On 2/18/2012 12:44 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:
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.

No, it is exactly the opposite of that. It is what Jefferson and the
other founders saw as the essence of natural law. Natural law is
another topic of which you, as the holder of a worthless degree in a
worthless "discipline" scoff from a ****ty university, know nothing.


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.

Check to see what Jefferson said about it, okay, Hawke-Ptooey?


You don't admit to getting any rights from
society or government

Correct: because they have no authority to do so.

Once again, since you're stupid and forgetful: "society" is not an
organic entity. It is merely a description of individual persons living
in loose association with one another. "Society" has no will, no
independent or autonomous existence. Humans don't even create society,
except indirectly by living in association with one another.

Individual persons *do* create governments.


It has nothing to do with the duty of others.

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

Your right defines their duties?

Absolutely, Hawke-Ptooey. That's exactly what a right does.


Doesn't that kind of make you boss of them?

No, negative rights don't do that at all, Hawke-Ptooey. However, your
sense of positive rights would do that.




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 are not different; they are the same.



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.

It is so.


Other people say the opposite.

They have no moral basis for it. All they're doing is advocating force.



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

No.



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.

Nope - just as the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. It
is so: I *am* the only valid judge of my positive duties to others.


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

I reject completely *your* classification of anything as information.
You are stupid and a known liar, so if you call something "information",
it almost assuredly isn't.