On 2/18/2012 11:43 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

You claim you have a right to live.

That is a negative right that implies a duty on others not to interfere
with my life.

The hell it does.

That is *exactly* what it does. That is *all* it does.


It implies nothing about any duties of others.

Yes, that is exactly what it implies. It implies a duty of others not to
interfere with my life, provided I am not interfering with theirs.


You are the one claiming ownership of a right.

Correct.


You claim that somehow you obtained a right to live.

I was endowed with it at birth. It is the very essence of my
relationship with other humans.

Oh, you were "endowed" with it, huh? Just by being born you got it? Was
that like magic? It sounds kind of supernatural to me.




Where you got this right is the question.

I am endowed with it (by the "Creator", if you wish) at birth. End Of
Story, Hawke-Ptooey - no one "gives" me the right, no "society" gives it
to me, I do not have to purchase it. I am endowed with it simply for
being born human.

So you're claiming god or creator or whatever name you want to use for
some non human being gave you this right. Is that it? An invisible being
"gave" you the right to life? You don't admit to getting any rights from
society or government but you do get them from the "spiritual being".
Man, is that convenient or what? Excuse me if I can't help laughing at
you. You Mr. rational and logical and all telling me where your right to
live came from. Ha, Ha, why don't you just say you made it up and be
done with it because that's just as believable.




It has nothing to do with the duty of others.

It *defines* duties of others, Hawke-Ptooey.

Your right defines their duties? Doesn't that kind of make you boss of them?


They have no part in your claim to a right to life.

They are obliged not to interfere in my life, subject to the proviso
that I am not interfering in theirs. That is what it means,
Hawke-Ptooey, you stupid cretin.

You're to thick to see that others not interfering with you is one
thing, and you having a right to live at all is another? They're
different. How did you miss something so obvious?



So why can't "those people" claim a
right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.?

Those are positive rights that would imply a duty imposed on someone
else to give them those things, and there is no such duty.

Yes, so you say. Other people say the opposite. Those people say that
duty came from the same place where you say you got the right to live.
That is funny isn't it?



You forgot to add, in my opinion to the end of your sentence.

Nope; I didn't forget anything. I have no innate moral duty to give any
good or service to anyone.

But the creator says you do and didn't he give you the right to live?



I may choose to take on such a duty
voluntarily, but absent that, no one has any moral right to compel me to
furnish any good or service to him - none whatever. If you're naked and
starving in the street and I find you there, I am not under any innate
moral obligation to feed or clothe you.

So you set yourself up as the highest and best judge of whatever is to
be done. Only you making a choice is what makes anything right or wrong.
And you wonder why you find your thinking not acceptable to most people.
Don't bother with the logical fallacy argument either because in this
case it can be one or the many who say you're wrong because we're
talking democracy here and you are the minority. That makes you wrong.






You're claiming rights so why can't they?

You don't understand rights. That's proof of how worthless your degree
is. You should know the difference between positive and negative rights,
and clearly you don't.


Hah, that's a laugh.

Not for you, it isn't. We're the ones laughing at you.


I'm more than a little familiar with the terms.

No, you are not.


I saw from an article in the NY Times yesterday that at least 48% of
Americans are receiving some kind of government benefits although many
don't even know it.

The NY Times publishes a lot of bull**** opinion masquerading as fact.


What kind of a person rejects information and calls it bull**** when
they clearly have no idea if it's right or wrong? A dumb ****, doofus,
fool, idiot, or many others would do. Take your pick.

Hawke