Figleaf

Given that you do not acknowledge that property rights even exist, I can see why you don't acknowledge that "theft" is "wrong". Just like any other 'right', property rights exist if society says they do. Within that context, 'theft' would mean illegal alienation of 'property' from its 'owner'. The difference is that in one statement would imply that some people would proactively act to deny people opportunities. My statement implies that there is no action required on their part. It is simply life that denys people opportunites. There does not seem to be any logical reason to equate an arbitrary/artifactual property regime maintained by the active support of government with 'life' (i.e. chance).

[

t.

For 'theft' to have meaning, there must be some meaningful concept of property. 'Theft' can only be 'wrong' if it violates property rights. To determine whether an action violates property rights you need to have a conception of property that refers to a more meaningful context than merely asserting 'MINE'. You are either misquoting or misunderstanding what I have said. Certainly not misquoting. I can't see what difference you are trying to point out there.

Lie.

I wish Israel would start to adhere to the ethical philosophy of Judaism for a change.

..

Faith is a dead-end alley of the human mind, and clergy are the pipe-wielding thugs who inhabit it.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....6281&st=80# Easter eggs are not always the most apparent, I know! You think I'll chase you from thread to thread whenever your arguments begin to prove threadbare? Sorry, not interested.

Did he say anything whatsoever remotely suggesting that??? Or maybe you're so full of s*it it leaks from your ears. "Given"? WTF are you talking about? Irrelevant. Why can't Israel obey international law and stop oppressing the Palestinians? So must each of the entities who observed and approved the election process.

Riiiiiiight. Everyone knows that Israel sweetly and delicately bombed Lebanon.

!!!! Jesus and Mohamed were pedophiles?

You are correct that all your questions amount to the same challenge. You are asking for proof that fundamental rights exist and that they are more than just claims of rights by various parties. I'm not asking for proof, because I know already there isn't any. Rather, I am offering you 'proof' that the position you've taken is logically untenable. (This implies an opportunity for you to reformulate your beliefs in an improved way.) But they ARE wrong -- within a context, and against practical measures. They only become insubstantial and 'unproveable' when they are turned into free-standing articles of faith Sometimes dominated by power, perhaps, but ultimately determined by reason (which is, of course, the ultimate power). Anyway, this brings us back around to the thread topic. There is no reason you can refer to to support the contention that some people have a right to retain access to opportunities that are denied to others. The objection to equality of opportunity does not stand.

The best thing for the Conservatives is that the government falls before they roll out the treat-homosexuals-differently laws. The worst thing for the Liberals is if Iggy gets chosen.

The "duty" issue was the continuation of the Legislature's business in the face of the panic that a solar eclipse caused. I understand that; my comment was intended to apply more generally. I would assume that Lee's advice was constrained by the concept that the underlying objective was worthwhile. I agree. As I noted, my comment is not intended to detract from the validity of the quote, or the quotee.

I'm sorry, but that comment contains an inherent idiocy. How can 'traditional' values be 'dictated'?? If you're going to talk nonsense, at least try to make it comprehensible nonsense please.

Why pussyfoot around?

-deleted-

Yes. Not only will they draw off scarce resources, they will likely never have much of a life worth living. That's the key point in my opinion. We're a rich society and we can afford to spend a lot on saving people's lives. Look at how we pull out the stops if someone is lost in the mountains. But ethics should compell us to ask what we end up saving.

The media being what it is, of course, reports only dramatic attention-getting things. There are plenty of moderate Muslims, but they must find themselves in a position analogous to moderate Christians when the TV news cover abortion clinic bombers. I agree with you. There is something sinister about Islam -- it exemplifies intensely the problem that most religions suffer to some extent: absolutist claims, unquestionable authority, archaic ideas, denial of reason. I agree 100% with those three paragraphs. Well said. Of course, that being said, what can a liberal society do if someone wears her burka? That's a real problem.

Most of who?? I blame the spineless, self-serving Parliamentarians. With a few exceptions, none of them are willing to stand up for themselves and take the lumps of defiance. Chuck Cadman and Garth Turner and maybe a few others who come to mind see themselves as responsible for their own actions. The rest are jellyfish. I don't like PR because if the members come from party lists, they are even more party creatures than they are today. They would represent no-one but their parties, and there would be no-one representing any actual people.

This is where we disagree. The slaves always has the right to be free, they didn't need the owners to extend or grant them those rights. They simply needed the owners to respect those rights. The slaves would claim the right to be free. The owners would claim the right to own the slaves. What determines whose 'right' is right? So the slave owners assert that their ownership right is 'intrinsic' to them. and you're no further ahead. I have never asserted that one group has a "right" to certain privleges or opportunities not available another group. They possess those priviliges by circumstances or possibly chance. Circumstances or chance? I fail to see how that can justify or un-justify any claim about 'rights'. Adding the word 'fundamental' doesn't change the nature of the question involved. You assert a right not to have to pay for equity. I assert a right to equity. How do you resolve it? But what is your 'view' there based on, other than whimsy? You will probably have noticed that all of my questions and points above amount to the same challenge: Between disputants making irresoluble claims, neither outcome can be justified based solely on reference to that side's claim in and of itself. It seems to me that all your position amounts to is saying that the rights you like are 'fundamental' and the rights you don't like are not fundamental. You need some basis in reason for making such distinctions, which so far I cannot detect in your arguments.

You think CNN is PRO-democrat???? Why do they give the Bush administration such an easy ride then?

No, not quite. In the total absence of society there is no one to trangress your rights. You have the right to live, right to free speech, and even property rights, because there is no obstructions to those rights. Your example of "freezing wind" or grizzly's are invalid as either are inanimate or don't have the capacity to understand your rights, let alone respect them. Furthermore, even if you live in a society, freezing wind, will still freeze your ass to death, regardless if society grants you the right to live. You seem to imply then that 'rights' requires there to be someone to understand and respect them. I agree. It's one view, but it is not mine. Do you think in a society that accepted slavery as the norm, that the slaves had no rights to freedom because they weren't granted by that society's concensus? Precisely. In a society where slavery is allowed, anyone asserting the 'right' of slaves to be free is arguing that the right should be created or extended to them. The US declaration of independence is, in this respect, wrong-headed -- we are not endowed with rights by our creator, such a notion is meaningless. My personal view is that Race A is being mean, and wrong. But they are in a conflict over what the 'rights' possessed by Race B should be. I don't see any qualitative difference between the assertion by Race A in your example there, and the assertion you made earlier that one group should have privileges (opportunities) not available to another group.