Welcome to IWETHEY!
Post #5,124
8/14/01 3:38:03 PM
|
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
8/14/01 3:51:17 PM
|
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 mineThe 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
8/14/01 5:04:50 PM
|
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
8/14/01 5:24:25 PM
|
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
8/14/01 5:39:46 PM
|
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
8/14/01 6:03:07 PM
|
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
8/14/01 6:24:30 PM
|
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?
|
To beat Bill to it - Tampa Survellience cameras as seen on
- (
addison)
- (153)
- Aug. 8, 2001, 04:43:00 PM EDT
Anecdotes won't cut it.
- (
Ashton)
- Aug. 8, 2001, 05:38:51 PM EDT
That isn't the technology, that's the privacy.
- (
Brandioch)
- (151)
- Aug. 8, 2001, 05:53:06 PM EDT
Well...have to agree with you there...
- (
bepatient)
- Aug. 8, 2001, 07:09:33 PM EDT
Yup.
- (
addison)
- (149)
- Aug. 9, 2001, 10:46:15 AM EDT
Actually, isn't the technology a dismal flop?
- (
wharris2)
- Aug. 9, 2001, 12:14:38 PM EDT
And the starting point is....
- (
Brandioch)
- (147)
- Aug. 9, 2001, 12:39:34 PM EDT
Ok.
- (
addison)
- (146)
- Aug. 9, 2001, 02:59:06 PM EDT
Think guns.
- (
Brandioch)
- (145)
- Aug. 9, 2001, 04:41:10 PM EDT
So umm....
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (144)
- Aug. 9, 2001, 04:53:18 PM EDT
it is if you sell it or use for monetary gain
- (
boxley)
- Aug. 9, 2001, 06:09:20 PM EDT
There is not law, yet.
- (
Brandioch)
- (142)
- Aug. 9, 2001, 08:21:27 PM EDT
*Shrug* your parallel, not mine
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (1)
- Aug. 10, 2001, 11:47:37 AM EDT
You didn't read the other thread, did you?
- (
Brandioch)
- Aug. 10, 2001, 04:13:46 PM EDT
Re: There is not law, yet.
- (
addison)
- (139)
- Aug. 10, 2001, 01:45:09 PM EDT
Again, guns.
- (
Brandioch)
- (138)
- Aug. 10, 2001, 04:23:47 PM EDT
Strawman.
- (
addison)
- (137)
- Aug. 10, 2001, 04:36:15 PM EDT
Nope. Note the qualifier.
- (
Brandioch)
- (136)
- Aug. 10, 2001, 07:04:40 PM EDT
Yes.
- (
addison)
- (135)
- Aug. 11, 2001, 09:49:44 PM EDT
You don't know what "strawman" means.
- (
Brandioch)
- (134)
- Aug. 12, 2001, 12:05:07 PM EDT
I understand the implications and ramifications
- (
addison)
- (133)
- Aug. 12, 2001, 12:53:52 PM EDT
Once again, legal vs "right".
- (
Brandioch)
- (132)
- Aug. 12, 2001, 02:41:00 PM EDT
You have a choice.
- (
pwhysall)
- (131)
- Aug. 12, 2001, 04:51:56 PM EDT
Also "Hero".
- (
Brandioch)
- (129)
- Aug. 12, 2001, 07:22:31 PM EDT
Apples and Oranges
- (
pwhysall)
- (128)
- Aug. 12, 2001, 08:03:33 PM EDT
'Struth.
- (
imric)
- (1)
- Aug. 12, 2001, 09:21:47 PM EDT
1984 ___ Brave New World
- (
Ashton)
- Aug. 12, 2001, 09:45:09 PM EDT
That was covered in the other thread, also.
- (
Brandioch)
- (125)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 01:10:13 AM EDT
Perhaps.
- (
pwhysall)
- (124)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 02:56:57 AM EDT
Yep.
- (
Brandioch)
- (118)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 01:53:33 PM EDT
Well said!
- (
imric)
- (82)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 02:21:33 PM EDT
Is it?
- (
addison)
- (81)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 02:28:37 PM EDT
So?
- (
imric)
- (80)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 03:26:17 PM EDT
Nope.
- (
addison)
- (79)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 03:58:36 PM EDT
Nope, you're wrong.
- (
Brandioch)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 07:21:35 PM EDT
Fair enough.
- (
imric)
- (77)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 07:47:16 PM EDT
From their point of view
- (
Fearless Freep)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 07:58:41 PM EDT
Its all in the Point Of View.
- (
addison)
- (75)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 09:01:08 PM EDT
And you repeatedly use the idea of 'public'
- (
Ashton)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 09:10:34 PM EDT
Nope.
- (
Brandioch)
- (73)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 12:31:34 PM EDT
look at the gov of Minnesota
- (
boxley)
- (4)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 12:35:34 PM EDT
Does that protect against photos or just publication?
-NT
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (3)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 12:41:29 PM EDT
publication
-NT
- (
boxley)
- (2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 12:58:48 PM EDT
So he's trademarked the use of his image...
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 01:10:15 PM EDT
yup thats my point, take my picture
- (
boxley)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 09:04:42 PM EDT
Nope
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (9)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 12:39:54 PM EDT
"Happens all the time."
- (
Brandioch)
- (8)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:47:14 PM EDT
Oh c'mon!!!!
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (5)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:55:06 PM EDT
I gotta get back in time!
- (
Brandioch)
- (4)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:26:12 PM EDT
Ya gotta read the posts
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (3)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:36:24 PM EDT
More philosophy for you to consider.
- (
Brandioch)
- (2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 05:12:25 PM EDT
Give that man a cookie
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 05:44:37 PM EDT
And why do you think I would NOT do that?
- (
Brandioch)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 06:19:09 PM EDT
In other words, your stance is unsupported by facts.
- (
addison)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:57:06 PM EDT
I should have been more clear.
- (
Brandioch)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:32:35 PM EDT
Come now
- (
pwhysall)
- (15)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:18:03 PM EDT
Where do you see that?
- (
Brandioch)
- (14)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:49:58 PM EDT
Re: Where do you see that?
- (
addison)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:53:39 PM EDT
complete the thought
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (12)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:02:22 PM EDT
You're almost there.
- (
Brandioch)
- (11)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:13:45 PM EDT
Funny.
- (
addison)
- (2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:18:30 PM EDT
ROTFLMAO
- (
Brandioch)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:35:30 PM EDT
I think you hit your head.
- (
addison)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:44:38 PM EDT
Bingo!!!
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (7)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:29:06 PM EDT
Thank you.
- (
Brandioch)
- (6)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:38:03 PM EDT
Try again
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (5)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:51:17 PM EDT
You didn't read my posts.
- (
Brandioch)
- (4)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 05:04:50 PM EDT
And again reread
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (3)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 05:24:25 PM EDT
Try it with comprehension this time.
- (
Brandioch)
- (2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 05:39:46 PM EDT
sheesh
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 06:03:07 PM EDT
Context.
- (
Brandioch)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 06:24:30 PM EDT
Sorry. But now you're fighting physics.
- (
addison)
- (41)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:29:02 PM EDT
Oh, come ON. He didn't say PEOPLE couldn't look.
- (
imric)
- (40)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:40:28 PM EDT
No, you come on and read what he did say.
- (
addison)
- (39)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:49:53 PM EDT
Cameras != eyeballs.
- (
Brandioch)
- (38)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:04:54 PM EDT
Actually
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (11)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:09:46 PM EDT
Already addressed in your previous post.
- (
Brandioch)
- (10)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:39:27 PM EDT
yawn
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (9)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:58:38 PM EDT
Re: yawn
- (
addison)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:01:58 PM EDT
It's called "reading with comprehension".
- (
Brandioch)
- (7)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:31:43 PM EDT
Whoa! Here's a radical thought!
- (
Brandioch)
- (4)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:35:41 PM EDT
Been waiting for that one
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (3)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:56:03 PM EDT
I was much older then, I'm younger than that now.
- (
Brandioch)
- (2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 05:54:34 PM EDT
because
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 06:09:28 PM EDT
You cannot shoot me.
- (
Brandioch)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 06:39:38 PM EDT
Too bad the posting lacks said same.
- (
addison)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:41:09 PM EDT
No kidding
- (
Fearless Freep)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:44:01 PM EDT
Not currently.
- (
addison)
- (25)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:16:21 PM EDT
There is a distinction. BTW, have they even worked?
- (
wharris2)
- (2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:41:40 PM EDT
Not in this context, and I don't know.
- (
addison)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:57:36 PM EDT
That only has one solution
- (
wharris2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:57:37 PM EDT
Thanks for your participation.
- (
Brandioch)
- (21)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:41:41 PM EDT
I've gravely mistaken...
- (
addison)
- (20)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:49:47 PM EDT
Because you don't agree with me does not make me wrong.
- (
Brandioch)
- (19)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:18:22 PM EDT
Nope, it doesn't.
- (
addison)
- (18)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:34:56 PM EDT
And man will never fly.
- (
Brandioch)
- (17)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 06:10:12 PM EDT
So after 2 weeks...
- (
addison)
- (16)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 11:52:51 PM EDT
And the loop starts again.
- (
Brandioch)
- (15)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 01:48:29 PM EDT
I can but hope that you really don't think this way.
- (
addison)
- (13)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 02:30:57 PM EDT
Sorry. You ARE authoritarian.
- (
imric)
- (12)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 06:20:47 PM EDT
However, I do have the ability to read and understand.
- (
addison)
- (11)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 08:09:34 PM EDT
I'm not sure that's true.
- (
Ashton)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 08:24:33 PM EDT
Bullshit. Learn to use a dictionary.
- (
imric)
- (9)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 08:44:24 PM EDT
Learn to read
- (
addison)
- (8)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 08:51:17 PM EDT
Good? At what?
- (
imric)
- (7)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 09:48:37 PM EDT
howsabout we all chip in and Buy Addy a poloroid camera
- (
boxley)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 10:28:03 PM EDT
Re: Good? At what?
- (
addison)
- (5)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 10:35:46 PM EDT
Heh.. You__still__don't__ Get!__it__...____a-tall.
-NT
- (
Ashton)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 11:46:04 PM EDT
Again, strawman.
- (
Brandioch)
- (3)
- Aug. 16, 2001, 12:40:32 PM EDT
Agree except for one point
- (
DonRichards)
- (1)
- Aug. 16, 2001, 02:38:51 PM EDT
Amen (to coin a phrase)
- (
Ashton)
- Aug. 16, 2001, 04:12:58 PM EDT
Its not a strawman if its exactly what you're saying.
- (
addison)
- Aug. 21, 2001, 02:29:19 PM EDT
utter agreement
- (
boxley)
- Aug. 15, 2001, 03:22:05 PM EDT
What about *their* rights?
- (
drewk)
- (1)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 03:26:06 PM EDT
Err on the side of more freedoms.
- (
Brandioch)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 07:40:53 PM EDT
Errrrrrr.....
- (
addison)
- (32)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 04:03:30 PM EDT
Yep!
- (
Brandioch)
- (31)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 07:49:46 PM EDT
But that flies in the face of what you said earlier.
- (
addison)
- (30)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 08:42:00 PM EDT
'Privacy' appears to distress you. Try
- (
Ashton)
- Aug. 13, 2001, 09:04:07 PM EDT
I own my image.
- (
Brandioch)
- (28)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 12:23:30 PM EDT
Problem is...
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (24)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 12:41:49 PM EDT
Bulls**t
- (
DonRichards)
- (20)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 12:50:29 PM EDT
Try it
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (19)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 12:58:01 PM EDT
Still don't agree
- (
DonRichards)
- (14)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 01:07:52 PM EDT
Disconnect
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (13)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 01:17:33 PM EDT
and Clarification
- (
Fearless Freep)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 01:21:19 PM EDT
Cough. That's Declaration of Independence...
- (
Simon_Jester)
- (6)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 01:53:59 PM EDT
Not really.
- (
addison)
- (5)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:41:45 PM EDT
Umm..actually....
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (4)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:45:52 PM EDT
Errr. He was?
-NT
- (
addison)
- (3)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:51:14 PM EDT
Yeah...
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:59:07 PM EDT
Oh.
- (
addison)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:00:24 PM EDT
NCRs unite!
- (
DonRichards)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:15:34 PM EDT
There's a flag on that play.
- (
Brandioch)
- (4)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:23:40 PM EDT
Pick the flag up
- (
Fearless Freep)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:33:23 PM EDT
Others have stated it more elegantly
- (
DonRichards)
- (2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:33:33 PM EDT
Not sure who you are talking to...
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:54:08 PM EDT
The journey is the destination.
- (
Brandioch)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 05:59:53 PM EDT
oops...
- (
Fearless Freep)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 01:09:05 PM EDT
That's one way to look at it.
- (
Brandioch)
- (2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:54:14 PM EDT
One and the same
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:05:05 PM EDT
Insert standard example here.
- (
Brandioch)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 04:40:46 PM EDT
"legal" == "right"
- (
Brandioch)
- (2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:47:15 PM EDT
Without all the detail
- (
Fearless Freep)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 03:53:06 PM EDT
You can't handle that from the context?
- (
Brandioch)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 05:23:59 PM EDT
Actually, I think you own your painted image too...
- (
Simon_Jester)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 01:58:46 PM EDT
I'm wrong.
- (
Simon_Jester)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:38:59 PM EDT
Not currently, you don't.
- (
addison)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 02:35:10 PM EDT
Wrong verb
- (
jb4)
- (4)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 09:44:39 AM EDT
Ahem
- (
pwhysall)
- (3)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 11:33:32 AM EDT
but the repos and dems ARE left wing, at least to some of us
-NT
- (
boxley)
- (2)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 11:38:55 AM EDT
Well Ox, if you Really think that,
- (
Ashton)
- (1)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 05:25:58 PM EDT
naw both a buncha commies :)
- (
boxley)
- Aug. 14, 2001, 09:17:03 PM EDT
welcome to ox island diplomatic passports fer sale
- (
boxley)
- Aug. 12, 2001, 08:49:45 PM EDT
Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure.
They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS... None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.
487 ms