|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Human Rights | |||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
you just can't drive it on a public street. That's what the license is - your certification to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.) That's what I meant by 'drive a car' and this little explanation at the end shows that you knew what I was typing about and dodged the whole argument. Arguing that abortion is not a right is not arguing that nobody should have them anywhere.
Your position is that I have no rights not specifically granted, but that position is incorrect and anathema to liberty. That's not my position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That's what I meant by 'drive a car' and this little explanation at the end shows that you knew what I was typing about and dodged the whole argument. You didn't say that. You said "drive a car", not "use a public street." How can I be faulted for not responding to arguments you didn't make? I can't read your mind, CS. Learn to write with clarity if you don't want to be understood. As it turns out, I do have the right to operate my car on any public street, because I do have a license. And I have the right to operate a car on any property I own, license or not. Because I have all rights not specifically disallowed. Right?
That's not my position. Then we agree. People have all rights not specifically disallowed. So women have the right to have as much sex as they can convince another person to take part in with them, (or with themselves as much as they like), and still have an abortion, because that hasn't been specifically disallowed. Even RR knows that. His position is that he, personally, gets to disallow rights, I guess. That somehow he's attuned to what rights Nature, as an abstract phenomena, has disallowed, and that the rest of us aren't.
Arguing that abortion is not a right is not arguing that nobody should have them anywhere. It is, though. That's exactly what it is - because people have all rights not specifically disallowed. If you're arguing that there's no right to abortion, then you're saying that somehow it's been disallowed. And how can you be saying that you're not arguing that nobody should have abortions if you're arguing that abortion has been disallowed? There's no such thing as something that isn't a right, but you're free to do anyway. All humans have all rights not specifically disallowed. That's what it means to be free.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You didn't say that. You said "drive a car", not "use a public street." You knew what I meant, which is why you put your little disclaimer at the bottom.
As it turns out, I do have the right to operate my car on any public street, because I do have a license. The state considers it a priveledge, not a right.
Because I have all rights not specifically disallowed. Right? Sure.
Arguing that abortion is not a right is not arguing that nobody should have them anywhere. It is, though. That's exactly what it is - because people have all rights not specifically disallowed.
But people have priveledges too, and those aren't rights. I could argue that driving a car on public streets is not a right and that it is a priveledge and NOT be arguing that nobody should be allowed to drive anywhere.
If you're arguing that there's no right to abortion, then you're saying that somehow it's been disallowed. And how can you be saying that you're not arguing that nobody should have abortions if you're arguing that abortion has been disallowed? Because some things are allowed that aren't rights, like driving a car on public streets.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You knew what I meant, which is why you put your little disclaimer at the bottom. I didn't know what you meant, which is why I told you I didn't know what you meant; which is why I answered the question in two different ways, because I suspected I knew how you were mistaken. I guess it turned out I was completely right because now you're calling me a liar instead of addressing my point.
But people have priveledges too, and those aren't rights. What's a privilege?
Because some things are allowed that aren't rights, like driving a car on public streets. But that doesn't work. If people have all rights that aren't disallowed, logically, everything that is allowed is a right. You can't agree with the premise and disagree with the conclusion, CS, without showing me where the logic is wrong. I need more than just your say-so that abortion is a "privilege". Certainly nobody who goes through it thinks that it is. If abortion is a privilege why do most people think its a right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I guess it turned out I was completely right because now you're calling me a liar instead of addressing my point. I don't think you're a liar, I think that you try to find minor inconsistancies in arguments rather than addressing them as a whole. And I did address your point.
What's a privilege? It is a right that is bestowed upon a person (that they do not automatically have).
If people have all rights that aren't disallowed, logically, everything that is allowed is a right. A privilege is a right, it just has a source, like the govenrment, unlike rights, in general, which people are born with. Driving cars on public streets is something the government allows you to do, a privilege, and not a right that you are born with.
If abortion is a privilege why do most people think its a right? I think it is a right, see Message 3. RR thinks it is a privilege, IIRC. You said that him arguing that it is not a right means that he is saying that nobody should have abortions anywhere. And you were wrong. But now that I think about it, I can see why RR thinks its a privilege. He is mistaken that people can't do abortions without technology and the govenment's ok. If that were true then it would be a privilege. But women don't need technology and the govenments ok to abort their babies, that's why I think it is right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It is a right that is bestowed upon a person (that they do not automatically have). I still don't understand. Rights are inalienable. To bestow a right would mean that somebody who previously didn't have a right, suddenly does. But rights are inalienable. So if they didn't have it in the first place, it isn't a right. You can't bestow rights, because all persons have all rights that aren't specifically disallowed. You can't bestow on someone something that is already theirs.
A privilege is a right, it just has a source, like the govenrment, unlike rights, in general, which people are born with. The government doesn't give rights, though. The government can only take away rights; disallow actions. The government can't give you any rights that you don't already have. If there were roads but not government, I could drive on them as I wished - license or not. The only reason I can't use the roads without a license is because the government says I can't, and they institute a mechanism of enforcement.
I think it is a right, see Message 3. RR thinks it is a privilege, IIRC. Riverrat seems to think that nobody has any rights except those that are allowed. I see his position as fundamentally anathema to freedom, and I hope you do, too.
You said that him arguing that it is not a right means that he is saying that nobody should have abortions anywhere. And you were wrong. I was actually quite correct, as I've shown. You've even agreed with me - since you've defined "privilege" as one of a kind of rights, then to say that "abortion is not a right" is to assert that abortion is not even a privilege. If privileges are rights then abortion has to be a right to be a privilege - and all this is assuming that we accept your construction of right and privilege, which I do not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It is a right that is bestowed upon a person (that they do not automatically have). I still don't understand. Then look it up on the internets.
quote: They even use the all-too-common example of driving a car that I used earlier that I thought you would know.
Rights are inalienable. To bestow a right would mean that somebody who previously didn't have a right, suddenly does. But rights are inalienable. So if they didn't have it in the first place, it isn't a right. Correct, a privilege is not an inherent right, but the word right is still used to describe privileges. Its just that privileges have an extra qualifier attached that is that they given to you. Before you had a driver’s license, you did not have the privilege of driving on public streets. Now that you have one, you do. You previously didn’t have the right to drive and suddenly you do.
You can't bestow rights, because all persons have all rights that aren't specifically disallowed. You can't bestow on someone something that is already theirs. A bestowed right is called a privilege.
A privilege is a right, it just has a source, like the government, unlike rights, in general, which people are born with. The government doesn't give rights, though. The government can only take away rights; disallow actions. The government can't give you any rights that you don't already have. Sure they can, and they call them privileges.
If there were roads but not government, I could drive on them as I wished - license or not. The only reason I can't use the roads without a license is because the government says I can't, and they institute a mechanism of enforcement. But the government built the roads. Lets say the government builds something new for travel, lets call them doads. Now, you don’t have the right to use doads until the government says that you can. You pass the test and get your doad license. You have been granted the right to use the doads, which is referred to as a privilege and can be taken away. This is an example of how the government can give you a right.
Riverrat seems to think that nobody has any rights except those that are allowed. I see his position as fundamentally anathema to freedom, and I hope you do, too. I didn’t get that impression from him.
You said that him arguing that it is not a right means that he is saying that nobody should have abortions anywhere. And you were wrong. I was actually quite correct, as I've shown. Well, I’ve just shown how you weren’t.
You've even agreed with me - since you've defined "privilege" as one of a kind of rights, then to say that "abortion is not a right" is to assert that abortion is not even a privilege. If privileges are rights then abortion has to be a right to be a privilege The terminology could be better. Yes, a privilege is a type of right. In the common usage of the words, there is a distinction between rights and privileges. The phrase: “It’s not a right, it’s a privilege.” is not too uncommon to assume that people understand the difference. If someone said: “its not a rectangle, it’s a square”. Technically they would be wrong, but I think people should understand what they were actually saying. If they were arguing that none of the sides of the shape had different lengths I think their point would be made. Unless they were arguing with you, in which you would point out the minor inconsistencies in their argument instead of addressing it as a whole.
and all this is assuming that we accept your construction of right and privilege, which I do not. Hey, you’re free to disregard whatever common definitions you don’t want to accept (I thought we've agreed in the past that words have meanings). It explains why you are having trouble understanding this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
A privilege is not a right and in some cases can be revoked. Wait - so a privilege is not a right? Then why did you say it was?
Correct, a privilege is not an inherent right, but the word right is still used to describe privileges. Er, but the definition you so courteously provided specifically says that a privilege is not a right.
They even use the all-too-common example of driving a car that I used earlier that I thought you would know. Right, except that they can't seem to decide if driving is a right or a privilege. According to the Wikipedians, it all depends on what country you're in. I don't get the feeling that RR is trying to develop a system of rights that is dependant on what country you're in; in fact he's specifically (if incompetently) been trying to deny the right of abortion in the "natural" sense, completely independant of any nation's jurisprudence.
A bestowed right is called a privilege. But a privilege is not a right, according to your sources.
This is an example of how the government can give you a right. But that's not what happened. I was given a privilege, not a right.
If someone said: “its not a rectangle, it’s a square”. Technically they would be wrong, but I think people should understand what they were actually saying. And I think it's this sort of thing that detracts from the clarity of your writing. Don't simply assume that your views are so natural and correct that people will automatically understand your meaning. There's an infinite number of ways to be wrong, which makes it hard to guess exactly which way you're wrong when you phrase things so ambiguously.
Unless they were arguing with you, in which you would point out the minor inconsistencies in their argument instead of addressing it as a whole. I can't address your whole argument if it isn't even clear what your position is. Helping you learn to write clearly and teasing meaning out of your ambiguities is part of that process. I can't just read your mind, CS, and skip to the end of the discussion, though that would be a lot more convinient. You need to be a lot clearer, and step 1 of that process might be to say what you mean and not just rely on others to fill in the blanks on your behalf. Or step 1 might be not supplying definitions that completely contradict you. I'm not sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
You seem to be making a disingenuous semantic argument. quote: Oh really? Hows about you document that, darlin', or retract?
quote: Sure. That's why I asked you to give me an example.
quote: Well, I haven't been doing that, really. I've mostly been countering rat's various reasons that he's trying to use to support his claim that it isn't a right.
quote: Sure.
quote: I think forced birth is morally wrong, for obvious reasons.
quote: This is my position as well, except that one needs to make exceptions for the rare cases when late-term abortions need to take place for the health and life of the mother. If it is a choice between the mother dying or the 8.5 month old fetus, the mother gets to live, unless she specifically chooses to die. That's why blanket laws regarding helthcare are always inadequate.
quote: I think that some important milestones to consider are when the fetus can survive outside the uterus, and advanced CNS/brain development.
quote: Right.
quote: Right. I don't think that will ever be decided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Helping you learn to write clearly and teasing meaning out of your ambiguities is part of that process. Yes, but you act like you don't understnad what I mean when you do, just so you can pick apart the argument instead of actually addressing it.
You need to be a lot clearer, and step 1 of that process might be to say what you mean and not just rely on others to fill in the blanks on your behalf. And you need to actually address the arguments people are makeing, and at least try to understand what they are saying instead of purposefully being obtuse so it is easier for you to pick apart the argument.
A privilege is not a right and in some cases can be revoked.
Wait - so a privilege is not a right? Then why did you say it was?
Because it is a type of right. The wikipedians are wrong there. Look at the dictionary definition. I think we are using #3:
quote: And as usual. Your post didn't even address my argument, you just pointed out the contradiction between myself and my source.
This is an example of how the government can give you a right. But that's not what happened. I was given a privilege, not a right.
What, so now your agreeing that you don't have the right to drive on public streets? Now you are contradicting yourself.
I don't get the feeling that RR is trying to develop a system of rights that is dependant on what country you're in; in fact he's specifically (if incompetently) been trying to deny the right of abortion in the "natural" sense, completely independant of any nation's jurisprudence. That's correct. IMHO, He sees abortion as a privilege provided by the government, not a natural right that you are born with. It just so happens that he is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You seem to be making a disingenuous semantic argument.
quote: Oh really? Hows about you document that, darlin', or retract?
I don't have time right now but f you really want me too, there's mountains of evidence. I could start a new topic about your style of arguing but I doubt it’d be promoted. The replies I'm talking about are where you go: "So, what your saying is..." "Then, by your logic, you mean....." And then you insert something that is far from the point the person was making but is obviously wrong. Instead of strengthening your argument, you rely on weakening theirs. Like, if I said "This soup is not hot." A typical reply from you could be along the lines of: "So, what you're saying is that the soup is ice cold." And then we go back and forth to clarify. Its really annoying to me so I rarely reply to you. I”ll look for example in this thread after I post this. *see ABE below
quote: Sure.
That's pretty much why I don't think you have 100% control(own) of your uterus, or any part of your body, because you don’t have the right to remove another’s right. Now when I first typed that, I was sorta thinking of the female genitalia in its entirety, which I realize the uterus is not. Its pretty hard to think of a way to use a uterus to infringe upon the rights of another person. (Of course, its not that hard if you consider an unborn child as a person). The point remains though, that body autonomy and privacy are not what are giving you the right to abort. And if the unborn is considered a person, I would argue that you don’t have the right, at all. ABE:
Message 114quote: Message 119quote: that last one is hilarious. Equating him saying that you don’t have a right for treatment with letting people die horribly. Do you see what I mean now? These aren’t even good example, well the last one is. But I think you’ll get the point I was trying to make. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see abe:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yes, but you act like you don't understnad what I mean when you do, just so you can pick apart the argument instead of actually addressing it. That's how arguments are addressed, CS. By being picked apart to show where they're wrong. Look, what do you think this discussion is supposed to look like? You say whatever bullshit you want and I go "uh-huh, right on, whatever you say, boss?" If you don't want to deal with refutations, make arguments that I can't refute. But if you're going to reply on arguments that use deception or ambiguity to conceal fallacious reasoning and unsupported premisies, don't expect a lot of sympathy when I cut through your ambiguity and smokescreens to show you where your logic is wrong and you've assumed something without proving it. Sack up and take it like a man. Stop complaining.
And you need to actually address the arguments people are makeing, and at least try to understand what they are saying instead of purposefully being obtuse so it is easier for you to pick apart the argument. All I'm doing is forcing you to resolve your ambiguity, so that you are denied the use of it to conceal faulty reasoning. Man up and deal with it.
Because it is a type of right. The wikipedians are wrong there. Why did you bring forth a definition that you thought was wrong?
Your post didn't even address my argument, you just pointed out the contradiction between myself and my source. If your arguments aren't supported by your sources, then your arguments aren't supported. Unsupported arguments are not compelling and are usually wrong. Thus, showing you how your argument relies on false support is a way of showing you how your argument is wrong. It's amazing that this has to be explained to an adult. Is this just the first time you've been involved in a discussion, or what? What do you think it means when people argue about something? They defend their position and attack their opponents. I'm defending mine and attacking yours by showing you how you rely on faulty assumptions. All you're doing is complaining. I'm sorry you find it unpleasant to be disagreed with, but play hardball or go home. This isn't the place where faulty reasoning is coddled.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And then you insert something that is far from the point the person was making but is obviously wrong. Right. That's valid debate technique called "reducto ad absurdum", which illuminates deceptively fallacious logic by showing how the same logical syllogysm used to defend one position is obviously wrong when used to defend another, equivalent position.
Instead of strengthening your argument, you rely on weakening theirs. That's how debate works, CS. Each debater defends their position and attacks the other. If nobody attacked positions, what would you defend against? How did you think debate worked if not by making attacks against another person's position? Why do you think the forum guidelines mandate that you have to address rebuttals with new evidence? If you never had to defend your position, why would you ever need evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
LOL
you totally dodged the part where I pointed out where you contradicted yourself.
That's how arguments are addressed, CS. By being picked apart to show where they're wrong. I think its better to discuss the argument in its entirety as a whole idea. Don't just point out the minor inconsistancies if it doesnt make the argument un-addressable.
But if you're going to reply on arguments that use deception or ambiguity to conceal fallacious reasoning and unsupported premisies, don't expect a lot of sympathy when I cut through your ambiguity and smokescreens to show you where your logic is wrong and you've assumed something without proving it. That's not what happend and you purposefully make things more ambiguous than they have to be so its easier for you to cut through them.
Sack up and take it like a man. Stop complaining. See, you see this as a competition. I'd rather have a meaningful discussion and learn something rather than cut through peoples arguments like its a battle debate.
All I'm doing is forcing you to resolve your ambiguity, so that you are denied the use of it to conceal faulty reasoning. Man up and deal with it. There wasn't anything wrong with my resoning until you introduced the unnecessary ambiguity so that you could cut through it.
Because it is a type of right. The wikipedians are wrong there. Why did you bring forth a definition that you thought was wrong?
The other parts were more important. I should've realised that you would ignore all the important parts and just look for one little spec that you could cut through and all together avoid the discussion that would prove you wrong.
If your arguments aren't supported by your sources, then your arguments aren't supported. Unsupported arguments are not compelling and are usually wrong. Thus, showing you how your argument relies on false support is a way of showing you how your argument is wrong. But you didn't address the argument.
It's amazing that this has to be explained to an adult. Is this just the first time you've been involved in a discussion, or what? What do you think it means when people argue about something? They defend their position and attack their opponents. I'm defending mine and attacking yours by showing you how you rely on faulty assumptions. The discussion would be better if you pushed in a positive direction rather than being so offensive.
All you're doing is complaining. I'm sorry you find it unpleasant to be disagreed with, but play hardball or go home. This isn't the place where faulty reasoning is coddled.
But when you are wrong, you avoid the discussion and look for mistakes people made in thier argumnent instead of actually addressing the argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Right. That's valid debate technique called "reducto ad absurdum", which illuminates deceptively fallacious logic by showing how the same logical syllogysm used to defend one position is obviously wrong when used to defend another, equivalent position. But she doesn't use equivalent positions.
Each debater defends their position and attacks the other. If nobody attacked positions, what would you defend against? There's a difference in attacking the argument and attacking the position.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024