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: Greg or e who wrote (81842)	11/19/2009 8:46:39 AM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You are welcome. It appears, however, that the point was lost on you. You had made the following proclamation.... ”When two distinct Human beings exist in a close relationship there is always some degree of conflicting interests and rights.” In my response, I demonstrated how the perspective of conflict is not necessarily a fact, except from a very narrow perspective that isn't under unanimous agreement. At least I don't agree. If you were to positing interests and rights within the context of those things human beings may be enthusiastic about, then yes I can see how conflict does arise and I think I put that particular construct appropriately outside the idea of natural interests and rights, as I don't think our laws relevent to interests and rights should be extended that far. "and laying out what you perceived to be the possible approaches to understanding Rights. I found that part a little confused and swirling with assumptions." If it was confusing that is on you alone, as I am always willing to clarify. If it was 'swirling with assumptions,' it was no more so than the age of enlightenment assumptions used to understand rights and to found the ideals of American principle.

To: Greg or e who wrote (81842)	11/19/2009 11:53:03 AM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 82486

<It's not so much that I didn't want you to stop, I just kept waiting for you to make a point. > Not to be rude, but you have a tendency to get lost in the trees (forget original posts and points): <<At the risk of muddying the waters here even further, there is a case to be made for both dispositions to be true. Mother and fetus are one being, mother and fetus are separate beings.>> You may want to bookmark the beginning of your conversations and revisit from time to time. DAK