Ok ... yes it is a word with multiple connotations, and i did focus on that nearing 'superficial' ... so alright, you may feel free to take the 'eye of the beholder' comment as a compliment -g-
People just feel rights ... sure they are romantic notions to start ... the mighty oak from a tiny nut grows ... of course not all the nuts find fertile ground, and that's probably a Good Thing, or we'd be up to here in oak trees, instead of nuts -g- ... but exercisable rights are thinner on the ground than oak trees, much thinner ... i just happen to be most aware of the want of rights for native 'americans' north of the M‚x-US border ... and for that matter, south of it as well.
If, as you say, these rights spring from something
unrelated to states and borders, then you don't.
They spring from minds [romantic notions, remember?] ... and are not necessarily directly related to states and borders, no ... 'We didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed us.' ... now i'm almost sorry i contested Rambi's sentence, it's not that big a deal ... i just meant to point out that those rights do exist in minds involved in that heinous crossing of that arbitrary line, and that that existence is as real as they need to get to affect behavior ...
Is there available a reference work on the use of 'which' and 'that'? .. -g- ... cheers |
