Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
47 online now:
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Happy Birthday: Diomedes
Post Volume: Total: 877,646 Year: 9,394/23,288 Month: 409/1,544 Week: 123/561 Day: 26/50 Hour: 5/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Rights
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 16 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 responded

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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 303 (369098)
12-11-2006 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 4:51 PM


First off, you misrepresented RR by saying:

Do you believe that you're making a "mutual decision" when you've determined that no woman anywhere should have an abortion?

but you did ask for clarification:

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?

I replied to the first quote above to point out the misrepresentation:

quote:
He's not advocating that. He's just saying it shouldn't be considered a right but they should still be able to get them.

and to you request for clarification I gave an example:

quote:
Crash, you do not have the right do drive a car. Now, am I stating that nobody anywhere should drive a car? By your logic I am. Its just not true.

Now, driving a car on public streets is a common example of the differences between rights and privileges. It thought you would be familiar with it and that me saying you don’t have the right to drive a car was clear enough, apparently it wasn’t. Were you familiar with the car driving example of the difference between a privilege and a right before I mentioned it?

Now, here is your reply:

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.)

Now I realize I forgot the public street part but this disclaimer at the end really looks like you new what I meant. 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. That isn’t even related to the point I was making, that being a privilege and not a right doesn’t mean that you think people shouldn’t do it.

Then we get into whether driving is a privilege or a right and whether there is even a difference between a privilege and a right. The terminology is poor when discussing rights and privileges. You said:

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.

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.

Then I go on to explain the difference between a privilege and a right and how the government can bestow privileges which are a type of rights and so on.

All you replied to was where wiki was wrong in saying that a privilege is not a right. 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.

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.

But working back, governments can give you privileges, which are different than rights that you are born with. RR was arguing that abortion is a privilege, not a right. You replied that he is saying that nobody should have abortions anywhere. That is not what he is saying. That was my argument, and it wasn't wrong. You just look for holes in a correct argument to point out rather than actually addressing the argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 4:51 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 6:02 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 719 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 258 of 303 (369099)
12-11-2006 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 4:37 PM


quote:
But she doesn't use equivalent positions.

Yes I do.

Rat says that he has no right to get treatment for an injury sustained from jumping off a cliff because he knew the risks before jumping.

I simply inserted different injuries into his argument to show him how it looks to apply it in that way.

Using his example and switching out another activity, such as having sex, he would argue that people who contract STD's have no right to treatment because they knew that there was a risk of contracting STD's.

It is very much an equivalent position.

quote:
There's a difference in attacking the argument and attacking the position.

What is the difference?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 4:37 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 6:01 PM nator has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 303 (369113)
12-11-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by nator
12-11-2006 5:17 PM


quote:
But she doesn't use equivalent positions.

Yes I do.

Sometimes.....

What about this one that I mentioned in Message 251:

From your Message 119

quote:
You say that a pregnancy is not like an injury but clearly, an unwanted pregnancy is exactly like an unwanted injury or infection. Think of it like a sexually transmitted disease.

quote:
No, I can't think of it like that. But even if I did, it still doesn't mean I have a right to get rid of my desease. I got what I took a chance for, and now I would just be lucky to get rid of it, not have a right to.

So, what you are saying is that all of those people with AIDS should be left to suffer horribly and die because they knew the risks and have no right to medical treatment.

All of those people who get cancer, emphysema, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, etc, due to smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, and stress have no right to treatment, according to you, because they knew the risks of those behaviors and went ahead and did them anyway.

Correct?


I don't think those positions are equivalent. Him saying that you don't have a right to a cure doesn't equate to letting people die. He could think that the cure is a privilege and not necessarily a right, which is what his argument on abortion is.

quote:
There's a difference in attacking the argument and attacking the position.

What is the difference?

You take a position in a debate and support it with arguments. Those arguments can take positions in sub-debates within the debate as a whole. Those sub-positions can be supported by additional arguments.

You can refute an argument for a sub-position without hurting the position on the larger debate, especially when the sub-position is forced when the goalpost is moved, for example. One could go through a post and attack all the sub-arguments without even addressing the position in the larger debate. Sometimes the sub-arguments aren’t even needed for the larger position. Someone might include an ambiguity in a sub-argument, and another could reply by just pointing out the ambiguity and not saying anything about the position the person took. That other person would be attacking an argument while not attacking the position.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by nator, posted 12-11-2006 5:17 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 6:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 263 by nator, posted 12-11-2006 6:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 260 of 303 (369115)
12-11-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 5:17 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 6:06 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 303 (369117)
12-11-2006 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 6:02 PM


then we're not having a debate and no, I'm not having any fun.

Me neither.

The end.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 6:02 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 262 of 303 (369120)
12-11-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 6:01 PM


You can refute an argument for a sub-position without hurting the position on the larger debate, especially when the sub-position is forced when the goalpost is moved, for example. One could go through a post and attack all the sub-arguments without even addressing the position in the larger debate. Sometimes the sub-arguments aren’t even needed for the larger position. Someone might include an ambiguity in a sub-argument, and another could reply by just pointing out the ambiguity and not saying anything about the position the person took. That other person would be attacking an argument while not attacking the position.

This is nonsense. What kind of background do you have in debate? None, I'm guessing?

You can't attack a position because a position is a statement of what you believe - "I believe that humans are causing global warming". How are you supposed to attack that? Read his mind and tell him what he really believes?

No. All you can do is attack the arguments he puts forth, show how they're counterfactual or faulty, at the same time that you put forth arguments for your position. Positions are held up by arguments; dealing with arguments is how positions are defended and attacked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 6:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 719 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 263 of 303 (369127)
12-11-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 6:01 PM


quote:
I don't think those positions are equivalent. Him saying that you don't have a right to a cure doesn't equate to letting people die.

Sure it is, when the disease or injury is life-threatening, like cancer or AIDS. Or the injuries sustained when jumping off a cliff, for that matter.

I asked him to think of an unwanted pregnancy as a STD.

He said that If he did think of an unwanted pregnancy as an STD, that people with STD's have no right to treatment for that disease, because they knew that in having sex there was a risk of getting an STD.

His words:

quote:
But even if I did, it still doesn't mean I have a right to get rid of my desease. I got what I took a chance for, and now I would just be lucky to get rid of it, not have a right to.

Now, I then used the exact same argument, only with life threatening maladies such as AIDS and cancer:

So, what you are saying is that all of those people with AIDS should be left to suffer horribly and die because they knew the risks and have no right to medical treatment.

All of those people who get cancer, emphysema, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, etc, due to smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, and stress have no right to treatment, according to you, because they knew the risks of those behaviors and went ahead and did them anyway.

It's the same argument, CS. I've just plugged different values in to his argument to show the problems with it. Here it is, stated in the abstract:

1) Somebody chooses to engage in an activity with known risks.
2) That person experiences the negative consequences of that behavior.
3) That person has no right to mitigate those consequences because they knew the risks going in and chose to engage in that activity anyway.

It doesn't matter if the consequences we plug in to his argument are life-threatening or not, since rat never made any exception in any of his arguments for anybody's life as to if they have a right to medical treatment or not.

quote:
He could think that the cure is a privilege and not necessarily a right, which is what his argument on abortion is.

True, but then he should agree with my example for ALL injuries where people knew the risks before and engaged in them anyway.

He should not have had the objection to his own argument when AIDS was plugged in as the consequence instead of pregnancy.

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 6:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2006 12:54 AM nator has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 469 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 264 of 303 (369154)
12-11-2006 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 10:40 AM


Do you believe that you're making a "mutual decision" when you've determined that no woman anywhere should have an abortion?

Hey dopey, for the thousanth time, I am not saying to make abortion illegal, wtf is your problem?

You obviously feel that if you omit to it not be an actual right other than just being legal, that some how that is grounds to make it illegal again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 10:40 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 8:58 PM riVeRraT has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 469 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 265 of 303 (369155)
12-11-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by nator
12-11-2006 10:30 AM


It's because she has the final say over what happens to her body.

Wait is it she has control over her body, or say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by nator, posted 12-11-2006 10:30 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by nator, posted 12-11-2006 9:11 PM riVeRraT has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 469 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 266 of 303 (369156)
12-11-2006 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by nator
12-11-2006 10:42 AM


Is it the government's fault that credit cards are legal, since lots of people go into bankruptcy because they legally chose to run up large credit card bills?

More stupid analogys. Can't you ever just address the point, or at least make an analogy within the context of the discussion?

If I were to use your analogy, then you are saying that abortion is wrong, since running up high credit card debt is wrong too.

So in a sense, within your analogy, you admitted to abortion being wrong, even though it is legal.

Abortion is ok, because the government has deemed it ok. There are no governement warnings about it.

What, are you dependant upon the government to tell you what your morals are?

Yes, our legal system is part of what makes up our morals.
I was morally correct for supporting an abortion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by nator, posted 12-11-2006 10:42 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by nator, posted 12-11-2006 9:32 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 469 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 267 of 303 (369157)
12-11-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by nator
12-11-2006 10:47 AM


So, where is it written that you get to be the final arbiter of "what it is"?

Well isn't that what this thread is about, a chance for all of us to come to a conclusion of just exactly what is?

Too bad your so hell bent on arguing with me, you might have noticed that is what it is about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by nator, posted 12-11-2006 10:47 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by nator, posted 12-11-2006 9:38 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 268 of 303 (369158)
12-11-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 8:46 PM


Hey dopey, for the thousanth time, I am not saying to make abortion illegal, wtf is your problem?

I'm starting to have a problem with the name-calling. Oh, well, whatever - creationists get away with anything, don't you. ("Dopey", though - what am I, one of the seven dwarves?)

You obviously feel that if you omit to it not be an actual right other than just being legal, that some how that is grounds to make it illegal again?

Because people are free, people have all rights not specifically disallowed. If you say that abortion is not a right then you're saying that it is (or should be) disallowed.

Unless you construct rights the opposite way; and that people have only those rights that have been specifically granted to them, and everything else is not a right. I see that view as entirely anathema to freedom, but I also see it as entirely consistent with your stated views.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 8:46 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 10:04 PM crashfrog has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 469 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 269 of 303 (369160)
12-11-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 10:48 AM


First off, I want to thank you, for sticking up for me, and what I am trying to say, whether you support it or not. Thanks :)

Having realized that you do not have trouble understanding what I am saying, then that it must be crash and scraf who are in denial. They must understand perfectly what I am saying, but will not admit to it. We are at the point of beating a dead horse, especially when the people debating aren't realistic, and pocess hte capability to be so.

I do not consider crash or schraf unintelligent, so it must be something else then. I wish I could get to the heart of that matter. There is obviuously emotions involved, not logic, so all rational discussion is out the window. No matter how simply it is explained, they will pretend like they don't get it, and that I am a fool for thinking this way. I think we should drop it, they know what they do.


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 not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 9:13 PM riVeRraT has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 469 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 270 of 303 (369161)
12-11-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 10:58 AM


My question is:

How/Why does consenting to intercourse by her own free will (by which she gives up her right to not have sex and not get pregnant) make it NOT a right to get an abortion?

How or why does doing it by her own free will remove the right?

That is what I don't understand.

It's not free will that makes her lose a right, it's consent.
It's that birth control is not 100% full proof, so there is no garauntee that she won't become pregnant.

Your question is the exact opposite of what I asked in the op, to help me understand this concept a little better, and that is, what makes it a right, other than being legal?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 10:58 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by nator, posted 12-11-2006 9:42 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 283 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2006 12:48 AM riVeRraT has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020