gun violence, it is still an "ill". The label doesn't matter, it is still an ill, so your objection is moot.

Reminder for those with short memories: I do not use Mexico's example to excuse the problems in the US. The US still needs to solve its own problems, regardless what other countries do (or don't do).

Lance Kennedy wrote:On the fictitious inalienable rights. It is not my opinion. It is fact.
You have claimed it's a fact, but without giving any evidence or justification for your claim, other than your personal opinion.

Sorry, Lance, but on a skeptic forum, merely stating a claim does not make it true.

Lance Kennedy wrote: If you tell me that pitch is white and I put a colorimeter on it and show it is black, then you are wrong.
That's correct.

The problem here is that when the UN says certain rights are inalienable, you don't have the equivalent of a "colorimeter" by which to assess the "color" of that assertion.

You have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that all rights are alienable.

That is the flaw in your argument.

Lance Kennedy wrote:If you say rights are inalienable (cannot be taken away) and I show you they can be taken away, then you are wrong. I have done this.
No you haven't.

You have not shown that they have been taken away. You have only shown that they can be violated.

You interpret it as "taking away" but you have not ever given any evidence to justify your interpretation. You have merely offered your unsubstantiated opinion.

Lance Kennedy wrote:You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Your stubbornness in refusing to accept this is reaching the point of crass stupidity.
Hey look, the pot is calling the kettle black.

Sorry, Lance, but you have not made a convincing case for your claim. In fact, you have made no case at all, but merely stated your opinion.

When all the evidence is added up for and against, it's all on my side, and none on yours.

Sorry, Lance, but on a skeptic forum, you have to do better than that.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 12005
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Las Vegas

Post by TJrandom » Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:47 am

xouper wrote: Look at the failure of government to prevent mass shootings in France in the past few years, which have resulted in far more people dead than in the US in the same time frame, not just in absolute numbers but even more so as the per capita homicide rate.
The France gun death rate appears to be 1/3rd that of the US. Sorry, I didn`t look year to year, to see if a recent uptick made your statement accurate, but I do not recall having seen such news on France.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13184
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:56 am

Xouper

The Mexico comment was simply an interesting fact. I was not making a claim.

Your argument that rights are inalienable seems to devolve on one word. You say they are violated, not taken away. That has got to be the weakest and most pathetic argument I have ever heard. If a young virgin is raped, you will say her virginity has not been taken away. Just violated.

It does not wash. Rights are routinely taken away. Julian Assange is living in a state of detention because he knows his right of free speech has been taken away and he will otherwise be locked up or even executed by the US government if he leaves the Equador embassy. Every US citizen who is executed has his right to life taken away. Every US citizen who is in prison has his right to liberty taken away. Every person in time of war who is required to keep his mouth shut has his right to free speech taken away. Every one in time of political instability who is not permitted to attend meetings has his right to free association taken away. And so on and so on.

None of those rights are inalienable. By definition.

Note that I am not making a value judgement here. Sometimes it is necessary to take away certain rights. I am just saying that the belief that rights are inalienable is just ludicrous. Duh ! !

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:55 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . I am just saying that the belief that rights are inalienable is just ludicrous. Duh ! !
And I am saying that your belief that all rights are alienable is ludicrous. Duh ! !

Sorry, Lance, but you have not made your case.

Your analogies are flawed.

Your arguments are flawed.

Your definitions are hogwash.

You have offered no actual evidence to support your position.

You ave no justification whatsoever for your position, other than merely your personal opinion.

Sorry, Lance, but you have not made your case.

You can keep repeating your mantra that all rights are alienable, but that does not make it true.

On a skeptic forum, you need to do better than that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:00 am

this dispute is stupidly purely definitional.

What is the difference between a right taken away vs a right not allowed to be exercised vs a right violated?

Neither of you is arguing about the objective fact of WHAT HAPPENS. People are in jail, not allowed to speak, killed and so forth.

Stupid to argue about labels, an area of expertise best left to people who think astronauts should be armed.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:02 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Your argument that rights are inalienable seems to devolve on one word. You say they are violated, not taken away. That has got to be the weakest and most pathetic argument I have ever heard. If a young virgin is raped, you will say her virginity has not been taken away. Just violated.
Bad analogy.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Rights are routinely taken away. Julian Assange is living in a state of detention because he knows his right of free speech has been taken away and he will otherwise be locked up or even executed by the US government if he leaves the Equador embassy. Every US citizen who is executed has his right to life taken away. Every US citizen who is in prison has his right to liberty taken away. Every person in time of war who is required to keep his mouth shut has his right to free speech taken away. Every one in time of political instability who is not permitted to attend meetings has his right to free association taken away. And so on and so on.
Wrong. Those rights were violated, they were not taken away.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the difference is not merely semantic, it has significant moral consequences.

And you have still not answered my question, how do you justify saying that government should give you any rights at all?

You keep avoiding that question. Probably because can't justify your claim.

Image

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:04 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:What is the difference between a right taken away vs . . . a right violated?
I have explained that already. More than once. Please pay more attention.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Las Vegas

Post by xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:06 am

bobbo_the_troll wrote:. . . to people who think astronauts should be armed.
Straw Man Alert!!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:07 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:What is the difference between a right taken away vs . . . a right violated?
I have explained that already. More than once. Please pay more attention.
Well..........I just gave another rendition of how your "explanation" doesn't hold up.

What is the (pragmatic?) KEY to reality? What happens, or how it is explained????

I post for Lance as X is insensate.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13184
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:07 am

It is also politics, Bobbo.
It is about politicians who make nice sounding mouthings when what they are saying is bull-{!#%@}. However, Xouper appears to believe the politicians.

Xouper
Why should the government give rights? Because it is morally correct. It is morally correct because it fills the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number.

I am utterly unconviced about your nonsense using the word violated to replace "taken away from". It is a meaningless distinction. If someone has his or her right removed, it is alienable.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:08 am

Straw Man = more labeling. Devoid of meaning.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:09 am

Lance: yes indeed. Politics, religion, marketing, true believers..... lots of routes get you to dogma.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:13 am

Chris Hedges on Russian TV just said "....right to a jury trial was taken away...." I have rewound the DvD (sic) 14 minutes to find out what is being spoken about. Will report in a few.

Even with just that hint........we all know what happened. In a few, we can argue about what it means?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:16 am

First words: "Today we talk about the nature of policing."

Police: do they protect or take away or prohibit the exercise of rights? Purely definitional: something to think about while I pursue happiness in jail by shifting my weight to my other haunch.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:24 am

His guest is Eric Alex Vitale author of "End of Policing" the reference being to the militarization of the police and its separation from the public they are meant to protect and serve. Chris says "its become a process of revenge......." somehow they are blaming Trump. Not worth the rewind.

Constant theme on liberal tv now: that police philosophy in USA and our over jailing of folks in USA all stems from the "Slave Patrols" for which the first police/militia were formed....and are still mostly about these days.

Disturbingly.......saw a show a few weeks ago about the growing trend of jailing people for civil debts. Evidently, donald Junior had a tenant owing rent arrested for non-payment a while back. "Attaching the Person" as opposed to arrest.

LABELS.

Yes, labels. What a door stop to actually thinking.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19338
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:28 am

"Its the War on Drugs. Never about public health or safety. It was a cover for the war on the black man...jailing being a tool for keeping the black man down."==>the technique of the Nixon Whitehouse to secure political power. Hedges agrees and notes mass incarceration "and a host of laws stripping them of basic rights including the right to trial........."

White Privilege. An interesting issue that is almost impossible to discuss. ....ha, ha.... because of white privilege. Amusing that.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?