Las Vegas

Duck and cover
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:03 am

You and me both, Bobbo. I know that Xouper is a most stubborn cuss, and once he takes a stance he is almost impossible to shift. But this business is so clear cut. Inalienable means not able to be taken away. Yet rights have been taken away enormous numbers of times, therefore they are not inalienable. Why is Xouper still arguing ?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:05 am

He's a genius.
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 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:08 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

This is perhaps the simplest and most obvious argument I have ever been a part of and it all devolves around a simple definition of one word. Inalienable means cannot be taken away. All I have to do is show that this is wrong. It can be taken away. Then your argument falls into the dust. I have shown that with many examples.

As I see it, your counter argument is
1. To replace the word inalienable with violate. Duh !
2. To quote people who are long dead. This kind of argument is meaningless. Not only is it argument by appeal to authority, which is a fallacy, but it relies on people who were subject to the superstitions of times gone by.

Your demand that I explain why I feel justified in demanding the government give me certain rights, frankly puzzles me. For a start, I have made no demand. I have said there are rights governments SHOULD give, and this is because they work towards the greater good for the greater number, which is central to my moral standards. But I cannot see how this impinges on an argument about whether rights are inalienable. They are not, for the simple reason that they can be taken away.
Image

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Las Vegas

Post by ElectricMonk » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:30 am

Xouper doesn't want Evil Government handouts, especially not of Rights.

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 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:47 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Xouper doesn't want Evil Government handouts, especially not of Rights.
That kind of comment is beneath you. I though you had more civility than that.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Las Vegas

Post by ElectricMonk » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:52 am

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Xouper doesn't want Evil Government handouts, especially not of Rights.
That kind of comment is beneath you. I though you had more civility than that.
Am I wrong?
Is there an objective reason why you insist on the existence of human privileges coming form a Platonian Realm of Rights?
The only thing that tracks is your personal flavor of libertarianism that doesn't want to cede anything to the state.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:28 am

The old idea of inalienable rights stems from religious views. There was a time when almost everyone was religious and those who were not did not dare to admit it. Human rights were deemed to be from God. Because of this, they were immutable and inalienable. This belief dragged on into our time, in spite of the fact that it was obvious total crap. Some people still are suckered into it.

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 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:44 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Xouper doesn't want Evil Government handouts, especially not of Rights.
That kind of comment is beneath you. I thought you had more civility than that.
Am I wrong?
Yes.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11718
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 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:17 am

I know I have said this before in another thread somewhere – but we acknowledge that our rights come from the state. This has even been tested with our Supreme Court – ruling that it is the right of the state to exist and that it (the state) grants rights to individuals and organizations. The state, wanting to be benevolent does operate with a constitution and democratic trappings, but when push comes to shove, it is the state that survives and grants or removes rights as necessary.

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 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:39 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The old idea of inalienable rights stems from religious views. There was a time when almost everyone was religious and those who were not did not dare to admit it. Human rights were deemed to be from God. Because of this, they were immutable and inalienable. This belief dragged on into our time, in spite of the fact that it was obvious total crap. Some people still are suckered into it.
For those who believe in God, I can see how many of them might believe rights come from God.

However, you know full well I am not in that group.

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 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:18 am

TJrandom wrote:I know I have said this before in another thread somewhere – but we acknowledge that our rights come from the state. This has even been tested with our Supreme Court – ruling that it is the right of the state to exist and that it (the state) grants rights to individuals and organizations. The state, wanting to be benevolent does operate with a constitution and democratic trappings, but when push comes to shove, it is the state that survives and grants or removes rights as necessary.
I did not know that. I assume you are referring to Japan?

That's goes against the UN Declaration of Rights.

In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that the people have certain inalienable rights, and that the purpose of the government is to protect those rights, not grant them.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11718
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 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:02 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:I know I have said this before in another thread somewhere – but we acknowledge that our rights come from the state. This has even been tested with our Supreme Court – ruling that it is the right of the state to exist and that it (the state) grants rights to individuals and organizations. The state, wanting to be benevolent does operate with a constitution and democratic trappings, but when push comes to shove, it is the state that survives and grants or removes rights as necessary.
I did not know that. I assume you are referring to Japan?

That's goes against the UN Declaration of Rights.

In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that the people have certain inalienable rights, and that the purpose of the government is to protect those rights, not grant them.
Yes, of course Japan. We have numerous areas that are not UN compliant, as would be natural with a state at the top. It sometimes causes problems, and if serious enough our state reconsiders, or doesn`t. Kiddy pornography and childrens rights come to mind.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:58 pm

Xouper

In the US , the supreme court also ruled, during Lincoln's time, that the constitution upheld the right of people to own slaves. Their rulings are often pure crap.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

In the US , the supreme court also ruled, during Lincoln's time, that the constitution upheld the right of people to own slaves. Their rulings are often pure crap.
Yep..........the Supremes.............ruling by plain meaning of the words, precedent and their own bias with from issue to issue a huge slug of personal political or philosophical

bias: The Supremes GAVE THEN TOOK AWAY: the RIGHT of one human to own another human.

THERE IT IS.

................................ JUST LOOK.

Before, during, and after...... various people agree, disagree, and think something else regarding all these rights/laws/ and ought to bes.

............................................................................ Know what I mean???? ((One of my favorite mental images when dealing with "rights": Guy in white and black stripes moving his tin cup across jail house bars: "You can't do this to me." Ha, ha.........his vision is ............ burred.
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 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

In the US , the supreme court also ruled, during Lincoln's time, that the constitution upheld the right of people to own slaves.
That was by far the worst US Supreme Court ruling ever, according to most legal scholars, you are correct.

But it was fixed eleven years later by the 14th Amendment.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Their rulings are often pure crap.
Sometimes yes, but it is an unjustifiable exaggeration to say they happen "often". They do not.

Also, it is not valid to dismiss any specific court ruling merely because there were others that were wrong.

The validity of each court case must be evaluated on its own merits, not on the merits of some unrelated case, as you are trying to do here.

This is a forum for critical thinking and when you make a fallacy like that, you can expect to be called out for it.

The fallacy you are making is like saying, "Jimmy lied once before, therefore his descendants must be lying now."

Sorry, Lance, but such fallacies don't fly here.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:50 am

I do not need fallacies.

One very, very important reason why skeptics are needed is that people lie. Scientists occasionally, but not very often. But politicians and lawyers ??????

Well, when a politician or lawyer says something, toss a coin.

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 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:16 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I do not need fallacies.
Then stop using them.

Lance Kennedy wrote:One very, very important reason why skeptics are needed is that people lie. Scientists occasionally, but not very often. But politicians and lawyers ??????

Well, when a politician or lawyer says something, toss a coin.
Sometimes they lie, sometimes they don't.

That is not a valid excuse to dismiss everything they say.

Furthermore, you have not shown that any of my sources have lied.

By the way, I assume you know Matthew claims to be a lawyer. I am curious what he thinks of your accusation that half of what he says on this forum is a lie. He has indeed been caught posting lies, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a coin toss.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Las Vegas

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:54 am

Argument from Authority is a fallacy, too.

And just because the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the UNDHR or Xouper say natural rights exit doesn't make it so.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:12 am

Thank you, EM. A bit of sense.

Xouper.
It does not matter how often lawyers and politicians lie. Just that they do. And on this issue, they are lying. Why do they lie ? Because it is politically expedient to do so. Saying that rights are inalienable sounds good. Politicians especially like to tell the public things that sound good. The fact that they then pass laws that make rights alienable is something most people do not even think about.

Now if this argument was about whether some rights SHOULD be inalienable, then I would agree. But they are not. The right to life, for example, should be inalienable, thus making the death penalty illegal. I would not go quite so far as to say the right to liberty should be inalienable, since we would then have no effective method of dealing with the worst criminals. The right to free speech needs some limits. I realise that hate speech is legal in the US, but it is not in my country, or Australia, or Britain. Of course, the hate speech has to be truly dreadful before the culprit is dealt with even in our three more sensible nations.

Anyway, whether the US, or any other nation, there are no inalienable rights.

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 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:31 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Argument from Authority is a fallacy, too.
Not always.

See for example: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html (see section IV.)

It is only a fallacy when the authority is speaking outside his areas of expertise. It is not a fallacy when an expert is speaking within his area of expertise.

Example: Citing a rocket scientist talking about rocket science is not a faulty argument from authority. Citing an expert in women's studies talking about rocket science is a faulty argument from authority.

The way to keep this distinction in mind would be to remember that "Argument from Authority" is shorthand for "Argument from Inappropriate Authority".

ElectricMonk wrote:And just because the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the UNDHR . . . say natural rights exit doesn't make it so.
That's true. But it is strong evidence in my favor.

At the very least it demonstrates I am not just pulling this notion out of my ass, as Lance seems to think.

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 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:42 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:It does not matter how often lawyers and politicians lie. Just that they do. And on this issue, they are lying.
Where is your evidence that all those federal and state court justices are lying about inalienable rights in all those court rulings?

Your opinion (or mere disagreement) doesn't count as evidence, you must show actual evidence they are lying.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Now if this argument was about whether some rights SHOULD be inalienable, then I would agree.
I haven't seen you say that before. I like that better than some of your previous opinions. Perhaps there is a chance we might reach some kind of resolution after all. One can hope, and try to work towards something we can both agree with.

So, continuing along this new path, may I ask, why would you agree that certain rights SHOULD be inalienable?

I am tempted to guess you might say something I would agree with.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:56 am

Xouper

I have never denied that some rights SHOULD be inalienable. My argument was not about what should be, but about what was. In other words, reality. Currently, no rights are inalienable. I do not need to quote some corrupt politician to demonstrate this. Just show that rights are taken away, which they are. I suspect you already know this and are just arguing for sheer cussedness.

What rights SHOULD be inalienable ? Obviously, number one is the right to life. If for no other reason than, once taken away, it can never be returned. The right not to be discrimated against on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race etc. That should be inalienable. Because all those people are humans and we need to treat humans as humans.

I would like to see liberty inalienable, but at this point in time, that seems impractical, since some people are too dangerous to be left at liberty, and giving those criminals the right to liberty will inevitably lead to others suffering.

The same applies to the right to free speech. One of the consequences of the internet is on line bullying, which has led to a whole deal of suicides. Allowing that bullying, on the basis of the right to free speech, should not happen because it causes too much suffering.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:29 am

"should" doesn't work either.

Right to Life: meaning to deny abortion rights, deny military conscription and so forth.

POINT BEING: No right is absolute. ALL RIGHTS must be balanced against other rights and interests. Always have been, always will be. That is the reality. Any absolute right would create a world that doesn't "work" even in contemplation. Should is for kiddies.

Ha, ha...............the only "should" that should be discussed is where the line between all the various competing rights, desires and interests should be. I believe in a right to self defense.......to be balanced as the law has it now...eg: only the degree of lethality required to negate the risk. I believe this right does not include having guns as too many other legitimate rights are negatively affected. In essence, just having a gun is an excessive response.

Much nearer an absolute right is the Freedom of Speech......and again, I think the American courts have this fairly conceptualized/balanced against other rights and interests.

Still........there are pros and cons to the location of every line imposed....and as technology/population density/values varies, those lines need to be evaluated and set again. The gun nutters want a gun right based on a country with wild frontiers..................... down right SILLY........... and as with most silly out of date ideas.......... very destructive and injurious to society.

I only wish: everyone was exiled to the societies they work to achieve. Let them live in a world with too many guns and such........I mean.......... even worse than the USA. Imagine 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?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Las Vegas

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:23 am

What bothers me most is the total disregard for human history:

for most of human society, slavery has been the accepted norm. Slaves were not allowed to fight back, even to save their lives. And slave revolts almost never asked for the abolition of slavery, only to be freed themselves.

Sociology is not a science like physics, were a law might go undiscovered for centuries - we make the laws of society through the interactions of its people and its institutions.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:58 am

Bobbo has a good point. It is an illustration of the dangers of extremism, even in relation to human rights.

And EM is quite correct in that humans make the rules of sociology. Including creating human rights and deciding how to implement them.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:39 am

My guess: THREE TROLL ALERTS...........as soon as X wakes up. ((TJ always too polite, and Matt on the other thread.))
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: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:43 pm

Let me offer a slightly different wording to the right to life.

For people who can demonstrate they are genuinely human, by clearly expressing a wish to live, the right to life should be inalienable.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:28 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Let me offer a slightly different wording to the right to life.

For people who can demonstrate they are genuinely human, by clearly expressing a wish to live, the right to life should be inalienable.
So........military conscription isn't close enough? How about the Chief of the Water Control District flooding your house over the roof line in order to save the town?
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: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:57 pm

Bobbo

I said "should ". That is quite different to "will ". What is desirable is not necessarily what happens.

For example, taking life in war should not happen. It happens because in reality, there are evil bastards like the Islamic State. Such evil should not exist, But It does.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:03 pm

Lance: Yes. So what is your answer.................responsively? It is all about the shoulds, nothing to do with absolutes.
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: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:43 pm

Bobbo

As I am sure you know already, when anyone talks of absolutes, check your bull-{!#%@} detector.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:45 pm

Lance........why are you avoiding the question?
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: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:29 pm

Because there is no easy answer.
When the welfare of one person has to be sacrificed for the welfare of many, then there may be no choice. Under some circumstances, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one.

However, those decisions get made at the time, bearing in mind the special conditions of the time.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:45 pm

Seems to me your "no easy answer" ASSUMES the correct answer.

Why not just admit there are no shoulds as none of the rights should be absolute. You give the rationale, but not the word.
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?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:46 pm

I suggest, that in regards to establishing rights, that there is no single right way.

I think that different groups of humans can write down a set of good rights and a set of bad things and then make a complex package of trade-offs, but ultimately that package of trade-offs has to work in the economic and social environment that exists at the time. Therefore rights are continuously evolving and maybe should not be locked down.

The Romans had slaves, and they were treated very badly in some ways but, as POW camps and prisons could not exist economically back then, Slavery would have been better than slaughtering all prisoners after a battle. I'm suggesting it is impossible to to lock down a right from history as if it had the exact same meaning today.

Subaru7
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Subaru7 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:53 pm

xouper wrote:Every manner of legislation that has been proposed would either not have prevented this shooting, or would be a gross infringement of the civil liberties and rights of millions of law abiding citizens.
If that is true, then I am all for "a gross infringement of the civil liberties and rights of millions of law abiding citizens."

But I doubt that what you say is true.
.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:04 am

Bobbo

No rights are absolute. Or inalienable. But that is a different thing to whether they SHOULD be so. It is human nature that requires the exceptions, and I do not see that changing.

Subaru

I think you would find most people here would agree with you. I certainly do. Xouper, though, has succombed to the propaganda put out by those who make megabucks selling guns.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Las Vegas

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:44 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

No rights are absolute. Or inalienable. But that is a different thing to whether they SHOULD be so. It is human nature that requires the exceptions, and I do not see that changing.
1. Lance: please answer this question at your first next go: Do you agree or not that what "should" be is DEFINITIONAL.

2. Then: define what "should" means to you......how are you using it in your assumed/unspoken/unposted analysis of this issue?

I'll go first...............................ALWAYS................. by turning to my dictionary (https://wordweb.info/) and its one click ease of us:

should: Expresses an emotional, practical, or other reason for doing something. //// Now, we have both repeated that no rights ARE absolute....but now you propose that something that in fact is not absolute somehow "should" be. It makes no sense at all. You are "confusing" several other ideas with what "should" means...... as in: "It would be nice if..." or "In an imaginary fairy tale world.............." Once you understand the fuller meaning of "No right is absolute...." you will also accept the fact that none of them should be either. Its one of the subtleties acting against all kinds of extremists, gun nutters, religious cases and their supporters. Comatose most of them.
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: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:39 pm

Bobbo

I use the word "should" to show what is desirable.

As I have said before, I regard the greater good for the greater number as the ethic we should be following. Certain rights help achieve this, making those rights worth having. Watering those rights down with exceptions does not help. However, I do not think we should be arguing this point, since I agree with you that reality dictates otherwise.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12936
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:39 pm

Back to guns.

The NRA has been getting more and more assertive towards 'gun freedom ' in recent decades. Their main push appears to be towards making guns ever easier to obtain and carry. This freedom, they say, will stop mass shootings by making sure a "good guy with a gun" is available to stop the shooter. Well, we have not seen any such result.

Wayne Lapierre is the main spokesman for the NRA, and he has said that the federal groups enforcing gun laws are "Jack booted thugs " and the United Nations are tyrants who will stop at nothing to confiscate law abiding Americans guns. LaPierre also said there was a gathering of Marxists, Communists, Anarchists, and the whole rest of the left wing socialist brigade willing to use violence against us. Nice to see the NRA main spokesman keeping his comments in balance !

Reminds me of that hyper-intelligent person called Sarah Palin who said " The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke." Such wisdom !