lookin' for common ground

[henry quirk]

I defined theft (broadly and simply)...go take a gander.

And we haven't even got out of the startin' gate cuz of all the *nitpickin', so I won't be forced to jump ahead into limits on theft.

Work with what you got, or take a flyin' leap.

#

"Sorry, weaklings, life/liberty/property is reserved for the mighty--try again next life."

Doesn't have to be that way, and you don't need 10,000 laws/regs to get sumthin' better, but if you think you need to straightjacket yourself to straightjacket the bad actors then that's what you'll do (as I say: you trade off autonomy to preserve autonomy).

Can't reason with crazy.

#

"We can boil these things down to a sentence or two, or a list enshrined, but each one will have a library of books of interpretation - and they should."

Yeah, sure, but you can't even get out of the starting gate (or, rather, you can but just don't wanna). And: I asked a question...not seein' that I enshrined anything. I asked a question that you all have a ready answer for ('cept you won't offer that answer cuz -- as I say below -- you're fuckin' with me).












*which I don't believe is real...none of you are stupid...you all know exactly what i'm askin' about...all this legalistic crap is you just fuckin' with me...fine by me, dipshits..we'll play it out to this thread's sad little conclusion (consultin' my crystal ball: there ain't no common ground [cuz you don't want there to be any])

[Flint]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

... you don't need 10,000 laws/regs to get sumthin' better, ...

Maybe not, but you do need some. Deciding on the range between "zero" and "ten thousand" is the conversation we must have, in order to maintain a civilization. There's no way to avoid that.

[henry quirk]

Dana: My first post was fucking with you. My second was a genuine attempt to discuss the question.

Thanks for admittin' that. I'll address your 'genuine attempt' down-post.

#

clod: I should have the ability to get a restraining order on my emotional abuser.

No. You have the ability to end abuse (emotional, physical) right now. You just won't take the bull by the balls and 'do' it. As you like.

#

glatt: Henry, you think the world is black and white and every person who points out a shade of gray is a nitpicker.

Nope.

#

Flint: you do need some (laws/regs).

Yeah, I know.

I've said the same, more than once ('sensible, minimal': ring a bell?)

##

Genuine attempts: I was pretty hot when I signed off. 'Hot' cuz I was certain I was bein' fucked with. I chilled and realized I wasn't bein' fucked with. Dana's comment about her genuine attempt concreted that realization. You folks are't nit pickin'.

No, things are much worse.

See, when someone asks me a question, I just answer. I don't ask for defintions or clarifications cuz I figure if the questioner has narrow definitions he'll incorporate them into the question.

What I expected when I asked Does an individual have a right to his life, his liberty, his property? were for folks to just tell me what they thought. I expected some to say 'yes', some to say 'no', and some to drone on. Instead I got folks clarifying to me, assuming what I meant, and bein' clever tryin' to trip me up.

Not one actual answer, not one actual 'this is what I think'.

You're all intelligent, well-read, educated folks. Unfortunately you're all also 'consequentialists'. When it comes to 'life, liberty, property' you have no moral principle. Rights, except as legal matters, don't exist for you. It's all 'utilitarianism' to you.

So: no, we have no common ground, no commonality.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Dana: My first post was fucking with you. My second was a genuine attempt to discuss the question.

Thanks for admittin' that. I'll address your 'genuine attempt' down-post.

#

clod: I should have the ability to get a restraining order on my emotional abuser.

No. You have the ability to end abuse (emotional, physical) right now. You just won't take the bull by the balls and 'do' it. As you like.

#

glatt: Henry, you think the world is black and white and every person who points out a shade of gray is a nitpicker.

Nope.

#

Flint: you do need some (laws/regs).

Yeah, I know.

I've said the same, more than once ('sensible, minimal': ring a bell?)

##

Genuine attempts: I was pretty hot when I signed off. 'Hot' cuz I was certain I was bein' fucked with. I chilled and realized I wasn't bein' fucked with. Dana's comment about her genuine attempt concreted that realization. You folks are't nit pickin'.

No, things are much worse.

See, when someone asks me a question, I just answer. I don't ask for defintions or clarifications cuz I figure if the questioner has narrow definitions he'll incorporate them into the question.

What I expected when I asked Does an individual have a right to his life, his liberty, his property? were for folks to just tell me what they thought. I expected some to say 'yes', some to say 'no', and some to drone on. Instead I got folks clarifying to me, assuming what I meant, and bein' clever tryin' to trip me up.

Not one actual answer, not one actual 'this is what I think'.

You're all intelligent, well-read, educated folks. Unfortunately you're all also 'consequentialists'. When it comes to 'life, liberty, property' you have no moral principle. Rights, except as legal matters, don't exist for you. It's all 'utilitarianism' to you.

So: no, we have no common ground, no commonality.

There's a dedicated quote button, y'know...Just sayin'.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

There's a dedicated quote button, y'know...Just sayin'.

HEY! If you're going to say stuff like that, take it to the Horses thread.

That's what it's there for, getting on your high horse.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

There's a dedicated quote button, y'know...Just sayin'.

It means learning before writing.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

There's a dedicated quote button, y'know...Just sayin'.

I know.

I don't care.

##

tw,

凸(-_-)凸

##

Does an individual have a right to his life, his liberty, his property?

Yes.

What's his right based in?

Self-ownership.

Are there any limits to this right?

Yes: the other guy's right to his own life, liberty, and property.

[henry quirk]

How can a moral objectivist have common ground with moral subjectivists?

[Flint]

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

I know.

I don't care.

That is contempt for all others. A characteristic of an extremist. You only want to 'wreck shit'. That is your common ground. Screw everyone else.

[henry quirk]

"That is contempt for all others."

Nope. I just like my way of quoting better.

#

"A characteristic of an extremist."

Takes one to know one.

#

"You only want to 'wreck shit'."

Some shit: yep.

#

"That is your common ground."

Nope.

#

"Screw everyone else."

Nah, not everyone, no.

You? Absolutely.

凸(-_-)凸

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I know.

[DanaC]

Yeah, I know.

Sheeple