Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (5255)	2/9/2001 12:00:28 PM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm playing catch up here, and have not fully thought through your posts. A difficulty I have here is one I addressed on the LWP last night concerning the use of the word "sin". I don't see things as moral or immoral. That presupposes a notion that I don't deal in. Rights are not moral, and it is not immoral to deny "them", unless we speak in the language of "morality". Since I don't, though I agree with much you say, there is a part of it I can not agree with it. Much like reading Martin Luther King's words last night left me agreeing with so much, but being apart from him in his use of religion, and religious morality. Granted, the man was a preacher. And I like his view of what a religious person should do. Still, it is not morality, nor Jesus, that makes me, personally, choose to try and be the best neighbor I can be.

To: Solon who wrote (5255)	2/9/2001 12:38:38 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Hey Solon -- long time, no hear!! FYI, if you can squish rights, then they aren't atomic are they? The justification for the rights you mention (the thing you say remains when you squish rights) would seem to be the actual stuff of their making. This is, then, merely a notion. A notion, it would seem, is the stuff of rights. We can share notions, but that doesn't make them anything more than ideas shared by some individuals and not others. This is where we have the problems. You know how I love dualities. Your's is yet another example. Rights seem real and solid, but really they are merely notions held by individuals.

To: Solon who wrote (5255)	2/9/2001 12:44:45 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

WE might be talking in circles: I am not. Neither am I. I expect that your philosophy is as coherent to you as mine is to me. We're just not understanding each other. I have said from the beginning of this discussion that I don't understand what you are saying. That situation has not changed with further posting. Karen, don't make me repost your stuff. I wouldn't dream of it, nor will I go back and repost my stuff, either. If this is a quest for understanding rather than a gotcha, then there is no point is going back and proving who said what. If you think I'm contradicting myself, there are lots of possible explanations for that, not all of which imply inconsistency on my part. I think a different use of terminology is the most likely culprit. Does an audit trail of how we arrived at our lack of understanding really matter? Karen, you are stamping your feet instead of thinking. That is not the way to reach consensus. A RIGHT is not immunity to FORCE, POWER, or IMMORALITY. Neither is a "right". I'm not stamping my feet. I'm simply repeating that I don't understand and trying to get refocused on the essence of the disagreement, which I think is about the source of rights. I don't know that we disagree about anything else. Or maybe we do. Perhaps we could start by agreeing (consistent with the fine art of consensus building) on what we disagree about... I disagree that rights are not about immunity to force or power. Immunity to force or power is included in my sense of what rights are. We evidently don't define rights the same. Perhaps we could start with freedom. We may be in tune on that. To me a right is a freedom that is guaranteed. Karen