Against 'rights'

John Jones wrote:

1. I am not saying that people 'have no rights'. I am saying that nobody can 'have' rights.
2. I am not saying that there are no rights. I am saying that rights are not a possession.

If people do not "have" rights and rights are not possessions, then how can people transfer or sell rights?

For instance, suppose I am an author. Under the law, I have a copyright in the works that I create. I can also sell, give, lend, pledge, bequeath, or otherwise transfer that right to someone else. How can I do all of that if I do not "possess" that copyright?

John Jones wrote:

3. I am not saying that other people grant me my rights. I am saying that the burden of a right is borne by those who do not claim a right. When I say 'I have the right' I ALWAYS appeal to someone who can, or could, make a difference regarding what it is that I want to do. Now then, is it always pertinent to make an appeal to rights?

I'm not sure if this makes any sense. If you're saying that the "burden" of a right is on the person who is the object of the claim of right, then that might make some sense (although I'd like to know what you mean by "burden"). If not, then I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Nobody has rights. Nobody 'has' rights. Nobody can be said . . . blah, blah, blah, etc. . . . (c) (emphasis added)

spendius wrote:

I would agree with this-

Quote:

It's really bad form, by the way, to edit your post so substantially after people have read it and begun to respond. It shows bad faith, and it implies a lack of coherence in expression.

Editing typing is okay.But I don't claim the right to demand it.It is just "bad form".

Hey...why pass up a chance to agree with both Set and Spendius!!! Ya don't get a chance like this often.

And I will make a small revision also:

It is more than just "bad form." Often...I am not saying necessarily in this case...it is an attempt to deceive.

Set apparently read the original...and I don't know how much or how significantly it was changed....but stuff like that should really be done by a separate, explanatory post. Editing should be used to correct very minor mistakes and typos....particularly if several minutes have passed since the original post was submitted.

Not at all.

spendius wrote:

I would agree with this-

Quote:

It's really bad form, by the way, to edit your post so substantially after people have read it and begun to respond. It shows bad faith, and it implies a lack of coherence in expression.

Editing typing is okay.But I don't claim the right to demand it.It is just "bad form".

Hey...why pass up a chance to agree with both Set and Spendius!!! Ya don't get a chance like this often.

And I will make a small revision also:

It is more than just "bad form." Often...I am not saying necessarily in this case...it is an attempt to deceive.

Set apparently read the original...and I don't know how much or how significantly it was changed....but stuff like that should really be done by a separate, explanatory post. Editing should be used to correct very minor mistakes and typos....particularly if several minutes have passed since the original post was submitted.

Frank Apisa wrote:

spendius wrote:

I would agree with this-

Quote:

It's really bad form, by the way, to edit your post so substantially after people have read it and begun to respond. It shows bad faith, and it implies a lack of coherence in expression.

Editing typing is okay.But I don't claim the right to demand it.It is just "bad form".

Hey...why pass up a chance to agree with both Set and Spendius!!! Ya don't get a chance like this often.

And I will make a small revision also:

It is more than just "bad form." Often...I am not saying necessarily in this case...it is an attempt to deceive.

Set apparently read the original...and I don't know how much or how significantly it was changed....but stuff like that should really be done by a separate, explanatory post. Editing should be used to correct very minor mistakes and typos....particularly if several minutes have passed since the original post was submitted.

Your last two sentences were ambiguous, if not contradictory.

Correct them.

Now then, you and your mate -
Set apparently read the original...

...yes, and understood only the amended text. I am applauded. He made the false allegation that there was a change in meaning. Meanwhile, you struggle to imagine that you are not contributing to an internet forum but are marking heavily researched doctorates.

Twit.

Frank Apisa wrote:

spendius wrote:

I would agree with this-

Quote:

It's really bad form, by the way, to edit your post so substantially after people have read it and begun to respond. It shows bad faith, and it implies a lack of coherence in expression.

Editing typing is okay.But I don't claim the right to demand it.It is just "bad form".

Hey...why pass up a chance to agree with both Set and Spendius!!! Ya don't get a chance like this often.

And I will make a small revision also:

It is more than just "bad form." Often...I am not saying necessarily in this case...it is an attempt to deceive.

Set apparently read the original...and I don't know how much or how significantly it was changed....but stuff like that should really be done by a separate, explanatory post. Editing should be used to correct very minor mistakes and typos....particularly if several minutes have passed since the original post was submitted.

Your last two sentences were ambiguous, if not contradictory.

Slow down then correct them.

Now then, you and your mate -

Set apparently read the original...yes, and understood only the amended text.

I am applauded.

He made some false allegation that there was a change in meaning, but he couldn't be sure as he did not understand what I wrote.

Meanwhile, your texts more often than not, appear to be written by someone who fancies himself to be marking heavily researched doctorates (badly), rather than contributing to an internet forum. Twit.

Gross though it may be, the absurdity of your contention then, and this subsequent contention that "we reject written constitutions" (rather a bit too much to see you using the royal pejorative), induces in me a sense of pathos. It is by no means correct to baldy assert that the literal interpretation of any code is well known to lead to chaos.

In short, you have failed to support an argument that adherence to the proposition that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Vague appeals to what "we reject" and unsubstantiated contentions about what is well known do not acheive that end.

John Jones wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

spendius wrote:

I would agree with this-

Quote:

It's really bad form, by the way, to edit your post so substantially after people have read it and begun to respond. It shows bad faith, and it implies a lack of coherence in expression.

Editing typing is okay.But I don't claim the right to demand it.It is just "bad form".

Hey...why pass up a chance to agree with both Set and Spendius!!! Ya don't get a chance like this often.

And I will make a small revision also:

It is more than just "bad form." Often...I am not saying necessarily in this case...it is an attempt to deceive.

Set apparently read the original...and I don't know how much or how significantly it was changed....but stuff like that should really be done by a separate, explanatory post. Editing should be used to correct very minor mistakes and typos....particularly if several minutes have passed since the original post was submitted.

Your last two sentences were ambiguous, if not contradictory.

No, they were not.

Quote:

Slow down then correct them.

Frank is not subject to your orders or instruction.

Quote:

Now then, you and your mate -

Frank and i are not mates. Even a casual perusal of our exchanges would show that we have not only often disagreed, but in great heat on many occasions.

Quote:

Set apparently read the original...yes, and understood only the amended text.

I understood both the original and the amended text, and neither of them are anything more than your assertions, as i've already pointed out. Your statements about what people do or do not understand are unfounded, and, to use an adjective which offends Spendius (oh, devoutly desired consumation) pathetic.

Quote:

I am applauded.

By whom?

Quote:

He made some false allegation that there was a change in meaning, but he couldn't be sure as he did not understand what I wrote.

Once again, i understood what you wrote, and i characterized it as silly. I later demonstrated why i disagree with what are merely your assertions. I did not say that you had changed the meaning, i did say that you had substantially altered your text. It is obvious that you did so in a failed attempt to ground your thesis by removing the opacity of your originally, badly written text.

Quote:

Meanwhile, your texts more often than not, appear to be written by someone who fancies himself to be marking heavily researched doctorates (badly), rather than contributing to an internet forum. Twit.

Pot, meet kettle . . . someone who writes as poorly as you do has no place criticizing any one else's writing. Calling him a twit is a violation of the terms of service, and demonstrates your inability to sustain your thesis, leading you to resort to personal invective.

Your posts bear exactly that relationship to philosophy which Christian Science does to science. Your advice is not needed nor wanted. Calling someone a "twit" is a violation of the terms of service, and it is as offensive to others here as it is to the object of your puerile insults. You are a troublemaker, and your snottiness toward those who dare to disagree with your ludicrous and ill-written nonsense on both philosophy and science have every right to point it out.