I gotta get back in time!

Post #5,117 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:26:12 PM Reply	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 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:36:24 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 8/14/01 5:12:25 PM Reply	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 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 5:44:37 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 8/14/01 6:19:09 PM Reply	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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!