 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
Sprayber, I read that and still find myself asking what the point is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sprayber
|
 |
Dixie
Oct 2000
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
They went out through the revolving doors that made a faintly derisive whistling sound when you pushed them. It was two blocks to the parking lot. At the drugstore on the corner she said, "Wait here for me. I forgot something. I won't be a minute." She was more than a minute. Walter Mitty lighted a cigarette. It began to rain, rain with sleet in it. He stood up against the wall of the drugstore, smoking . . . He put his shoulders back and his heels together. "To hell with the handkerchief," said Walter Mitty scornfully. He took one last drag on his cigarette and snapped it away. Then, with that faint, fleeting smile playing about his lips, he faced the firing squad; erect and motionless, proud and disdainful, Walter Mitty the Undefeated, inscrutable to the last. |
GP was right 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Walter Mitty is a dreamer. In his mind he is noble, heroic, brave and so many other things. In real life, is very much ordinary. |
I don't care if you believe me or not. But I'd be more than happy to kick a DIs ass, leave the country, shoot people violating my rights, or whatever it took to secure my freedom. I find it curious that you people oppose that sentiment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Well, if you don't accept the basic premise of ownership of oneself, I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree |
quote:
Well, if you don't accept the basic premise of ownership of oneself, I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree |
There's a distinction between "what is" and "what should be."
With an authoritarian gov't, you don't own yourself, the state does, regardless of how morally wrong you consider the situation to be.
When you start bringing "what should be" into the argument, you introduce morality.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
notyoueither - quote:
Berzerker: I will grant you this. You could probably argue the paint off a wall, or at least you might try. |
Just responding to the arguments made by others. Maybe you shouldn't insult people if you don't want to have to defend comments.
quote:
However, leaping to ridiculous conclusions from other people's words to make your own argument is more like making straw men. I choose not to engage in debate based on straw men. |
When I accuse someone of introducing strawmen, I show the strawman. Where's your proof?
quote:
I have never said that rights do not exist. |
I never said you did. Is that your proof?
quote:
I have tried to indicate that rights spring from agreements between people as to what are good and just and ethical ways to live. That is all. |
No you didn't, you claimed rights were societal constructs without any mention of morality, justice or ethics. You also claimed natural rights were idiotic and launched false insults at those who believe in them. Now you accept that rights are or should be based on what is just and ethical. That's what natural rights are - moral, just or ethical claims to act. But you still think these rights require permission from others, that is where we disagree. If you have a moral imperative to act, such as in self defense, then you don't need permission from the people trying to murder you.
quote:
To cut it all short. I believe that conscription does not violate the fundamental right to life that most societies recognize. The state is not killing it's own soldiers. The state is compelling its citizens to defend it and themselves. |
To cut it all short and without the spin - you believe one person or group has the moral authority to force others to kill and/or be killed for the security of the former. The "state" is not some magical entity, it's just a group of people.
quote:
It is an obligation of citizenship in any society from time to time due to circumstances. |
Telling me it's an obligation without providing a contract signed by the draftees doesn't prove your argument. Anyone can claim you have an obligation to hand over your property, that doesn't mean you are obliged to comply.
quote:
Is it possible for you to imagine a situation where more people would die due to a state being overrun by its enemies than would have been killed as combatants on both sides if the state survived? |
Yup, and? Are you suggesting we can force the innocent to die to save ourselves if we outnumber our victims?
quote:
Where do the rights to life for the dead figure into your equation? |
I never said you don't have the right to defend yourself from attack, only that you don't have the right to force others to die defending you. If you have the right to force others to die for your security, how are you any different than the people attacking you?
quote:
You may answer or not, your choice. It is unlikely I will respond. I have enough things to argue endlessly. I am Canadian |
Won't be the first time someone entered a thread to launch insults only to run away when refuted.
loinburger - quote:
Berserker:
Where were you when Urban Ranger started his Natural Rights thread? I'd have expected to see you post on it. |
I would have responded had I been around. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
Ramo -
Either nature created us or we are part of nature that was itself created. These "natural" rights are called "natural" because they exist by virtue of our existence - a "gift" from whomever or whatever created us within the context of nature.
quote:
If the claim to act is tied to morality, how can it be natural? |
Because self-ownership is inherently moral and natural. The "creator" did not put you here for me to order about.
quote:
AFAIK, my "creators" were my parents. |
No, they conceived you. Whomever or whatever created life leading to your parents and you "created" you.
quote:
But I don't see your logic. Why should this have to do with anything? |
Because the moral authority to act requires either ownership or permission. If we didn't create you, we can't own you.
quote:
Because murder (more generally, coercion) is contrary to my moral code. |
Why?
quote:
Sounds fairly silly to me. |
Me too, but that's the kind of silliness people like Sirotnikov walk into when trying to deny that natural rights exist while condemning mass murderers for violating the "non-existent" rights of their victims.
quote:
I would condemn this government for coercing an individual. |
Why? Do people have the "right" to be free from coercion?
quote:
Why should asserting the lack of a natural right to life imply that I wouldn't condemn murderers? |
Because you have no basis for condemning murderers unless you believe the victims have some inherent right to live.
quote:
David, I consider coercion immoral. I don't need magical natural rights to exist to hold that morality. You don't like it, too bad. |
But just claiming it is immoral ignores why it is immoral. Once you try to answer that question you will discover natural rights.
quote:
Not independent of a government. Property rights are only relevant in a legal sense. |
So if government did not exist, you wouldn't have the moral authority to defend yourself from attack?
quote:
There's a distinction between "what is" and "what should be."
With an authoritarian gov't, you don't own yourself, the state does, regardless of how morally wrong you consider the situation to be.
When you start bringing "what should be" into the argument, you introduce morality. |
Which is why natural rights are moral or just claims to act, not rights permitted (or denied) by others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
 |
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
Mark: You know that's just Shinui propaganda; the vast majority of Shas's voters and most of its MKs served. I'll even post the article from Ha'aretz where UTJ's Moshe Gafni talks about what a great guy Yossi Beilin is, if you like.
LOTM:
quote:
the ultra orthodox reject modernity in principle (utilizing it only to make a living - theyre not Amish) and so reject the modern notion of nationalism, changing the world through human action,etc. |
I don't know about rejecting nationalism; Shas seems pretty clear on wanting to maintain a Jewish state.
quote:
They are fatalists, willing to leave big things to God - so to them politics is merely getting what you can out of a necessarily profane state (until the messiah comes)
To the "modern" orthodox, the spinozist idea of human action rather than divine, changing the world, is related to mystical ideas about human behaviour making the world ready for the messiah. |
I don't think the lines are that clear. I think that there are Jews on boths sides of that divide who think they will create a perfect Messianic government in the next couple decades, and Jews on both sides of that divide who think they are just making a decent living arrangement. If the Haredim were really only interested in getting what they can, they wouldn't push religious coercion legislation. If Michael Melchior were really serious about bringing the Messiah now, he wouldn't "give away" parts of the Land of Israel.
quote:
Settling the land and establishing a Jewish state is part of this pathway. Secular Israelis, though they dont have the truth, are still part of God's plan to the extent they advance these things. Thus toleration, and even whole hearted co-operation with secular israelis and the secular state become possible, but on grounds that make compromise with those who oppose stand in the way of the messianic dream more difficult. |
Haredim can cooperate with the secular too, it's just that because their political program is more limited, they don't usually have much cause to.
Siro: I agree. While the Haredim are far from perfect in their politics, it does seem that their politicians are the only ones who really serve their constituents interests; that's why one never hears about Haredim demonstrating outside the Knesset.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Either nature created us or we are part of nature that was itself created. These "natural" rights are called "natural" because they exist by virtue of our existence - a "gift" from whomever or whatever created us within the context of nature. |
If there is no creator, how can there be a gift?
quote:
Because self-ownership is inherently moral and natural. The "creator" did not put you here for me to order about. |
I don't believe in a "creator" that created life for some purpose.
quote:
No, they conceived you. |
Why should their wishes be less important than some being (or whatever) who designed the first life on Earth.
quote:
Whomever or whatever created life leading to your parents and you "created" you. |
AFAIK, there's nothing in quantum mechanical, thermodyanamical, etc. theories that assert the existence of a "gift" of "natural rights."
quote:
Because the moral authority to act requires either ownership or permission. If we didn't create you, we can't own you. |
Huh? So if I create some rudimentary form of life that eventually leads to intelligent life, I have morally authority over it?
It's the basis of my moral system. There is no "why."
quote:
Me too, but that's the kind of silliness people like Sirotnikov walk into when trying to deny that natural rights exist while condemning mass murderers for violating the "non-existent" rights of their victims. |
I haven't read Siro's posts, but asserting the lack of existence of natural rights is not equivalent to asserting the lack of existence of the concept of rights within one's moral system.
quote:
Why? Do people have the "right" to be free from coercion? |
Yes. According to my moral code.
quote:
Because you have no basis for condemning murderers unless you believe the victims have some inherent right to live. |
Why?
quote:
But just claiming it is immoral ignores why it is immoral. Once you try to answer that question you will discover natural rights. |
No, the principle of natural rights simply adds a layer of unnecessary baggage. You might as well ask why are natural rights moral.
quote:
So if government did not exist, you wouldn't have the moral authority to defend yourself from attack? |
Moral authority is not inherently derived from government dictates. The idea of ownership is.
quote:
Which is why natural rights are moral or just claims to act, not rights permitted (or denied) by others. |
But it cannot be natural if it is tied to morality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -
If I pointed a gun at you and demanded you kill (or be killed) my enemies, would you be "wormy" for lying to avoid becoming my involuntary servant? |
Read James Webb (yes...find out who that is. Even if you disagree with him, he will interest you.) on who he respected in Viet Nam War who avoided service.
He respected those who were conscientious objectors and served as medics. and he respected those who made an act of civil disobedience and went to jail ala Thoreau.
See to make a conscious stand of this nature, shows you are still a member of this society and disagree on this point and are willing to make a sacrafice to show that.
David, on the other hand seems to think that because he does not live in a reductionist libertarian fantasy, that he is justified in any rationalization/avoidance whatsoever. I'm sure he could use the same justification for cheating on his taxes. BTW, nobody stuck a gun to David's head. He had a very small test here.
David's got a lot of false pride*...and he cloaks himself in a philosophy...and dreams Walter Mitty dreams.
BTW, I've got no big thing against the libertarian viewpoint (heck I'm probably a watered down one, myself). The whole debate doesn't even interest me that much. What interests me FAR MORE are issues of strength of character. (I haven't screwed with you are Wraith or Rex, cause my interest is more in the moral courage issue than the abstract philospohical issue.) I mess with Eli and Imran and David because I feel enough "fondness"  for them to want to see them grow up a little more.
*Boot camp might have a good effect on this...
Peace! Out!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
good work , GP! 
I actually considered to go to combat service, in the AA. Of course , I could always say that I served in combat , and in the AIRFORCE! but then of course , I'd get silent , where exaclty would I be. . with the Israeli AF around , I don't even know why we keep the AAA. ( But laughs aside, the issue did interest me. )
I almost did it. But I didn't do it because of my parents. My dad had a liver transplant , and said he wanted to see me in the university before he dies (  ) , and mom couldn't bare the thought that I might get myself killed. Of course , now I'll have to serve 6 years in the army as a chemist .  : 
So much for character. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
BTW, chemistry is the greatest of all sciences... but 6 years sucks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalgetti
good work , GP!
I actually considered to go to combat service, in the AA. Of course , I could always say that I served in combat , and in the AIRFORCE! but then of course , I'd get silent , where exaclty would I be. . with the Israeli AF around , I don't even know why we keep the AAA. ( But laughs aside, the issue did interest me. )
I almost did it. But I didn't do it because of my parents. My dad had a liver transplant , and said he wanted to see me in the university before he dies ( ) , and mom couldn't bare the thought that I might get myself killed. Of course , now I'll have to serve 6 years in the army as a chemist . :
So much for character. |
Nothing worng in volunteering for assignments other than infantry [/waits for MTG and Chris to beat on him...]. That is very different from fudging your medical records to avoid combat service...that is more on a par with malingering or wounding yourself.
During Viet Nam, the average sub dude encountered no combat (some touch and go...but no combat) and the primary danger was operational not combat-related...given no war with the USSR. That doesn't mean it was dishonarable to volunteer for a sub instead of going to Quantico. If anybody fudged their medical records to avoid service that would be scummy. Actually I know lots of people who fudged medical to STAY physically qualified for combat. No-one I know fudged to avoid combat arms service.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-04-2002 09:20
I think I already explained that one - it was necessary for my education, and it's something that from the get-go I've never planned to honor, you can ask anyone in my family I'd be more than happy to provide you with email addresses 
|