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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (20524)	6/19/2005 7:04:41 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Yes, and since we know that you are rational, and therefore right, then anyone who disagrees with you is by definition irrational." It is a mystery to me why you take the time to make ridiculous non responses. Saying that rational people may come to rational agreement simply points out the obvious and is well attested by history and logic itself. Your comment is gratuitous and intentionally distorts the point. For the record--rational people can disagree with one another. At no time did I suggest they could not. When rational people disagree it is usually one of two reasons: 1). They have one or more axiomatic premises which differ and thus inevitably lead to different conclusions, and 2). their reasoning powers may not be equivalent to the matter at hand. When issues are complex it is more difficult for rational people to reach consensus. Your apparent policy of misunderstanding the obvious is amusing but rather pointless unless you were (or are) the class clown. "If they must be a "legal person" in order to have rights, then you can't define what is a legal person by whether or not they have rights" I thought you would understand the unstated premises. You cannot have inalienable rights until you are separated and individual. Because rights which conflict are NOT inalieanable. This seems to be a concept which you are having much difficulty with, so I will take the time to clarify it for you. Let me simplify society into a community of two--just you and I. Now, if I eat steal your food every night is there a conflict of rights? NO. If you beat me up every night is there a conflict of rights? NO. In both cases, each of us has simply exceeded the rights which we are assuming: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We enjoy these rights so long as we do not harm or interfere with one another. We exceed these rights when we obstruct the rights of the other. Rights do not conflict as in "I have the right to pursue happiness, but you do not". When these "conflicts" occur it is because one individual or another has trampled on or denied the rights of another--NOT because the rights are conflicting. Now, if you were a LEGAL person and were permitted to interfere with my pursuit of happiness by controlling what I ate, drank, or when I slept, or whether or not I detached you from my body...then I would NOT enjoy the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, society would force me to pursue YOUR life, YOUR liberty, and YOUR happiness. "Nonsense. Firstly, you will hopefully learn some day that flippancy is not an argument. You say nothing to prove your arguments or statements or to disprove mine. In fact--I HAVE demonstrated my argument and you have been unable to counter it. "You certainly haven't found me doing that." I certainly haven't claimed to. "Yours is no less arbitrary, regardless of your confidence in your powers of reason." I presume that by "arbitrary" you mean-a la Websters: "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" Therefore, I must disagree with you. Birth and separation into a new individual is not an arbitrary point to grant legal status and social rights. It has a great deal of logical support and social necessity. "Thanks for propping up the straw man, Solon" More gratuitous foolishness. When I expand my arguments you seem to think it needs to be a personal response to something you have brought up. And if you have not brought it up, then it is a "straw man". LOL! "Conflicting rights are all around you" I have explained the falsity of that idea to you. You may not be able to grasp it, or you may be unwilling to acknowledge it.