Post #5,089
8/14/01 2:47:14 PM
|
"Happens all the time."
Yep. And if you lived a while back in the southern states, slavery happened all the time.
Does the frequency matter?
"I did a gig a few weeks back and the singers husband took our pictures, as well as most of the people in the audience"
Let me guess, "did a gig" means the same a "put on a show".
"If you 'owned the right to your image' and no one could photograph you, then tabloids would be out of business because photographing celebrities would be illegal"
Gee, I guess if someone goes out of business, then it isn't right.
So, commerce defines "right" and "wrong"?
Care to try again?
|
Post #5,097
8/14/01 2:55:06 PM
|
Oh c'mon!!!!
That was the most unrelated post I've seen yet.
Yep. And if you lived a while back in the southern states, slavery happened all the time.
Does the frequency matter?
Perhaps I need to spell it out slowly. The missing word is that it happens legally all the time and also if you bother reading [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5064|clarification] you would realize I'm only pointing out what is legally allowable, not what is morally correct
"If you 'owned the right to your image' and no one could photograph you, then tabloids would be out of business because photographing celebrities would be illegal"
Gee, I guess if someone goes out of business, then it isn't right.
No, but the fact that they are still in business means they have a legal right to do what they are doing, even if you diagree with the moral right
So, commerce defines "right" and "wrong"?
No, and that's so far afield from what I said that I'm wondering if your are even seriously thinking or just knee-jerk ranting
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,117
8/14/01 3:26:12 PM
|
I gotta get back in time!
"Perhaps I need to spell it out slowly. The missing word is that it happens legally all the time and also if you bother reading clarification you would realize I'm only pointing out what is legally allowable, not what is morally correct"
Which was the point of my slavery post.
Of all the slavery posts I've made in this thread.
All of them.
There were more than one.
In fact, there's even a question attached to them.
Is "legal" the definition of "right"?
You see, "legal" changes over time.
That must be another post (plural) that you missed.
What WAS "legal" is NOW "illegal".
So, what I'm saying is that something that is NOW "legal" should BE "illegal" in the FUTURE.
past/present/future
legal/illegal
right/wrong
But for some reason, the concept of change over time is incomprensible to some people..
Once again, we are not talking about rights that our government has recognized TODAY.
(for some reason, I feel that I will be posting that statement again in the near future)
|
Post #5,123
8/14/01 3:36:24 PM
|
Ya gotta read the posts
Is "legal" the definition of "right"?
Nope, and I made that point clear [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5064|here] and alluded to it [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5053|here]
There is a differnce between a legal "right" and what is 'right'; I've been saying that all morning
Once again, we are not talking about rights that our government has recognized TODAY.
Until it is recognized by the government, it may be morally 'right' in your eyes, but it is not a "right" that you possess. Unless you elevate what you think is right to the status of a "right", than it's not something you can use with present tense possesive verb because it has no meaning
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,170
8/14/01 5:12:25 PM
|
More philosophy for you to consider.
"Until it is recognized by the government, it may be morally 'right' in your eyes, but it is not a "right" that you possess."
Semantics. I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual. Not that they are granted by the government.
All the government can do is legalize or illegalize the expression of those rights.
What you are experiencing is one of the reasons I don't agree with your logic. If "rights" are defined by the government, then individuals have no rights that aren't granted by the government. But the government is composed of the individuals it governs. So the rights are legalized by the individuals seeking those rights.
In other words, the rights are inherent in the individual.
But only if that individual has the authority to enforce that decision.
In other words:
Might makes right.
For your other statement:
"Unless you elevate what you think is right to the status of a "right", than it's not something you can use with present tense possesive verb because it has no meaning"
Of course it does. Unless you NEVER change your mind.
|
Post #5,176
8/14/01 5:44:37 PM
|
Give that man a cookie
I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual.
No kidding, but you've never said why. I said as much quite awhile ago.
Not that they are granted by the government.
And my only point has been, from a practical application point of view, it doesn't matter
All the government can do is legalize or illegalize the expression of those rights.
Thank you for finally realizing it. *That's* why it doesn't matter
If "rights" are defined by the government, then individuals have no rights that aren't granted by the government.
A gross distortion of my point, but oh well...
But the government is composed of the individuals it governs. So the rights are legalized by the individuals seeking those rights.
Ahh...but now you are considering only a small sample. That's an ideal world where you have a circle between the governed and the governing so that the moral beliefs of the people and the legal rights of the people are in congruence.
What happens in a totalitarian state, or an anarchy dominated by gangs, where the government is *not* composed of those being governed. There are some many types of social structures, including forms of government, where that simple circle simply doesn't work, so what happens to a person's moral rights then?
"Unless you elevate what you think is right to the status of a "right", than it's not something you can use with present tense possesive verb because it has no meaning"
Of course it does. Unless you NEVER change your mind.
OK, I'll try with more explicit phrasing
Unless you take the time to go through the process of turning what you think is a moral right into a legally recognized right it doesn't matter whether you think you have that particular right or not because you will not be given the opportunity to exercise that right
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,185
8/14/01 6:19:09 PM
|
And why do you think I would NOT do that?
"Unless you take the time to go through the process of turning what you think is a moral right into a legally recognized right it doesn't matter whether you think you have that particular right or not because you will not be given the opportunity to exercise that right"
Again, they can't stop me from expressing my rights. They can only punish me after I do so.
But, anyway.
Why are you implying that I wouldn't ALSO work to change the law?
Again, from the beginning I've said that I don't see any reason why I should follow a law I don't agree with.
(subject to being able to deal with the jail time/fine/whatever).
But I've never said that I wouldn't ALSO work to change the law.
|
Post #5,098
8/14/01 2:57:06 PM
|
In other words, your stance is unsupported by facts.
Does the frequency matter?
Sometimes, yes.
Gee, I guess if someone goes out of business, then it isn't right.
Nope. But you don't see many people pursuing cases.
For a situation where there is a "god-given right", that seems awful strange.
They sure do sue in a hurry for libel/slander. And for invasion of privacy, if it occurs.
So why, if you're right, aren't there gazillions of cases to back you up?
Care to try again?
Addison
|
Post #5,121
8/14/01 3:32:35 PM
|
I should have been more clear.
I asked:
"Does the frequency matter?"
You replied:
"Sometimes, yes."
I should have asked:
"Why, in this particular discussion, would the frequency matter."
Then you ask:
"So why, if you're right, aren't there gazillions of cases to back you up?"
Because this is a NEW CONCEPT?
The technology has progressed to a point where this type of invasion is now possible.
For slander/libel all you needed was a means of communication. We've had that for 3000 years.
|
