theloniusfleabag

Dear Hugo, I don't say I support it, Hugo, I am saying that 'that's the way the pickle squirts'. It doesn't need to be a 'theory', it is simply the truth. Mixing morals and 'rights' is where you fundamentally misunderstand what I am saying. Nietzsche mixed his existentialism with atheism, Kierkegaard with catholicism, etc. What I am saying is that morals will tell a person which (and if) 'rights' are to bestowed upon others, and further, which people.

Dera Argus, Too true. However, the problem lies in the fact that most tyrants were supported by other nations for their own (and the individual tyrant's) personal interst. This would mean that to address the real cause of most of the 'human rights' problems, Canada would have been at odds(or at war) with the US, Russia, France, UK, China.....The only way to really deal with, and change the way things are done, is by having an organization like the UN with a lot more power to effect change. The UN, presently, is in sad need of an overhaul, or even scrapping, and a new 'global police force and 'impartial international court'.

Dear Black Dog, Evidently some US states still have 'sodomy laws' on the books, and 'going up the Hershey Highway' is still 'tresspassing' according to the laws of 'god' as laid down in the bible.

Dear Hugo, They are not 'inseparable', they are two different animals. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this notion to be rooted in existentialism. Morals and ethics are guides as to which 'rights' one (or many) hold dear, and though they may be closely linked, they are separate. That is why I stuck to arguing about the 'nature of rights' and left morality out of the equation.

Dear Hugo, Nope, sure doesn't. I didn't say I wished to change morality, just reality. My 'morality' on what 'rights' should be dispensed, and to whom, and where is what I said I would use force to change. As an example to this, the allies didn't invade Nazi Germany to 'change the morality' of the Nazi leaders...we killed them. We changed the reality of 'rights dispensation' to our own, from theirs.

Dear Sparhawk, Hugo and I went over this countless times. I believe it to be the crux of the argument, and it is where Hugo and I got stuck. The problem is, when Hugos states it is a moralist tack on a factual argument. It has no place in the argument of 'the nature of rights', for it judges, morally, not factually. I claim the answer to be amoral, and reserve my judgement on what 'horrible crimes are', and even though we would be mostly in agreement as to what they are, they are generally moot unless that is 'the ball you are playing at the time'.

Dear Hugo, I totally agree, this tack is borderline trolling. Besides, of course the .00002% directly affected would feel slightly different than the rest in any given case. Well said, yes, some do want theocracies, (and if the majority supported it in a 'democratic election, could the 'west' have a leg to stand on in protest?) and as to 'none of our business', the old (half) joke on Capitol hill is "What's our oil doing under their sand"? It isn't all about oil, of course, but western economic interests have indeed led to meddling in the affairs of others, often for exclusive western benefit.The sooner the US/UK 'MasterBuilders' acknowledge the truth, the sooner things can change. Change isn't likely the way things are handled now.

Dear Hugo, Nope. I don't believe in 'better dead than red' either. There are, however, instances where I would avocate the use of overwhelming force, but as an individual, I am presently powerless to do so. These instances, of course, would be dictated by my own 'moral stance', and therefore, somewhat tainted. By Jove, Hugo, I think you are starting to come around as to how 'property rights' work!

Dear Melanie, I have to agree. For those that haven't seen this, here is the message from the 'terrorists' they posted after the bombing... from globalsecurity.org

Dear cybercoma, How about "loving thy neighbor" up the ass? I guess that is referred to, along with oral sex, as 'sodomy'. Of course, the biblical term for 'intercourse' is 'to know' someone, so I suppose it would be more correct to say "I knew my neighbor up the ass".But, on the other hand, there is nothing to say that there is one bit of truth to the old bible, except bits and pieces of borrowed history. Even the tale of 'the flood' appeared elsewhere, and before, the bible. As to the thread, people only invoke Jesus and religion for their own benefit, for really Jesus would have been a Marxist, or an 'Anarcho-syndicalist', but in no way would he have been a 'free-enterpriser'.

IMR, Black Dog and Sparhawk are generally correct in their assessments. I also thought the book was great. In case you didn't read it all, it was one-sided...pro-american. Indeed, he goes on to suggest that the US 'cut Israel loose' and focus solely on US interests. He suggests that the US either 'take off the gloves' or get used to the status quo, but the lying and self-serving, half-assed approach by the politicians and army brass is getting them nowhere fast. As to London, what a shame, but not a surprise. Blair continues to parrot the nonsense about it being 'an attack on all civilized nations and upon freedom', when we all know this is absolute rubbish. Even the terrorists admit to the action and the motive! How much plainer do they have to be!?

Dear Argus, I got the same feeling, but felt the reference was a bit inappropriate. I realize what Hugo was trying to say, but I personally felt that Hugo was merely baiting Sweal with as he knew it stuck a chord with Sweal and yet he continued to use it. I believe Hugo to be in the wrong, this time, however, for he mixed 'morals' and 'pragmatic fact' at his convenience, in this particular thread. He could have easily switched references to some other example, such as Stalinist Russia, or many others, or simply said 'you don't disagree with the actions of gov't even when they must inevitably lead to state-sanctioned murder' or some such. Regardless, Sweal blew his top, and Greg must take steps to keep stuff like that in check. What those steps may be, is solely up to a moderator. I realize he also warned Hugo, and if he persists in 'inappropriate conduct', he also faces censure.

Dear Sparhawk, (Pandion Knight?) I have had many lengthy debated with 'the above mentioned poster', and I was also 'accused' of being a defacto 'holocaust supporter'. I sympathize with Sweal at his outrage, yet it didn't bother me so much, because I knew that the accusation was wrong, and further, I don't really care what anyone thinks of me. Nor did I resort to obscenities, but I will admit to some sarcastic remarks, which were self-gratifying, but not really applicable to the debate.

Dear Argus, A novel suggestion. Unfortunately, as with all things nowadays, their job is to make a profit. A 'copyright' to a breaking story, the 'inside scoop', only lasts a couple of minutes, in this age. Without concrete proof, (as in 'guaranteed to win in court')an accusation like that is libel. To make a slanderous case, backfiring in the face of the honest accuser, which isn't worth it anymore. It would detract from profits.

Dear mirror, Rove said "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game", (from "The Politics of Truth, by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame )Joe's offense? Revealing the 'uranium connection' between Iraq and Africa to be a fabrication. Karl Rove ordered 'the hit', but who was he to declare that a reporter could break the law? The right hand man of the Pres, and beyond prosecution. He will receive a presidential pardon when GW. retires, and they should have no problem dragging out the case until that time.

Dear Cartman, Well, if you saw 'Reefer Madness', you'd know why. Certainly don't want those 'crazed reefer addicts' roaming the streets. I'm surprised no one has suggested a similar approach with 'the pot' as with heroin, and those needle boxes they have in downtown Calgary. Perhaps a giant ashtray should be installed to collect all the 'roaches' to make our streets safer...

Dear kimmy, Amen to that. Argus, Well said, and too true. I remember when, as a youth, (god I hate saying that) a lot of my friends worked in 'the family store', or on the farm, and most did better at school than a lot of other kids. At 12 years old, I knew some kids, both male and female, that had driven combines and dump-trucks.That being said, however, I don't think 12 yr. olds should be incorporated into the full labour force as t-4'd employees though. As an aside, would the unemployment levels rise if everyone down to the age of 12 were included in the stats? (most wouldn't work, so the vast majority would be 'unemployed') Would they be able to collect EI and worker's comp?

I have to agree with Argus, there are some instances where the word can have legitimate use. It is up to the posters to use such terms responsibly. Defamation and slander cases in court have recently (I know this sounds wacky, but I was told this by a lawyer about 6 years ago) allowed 'the truth' as a defense.

Dear Hugo, You must be joking. If not, who are you and what have you done with the real Hugo?....the same Hugo that champions 'property rights' as the fundamental moral base of humanity....Are you suggesting that any inventor, in order to see 'royalties', must also become the manufacturer and distributor? Faster and cheaper and better than the cheap knock-offs? So that a distribution company or outlet source would have to choose between 40 different 'Nike Shoes' companies that copied the logo? Anyone who could think that this is a viable alternative to copyright laws must be (to borrow a line from BlackAdder) "Madder than 'Mad Mac' Mc Madd, winner of last years 'maddest madman' competition". No, just most of the time. I don't know that this was worded all that well. I too, had a recent call routed to India. I asked where the nearest location was in relation to my business for something, some product or service, as I recall, and the answer was "I don't know, I'm in India". It didn't make me 'dislike talking to Indians', but rather made me think 'some idiot up the line should be fired'.

Dear Hugo, They were practically equivalent, as you are arguing with Army Guy. Not morally. I guess you didn't read this following sentence, so I will post it again. Please don't put words in my mouth when I have clearly stated otherwise. In the past, I admit to having replies that were incomplete, or ambiguous, however, this is not one of those times.Further, you have not yet deigned to ask me what my personal moral position is, so I haven't given it. I have touched on it, with my 'tirade' about the meaning of life, but when we were arguing about the 'nature of rights', I left it aside.

Dear Hugo, All the hypotheticals bandied about pale in comparison to what is actually happening anyway. How is ostracism going to affect a company like Pfizer or Nike, for example? Without a gov't regulatory body, they would laugh at any attempt to collect arbitrarily inposed fines by the general populace. Pfizer has many copyrights to drugs that would be needed by millions, ostracism would be both impossible and imprudent. link...http://www.endgame.org/corpfines3.htmlOr Nike, for that matter,

Dear Hugo, No, it needed to be fought by all those who disagreed with the morality (or lack thereof) and most importantly, the methods, of the Nazis. As a clarification, WWII was not fought to alleviate the plight of the Jews specifically, as most of the horrors of the holocaust were discovered after the fact. It was the military expansion of Naziism that was the deciding factor. If the Holocaust were the sole factor, the allies still should have invaded, to once again bestow upon the Jews, the right to exist, own businesses, etc. However, that is just my opinion.

Dear cybercoma, I have to agree, because I respect the law. However, as an example, let's take Nelson Mandela, (I'm sure you'll see how the cases are similar, lol) and whether or not he should have been allowed to be 'persecuted by the press' for his past actions after release from prison. There is an innate sense of justice in people's minds, and in Mandela's case, justice was served (perhaps way overdone), by Mandela's prison sentence. I don't think the vast majority of people in Canada feel the same way toward's Homolka. She is afforded the same rights as anyone else mostly because that is the barest minimum we can give.

Dear Melanie, I suppose it would partly depend on whether or not she has been 'fully rehabilitated' in the eyes of the courts. I think it matters, though not fully, I concur she should be offered no more or less than any other citizen, but a factor to be considered is 'is she likely to reoffend'? I do not think that the same protection should be offered to 'non-rehabilitated offenders', as they likely aren't going to be 'valuable members' of society. Same goes for pedophiles. In some ways, what Homolka did was worse. I'll bite my tongue and just hope, then.

Dear Hugo, I never adopted it as an ideology, I presented it as the 'trump card' in the debate about the nature of 'a right'. It is my contention that all rights are the product of imagination, and then defined and bestowed by the winner of 'Hobbesian conflicts', perpetuated by alliances and 'treaties (or sometimes entreaties) between and amongst the individuals. One of these structures is called Anarcho-Capitalism, another is called 'confederation with parlimentary democracy'.