Come now

Post #5,076 by pwhysall 8/14/01 2:18:03 PM Reply	Come now "My image is not public. Even when I am in public." That's clearly bollocks, because taken to its logical conclusion, you'd have the right to say who can and cannot look at you. -- Peter Shill For Hire
Post #5,092 by Brandioch 8/14/01 2:49:58 PM Reply	Where do you see that? "That's clearly bollocks, because taken to its logical conclusion, you'd have the right to say who can and cannot look at you." Really? Strangely enough, as has been noted, there is a certain individual in the US who has trademarked his features. Yet people still look at him. But they cannot publish any images of him. What I'm saying is that you cannot record any images of me without my permission.
Post #5,095 by addison 8/14/01 2:53:39 PM Reply	Re: Where do you see that? Yet people still look at him. Yep. And they take photographs - I've seen lots of them. Never met the man, but I've seen enough I could recognize him. What you're saying is that you own your image - and can decide who and what gets to view you. And that people can look at you - either because you're letting them - or you can't stop them. Are you sure you don't want to think about that? So if I set a camera up, with lethal protection, THAT'S OK, because you can't "do anything about it?" Can't have it both ways. Addison
Post #5,102 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:02:22 PM Reply	complete the thought Yet people still look at him. But they cannot publish any images of him. What I'm saying is that you cannot record any images of me without my permission. But they can still record images of him, and use them in uses other than publishing... ...and you as well Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,107 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:13:45 PM Reply	You're almost there. Now, not because I don't feel that you've read my postings, nor that you're of limited mental capacity.... But just because I have some inborn need to do this......... Allow me to repeat myself........ The current law does not cover the rights I'm talking about. Hmmmmmm, maybe I didn't phrase that clearly enough....... May I try again? The laws we have TODAY are not addressing the right under discussion. "But they can still record images of him, and use them in uses other than publishing..." Hmmmmm, am I correct in interpreting "can still" as having something to do with our current laws? But I've already stated that our current laws don't cover this situation. But you're talking about our current laws. But the current laws weren't always the laws of the land. In the past, slavery was legal. Was it right? Does legality define "right"? Something that was "legal" in the past is not "right" now. So, theoretically, something that is "legal" now may not be "right" in the future. Past Present Future The concept has been known to crush the weaker minds amongst us. Care to answer the question of whether "legal" is "right"? For some reason, I don't think you will. Prove me wrong. I dare you.
Post #5,115 by addison 8/14/01 3:18:30 PM Reply	Funny. The current law does not cover the rights I'm talking about. Hmmmmmm, maybe I didn't phrase that clearly enough....... Funny. Jay's not the one talking in absolutes, moral rights, and that he "owns" things the law doesn't recognise. About being able to prevent people from doing what is legal and right. ....Or are you finally seeing what I've been trying to get across to you for weeks and are trying to back off now? :) Addison
Post #5,122 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:35:30 PM Reply	ROTFLMAO "About being able to prevent people from doing what is legal and right." Finally. "Legal" == "right" /me bows
Post #5,128 by addison 8/14/01 3:44:38 PM Reply	I think you hit your head. Hell, I know you did. How else could you try and claim credit for a discussion where you're talking about a potential future, but use present tense, and think you made a point? Legal doesn't always equal right. If you think you want to take some credit for that remark, fine, have at it. But you've said that legal doesn't bother you, its only what you think matters - and stated that that's the CURRENT state of affairs. Because your credit is so far into the negative column with this, that that little bit doesn't even begin to get you out. Addison
Post #5,119 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:29:06 PM Reply	Bingo!!! The current law does not cover the rights I'm talking about. Now read [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5053\| the problem] Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,124 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:38:03 PM Reply	Thank you. "...rights are only held as they are granted by law. You could advocate changing the law to grant or recognize those rights, but that doesn't mean you have those rights currently" And another vote for: "legal" == "right" /me takes another bow
Post #5,134 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:51:17 PM Reply	Try again Read the second post after were I clarify what I meant If you are of the philisohical bent that rights exist as some basic human quality outside or above law, that's fine. My religious beliefs give me the same conclusion "However", from any practical standpoint, rights are only meaningful if they are recognized and respected by the community around you and that recognition and respect are expressed in law. Or in authority that uses force to supercede community will. It doesn't matter what rights you claim, if they are not recognized and respected by those with the power to ignore them, then they are meaningless You are conusing "right" as a noun and "right" as an adjective See [link\|http://www.m-w.com\|Merriam Webster] The noun "right" is 1 qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval 2 something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled the property interest possessed under law* or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>* 3 : something that one may properly claim as due emphasis mine The adjective "right" is 1 : RIGHTEOUS, UPRIGHT 2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct> so..."legal"=="right(n)" is true if you mean a person is given rights through legal means "legal" == "right(a)" is false if you mean that something in righteous because it is legal and unrighteous because it is not And again, I pointed out that distinction before you posted Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,169 by Brandioch 8/14/01 5:04:50 PM Reply	You didn't read my posts. You see, I don't distinguish between "right" and "right". Which is the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT THAT I'VE BEEN MAKING THIS ENTIRE THREAD. Feel free to have missed that. However you managed to do that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let me break it down for you in nice, easily digestible chunks. #1. Rights are inherent in the individual. #2. That means they are not granted nor revoked by government. #3. All government can do is to facilitate or punish the expression of those rights. #4. Exercising a right that the government does not agree with does make you a "criminal" in relation to that government. #5. Criminals are punished in accourdance with the laws of that government. (This gets back to #3). #6. What rights a government deems are "legal" changes over time. And the summation: I don't always agree with what the government thinks is a right and I am not constrained to following its orders.
Post #5,173 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 5:24:25 PM Reply	And again reread You see, I don't distinguish between "right" and "right". Problem is that reality, not to mention the dictionary, disagree with you I'm a Christian who thinks abortion is nothing short of murder living in a country where it is a legal right. You think I don't see a huge gulf between what is a legal right and what is morally right? #1. Rights are inherent in the individual. #2. That means they are not granted nor revoked by government. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter where those rights derive from, they are only useable if you have the power to do so. That means that anyone with the power to stop you from exercising your rights has to respect your rights, otherwise they will keep you from exercising them and therefore having them doesn't mean anything. You don't really "have" them, all you do is "want" them, you yearn for them, but do not possess them If you want to have those rights, you have to be willing to fight for them, within the legal system, or without, but you don't just have them in any meaningful way until you can use them Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,175 by Brandioch 8/14/01 5:39:46 PM Reply	Try it with comprehension this time. "Problem is that reality, not to mention the dictionary, disagree with you" That would depend upon the dictionary. There is also something called "context". "I'm a Christian who thinks abortion is nothing short of murder living in a country where it is a legal right. " And I'm very happy for you. "You think I don't see a huge gulf between what is a legal right and what is morally right?" No. What is in evidence is that YOU do not understand that I understand that. What is further in evidence is that you do NOT understand that I don't see any reason that moral and legal should not match. Why don't you try working on that? "It doesn't matter where those rights derive from, they are only useable if you have the power to do so." In other words: Might makes right. "You don't really "have" them, all you do is "want" them, you yearn for them, but do not possess them" No, I possess those rights. All that can be done by the government is to punish me for expressing them. We seem to be hung up on this point. I've already stated my position: "legal" != "right" You seem to be arguing that: "legal" == "right" Whether legal, moral or whatever "right". I don't agree. And I've stated that over and over again. Rights are inherent in the individual. In the individual. Not granted by the government. All the government can do is faciliate or punish the expression of those rights. "If you want to have those rights, you have to be willing to fight for them, within the legal system, or without, but you don't just have them in any meaningful way until you can use them" Hmmmm, and painting cameras that are set to photograph me would be or would not be fighting for those rights?
Post #5,179 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 6:03:07 PM Reply	sheesh No. What is in evidence is that YOU do not understand that I understand that. Because you said You see, I don't distinguish between "right" and "right". What is further in evidence is that you do NOT understand that I don't see any reason that moral and legal should not match. I understand that, but that assumes a perfect harmony between legal state and moral belief and we're not there and not going to get there without a lot of work but you keep using verb tenses that indicate we are there and then protesting the universe is outta whack. The severe problem is that the word "right" can mean such an ambigous set of ideas that you have to define the terms for what you are saying before you can say it I've already stated my position: "legal" != "right" You seem to be arguing that: "legal" == "right sigh read this again [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5134\|here] "legal"=="right(" is true if you mean a person is given rights through legal means "legal" == "right" is false if you mean that something in righteous because it is legal and unrighteous because it is not (and the first is almost a tautaology> I'm not syaing "legal==right" or "legal != right", I'm saying it depends on what you mean by "right" Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,187 by Brandioch 8/14/01 6:24:30 PM Reply	Context. "I'm not syaing "legal==right" or "legal != right", I'm saying it depends on what you mean by "right"" Which is where CONTEXT comes into the picture. Such as when I say that my rights are INHERENT and CANNOT be taken by the government. I'm going to stop now. From your other posts, it seems that you were NOT arguing whether I have the ability to express my views via civil disobedience. You were just confused by my use of the word "right" -and- That I did not ALSO specify that I would seek to change the laws. Is that so?

Welcome to IWETHEY!