Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Rights
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 215 of 303 (368203)
12-07-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by New Cat's Eye
12-07-2006 11:48 AM


That's not the point I was trying to make, that the women didn't own the uterus, it was that they don't have full control over it.
You're still equivocating, because that's not the kind of control Schraf was referring to (and you know it, obviously.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2006 11:48 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 216 of 303 (368204)
12-07-2006 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by riVeRraT
12-07-2006 11:44 AM


But then again, anytime I have been in the hospital, I have always been asked, how did I get the injury. If a child comes into a hospital with bruises all over is body, wouldn't there be some kind of inquiry to as how it happened?
What does that have to do with anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by riVeRraT, posted 12-07-2006 11:44 AM riVeRraT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 219 of 303 (368207)
12-07-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by New Cat's Eye
12-07-2006 11:52 AM


I didn't say the doctor owns the womb, I said that women didn't really have control over it.
Because you're equivocating on the term "control." We're not talking about whether or not women can cause an abortion by force of will; we're talking about whether or not it's their decision to make in regards to having the abortion.
That's the control, making the decision. How they implement the decision is irrelevant, women have complete control over their uteruses because they can make the decision to abort and then go have an abortion.
How does that turn into the doctor owning the womb
Before I realized you were equivocating and being disingenuous, I assumed you were using the same understanding of "control" as the rest of us. I see that I was mistaken - you were being a lot less honest than I gave you credit for. My bad, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2006 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2006 12:02 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 221 of 303 (368209)
12-07-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by riVeRraT
12-07-2006 11:53 AM


But for now, I think it should be allowed, but I do not recommend it in the context of the op.
Riverrat, nobody's recommended abortion. (If it can be avoided, it should be; as a surgical procedure it comes with risks.) You need to understand, as the rest of us do, the difference between supporting someone's decision and agreeing with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by riVeRraT, posted 12-07-2006 11:53 AM riVeRraT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 223 of 303 (368213)
12-07-2006 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by New Cat's Eye
12-07-2006 12:02 PM


I understand that I equivocated, but that is because I was responding to Schraf and that's the only way she can argue.
...wha? That doesn't make a lick of sense. You have to be dishonest, because that's the only way you can argue with Schraf? That sort of proves her point, doesn't it?
The point was that if a women wanted to use her uterus to infringe upon the rights of another person, then she would not have a right to do that.
...wha? What the hell are you talking about, here? "Using her uterus to infringe on the rights of another person"? What do you think uteruses are, CS? Do you understand what we're talking about when we say "uterus"? You are aware that a uterus is an internal organ, right?
I also said, for example, that if the unborn baby was considered a person then she would not have the right to infringe on that persons right to life and so she wouldn't have complete control over her uterus.
She wouldn't be infringing on the fetus's right to life - she would simply be excercising control of her uterus and what humans are allowed to live there. There's no infringement of rights because, while the fetus may have a right to live, it certainly doesn't have the right to live inside an unwilling person's uterus. I mean, show me in the Constitution where that right exists. Show me from what basis a fetus's rights include the right to take over an organ belonging to another person. Necessity? That's insufficent. Just because you need something doesn't mean somebody else is obligated to give it to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2006 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2006 12:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 229 of 303 (368802)
12-10-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by nator
12-08-2006 7:16 PM


I remember him saying that.
He made it clear that he would have preferred that the government had not even given him the choice of abortion.
Of course, the most amazing thing is - the government didn't give him the choice at all. He took that choice from a woman.
What I can't understand is how he fails to see that the answer here is not to take away every other woman's choice, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by nator, posted 12-08-2006 7:16 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 9:24 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 234 of 303 (368974)
12-11-2006 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 9:24 AM


I told you already it was a mutual decision.
I'm sure that you feel that it was. A pity she's not here to speak on her behalf.
Do you believe that you're making a "mutual decision" when you've determined that no woman anywhere should have an abortion?
What I can't understand is that even though I made it clear several hundred times that this thread is not about taking away anything from anyone, it's about calling it what it is.
A choice. That's the only thing that it is.
If you believe differently, then explain to me what use it is for you to say that women don't have the right to an abortion? Is this just supposed to be an academic discussion, or are you that intent on having it both ways? That you get to advocate a position without having to address its consequences?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 9:24 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 10:48 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 264 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 8:46 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 239 of 303 (368990)
12-11-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 10:48 AM


First off, I think it is inappropriate for you and Schraff to be discussing Rat's personal opinions from another thread.
He made them part of this discussion, not us.
You should be debating the position, not the person, remember?
Indeed. Thanks to others, the position became "Crash doesn't understand RR's position." I was simply rebutting that nonsense by showing how I completely understand RR's motivations and positions.
Crash, you do not have the right do drive a car.
I do, actually, because I have all rights not specifically disallowed. Your position is that I have no rights not specifically granted, but that position is incorrect and anathema to liberty. Humans are inherently free, not inherently unfree; thus, humans have all rights not specifically disallowed.
(You can drive a car without a license, by the way - 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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 10:48 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 11:23 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 242 of 303 (369000)
12-11-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 11:23 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 11:23 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 11:40 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 244 of 303 (369004)
12-11-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 11:40 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 11:40 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 1:14 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 246 of 303 (369037)
12-11-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 1:14 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 1:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 3:08 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 248 of 303 (369063)
12-11-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 3:08 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 3:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 3:53 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 252 of 303 (369085)
12-11-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 3:53 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 4:34 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 253 of 303 (369087)
12-11-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 4:12 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 4:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 4:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 256 of 303 (369093)
12-11-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 4:34 PM


I'd rather have a meaningful discussion and learn something rather than cut through peoples arguments like its a battle debate.
Well, pay attention to what I'm telling you, and you'll learn how your arguments are wrong.
There wasn't anything wrong with my resoning until you introduced the unnecessary ambiguity so that you could cut through it.
I introduced no ambiguity. All you're doing here is a playground game of "no I'm not; you are." How uncreative. If you're going to make up accusations, do you think you could be bothered to come up with some I didn't just level at you?
It was your writing that was ambiguous, on purpose. Now that I've pointed it out you're having a right ol' self-pity party.
The other parts were more important.
The other parts were irrelevant. The question was whether or not privileges were rights. You answered with a definition that said they weren't to support an argument that they are.
It's nonsense, CS. And now you're pissed that I pointed that out. Get over yourself.
The discussion would be better if you pushed in a positive direction rather than being so offensive.
The discussion would be better if you didn't insist on it being so personal, on seeing every refutation of your position as a personal attack.
But when you are wrong, you avoid the discussion and look for mistakes people made in thier argumnent instead of actually addressing the argument.
That's how you address an argument - by showing how it is mistaken. How else would you address an argument that was wrong? And if it was right, why would you do anything but agree with it?
There's a difference in attacking the argument and attacking the position.
Lol! No, of course there isn't. Arguments advance positions, so attacking an argument is how you attack a position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 4:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 5:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024