On 2/18/2012 12:52 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.

I'm not interested in Jefferson's views here because we're talking about
you thinking you have an automatic right just because you were born. You
seem to think that because people in the 18th century believed that then
it must be true. Well it isn't. You aren't born with rights. Nobody gave
them to you and if you claim them it's only on your on volition that you
are doing it.

Don't even start with natural law. It's not valid. All it says is laws
came from god. Religious zealots love it. It just shows how desperate
you are to show you have rights you are born with. They only way you do
is if they are given to you by a supernatural being. Are you going to be
that stupid as to claim that?

For the record I also am trained as a paralegal so I've had all kinds of
law classes. How about you, is that part of your economics training?
Don't bother lying, you're again presuming to know things you haven't a
clue about. But at least you have the nerve to argue with people who do.
One other thing, education in a subject even at a crappy school puts one
way ahead of someone with no training at all.


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?

He's dead and I don't care about his opinion on the subject. It's the
21st century now and we know you aren't born with anything as far as
rights goes. You get rights that come along with being an American
citizen. You know, by joining American society.


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

Correct: because they have no authority to do so.

That authority comes from the people themselves and they are the
ultimate power, not your freedom of choice.


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.

But you are acting like you know all about society when you have not
studied sociology and are ignorant in that field. So why should anyone
listen to you talk about society? You know jack **** about it. Just
about everything you say about it is incorrect.



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.

So that means you are automatically connected to them. Kind of like
you're part of a society where your rights and other's duties are
closely intertwined. Not like you say, a bunch of separate individuals
doing whatever they want.


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.

Sounds a lot like your right is imposing duties on them. If you can
impose a duty on another then you have power over 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.

First off. who is it that determines whether you are interfering in the
lives of others or they are interfering in yours? Does everybody do that
for them self? So if I think you're doing something that is interfering
with me then I get to do on my own whatever I want to stop your behavior?



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.

Oh brother, you really are the dull one. You having the right to live is
not the same thing as not having others interfere with you. You don't
get it, do you? Those are separate concepts. You can't see that and
you're calling me names. Give me a break.


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.

What you are saying is that nothing but your decision matters in how you
treat anyone else. It's up to no one but you. So you set your self up as
god. If you owe a duty to anyone you're the judge, right? Nothing is
higher than you. That view shows how weird you are.



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.

You're just one major weasel. When I told you what the Times published
you said it publishes a lot of bull**** opinion masquerading as fact.
You are entitled to that opinion. However, the Times article was stating
a statistic that it has the references for. So it was publishing a fact.
You rejected that without even knowing anything about it, which is what
ignorant, partisan, fools do.

Then you turn around and try to blame the messenger, me, for the Times
article, and then you follow it up with personal attacks. Which really
just shows that you're a spineless weasel, with a big mouth, and that
your degree is worthless because you act more like a street person than
someone with an education.

Hawke