Were you familiar with the car driving example of the difference between a privilege and a right before I mentioned it?
No. Why would I be? (Maybe it's the fact that you make unwarranted assumptions about what your opponents know that gets you into these ambiguity problems.)
Now I realize I forgot the public street part but this disclaimer at the end really looks like you new what I meant.
Now does it look like I knew what you meant? I was correcting your mistake where you said that the government has to let you drive. That's not true; you can drive all you like. But the reason that people have driver's licenses is so that they can use public roads.
If I knew what you meant, wouldn't I have known that you weren't mistaken about what driver's licenses are? And if I had known, why would I have told you?
You're not making any sense, CS. There's no indication in my post that I knew what you were talking about, which I confirmed in the next post when I told you I didn't.
But you go on ahead and believe that I can read your mind if it makes you feel better. Honestly, what the fuck are we even arguing about?
But instead of addressing that there are differences between rights and privileges and the RR saying that abortion is a privilege and not a right does not mean that he is saying that nobody should have abortions anywhere, you would rather argue about how you can drive on private property so you do have the right to drive a car.
Arguing about it? I said you could drive on private property with no license, and then you agreed, and we stopped talking about it. Where's the argument?
And you're misrepresenting RR. He thinks that it's a privilege, sure, but he thinks its a privilege that sexually-consenting women
shouldn't have. Why do I think RR is saying women shouldn't have abortions?
Because he's saying women who consent to sex shouldn't have abortions. It's really simple. I just pay attention to what he's saying, CS, and therefore I know his position.
Now your arguing whether a privilege can be called a right because if its bestowed like a privilege then it wasn’t a right to begin with so it can’t be called a right.
If people have all rights not specifically disallowed, I don't see how they can get new rights. That means new privileges can't be rights. The wikipedians seem to agree with me, but you say they're wrong based on a dictionary.
This isn't a debate, CS. This is argument by dictionary; an argument about what words mean. And I can't think of anything more boring.
All you replied to was where wiki was wrong in saying that a privilege is not a right.
You said they were wrong, not me. I'm under the impression that they're quite correct.
You didn’t even address the rest of my argument that proved you wrong that rights can’t be granted at all, where I explained how the government can give you the right to something you didn’t have before.
You didn't
explain anything, CS. You just
asserted that the government can do that - in the face of two hundred years of constitutional philosophy, I might add.
Everybody knows that the government isn't the source of rights - our own humanity is.
Do you just not understand the difference between defense and assertion, or what? How can we be expected to debate if you don't even seem to know what a debate is?
I guess you’re having fun with it but its really annoying to me that you avoid the major points of the argument just to attack any small mistake I made.
If all you do is repeat assertions - "the government can do this; privileges are that" - then we're not having a debate and no, I'm not having any fun. And everybody's getting fairly tired of you posting nothing but assertions and complaining. I know I am.
™ Version 4.2
