25 May 23
@shavixmir saidI've already posted a definition a couple of times:
You don't know.
Google it, I would suggest. Instead of burping your moronity all over the fukking place.
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
You can see all humans have a right to life, not that others must provide the means to life, but that no one has a right to violate that right. It fits well with the definition above, we can see how the definition works.
That was without google, don't you have any thoughts on what a right is? Can't you articulate what a 'right' means to you? If not, tell me what's wrong with the definition I've posted.
25 May 23
1 edit
@suzianne saidIn the quote Rand was remarking on reality, not a mention of selfishness. She was a leading advocate for natural inalienable rights so on that you are in strong agreeance with her. On the one hand you're trying to denounce Rand but in the very same breath you're agreeing with her both on natural rights and that natural rights are a matter of reality, it would be hard for you to be more aligned with Rand in two short sentences.
Rand is full of it, as always. Promoting the selfish aspects of man is self-serving. She should get zero air-time.
Put down the Randian BS, educate yourself and read some Locke. Man has certain natural rights that are inalienable. No matter what selfish Rand says.
Man has natural rights, and that is a fact of reality, not by permission. Here is the quote which you are completely agreeing with again:
"The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question "Who decides what is right or wrong?" is wrong.
Nobody decides - nature does not decide, it merely is. Man does not decide in issues of knowledge, he merely observes what is."
Ayn Rand
You agree with Rand, and it's about time you admitted it.
25 May 23
@suzianne saidGood morning. Then, maybe you can educate us, as Shav has sure failed at it. Can you give us the rational way that a person whithout housing has a right to GET/HAVE housing. By that, I mean that I have asked Shav to tell my yardman where to go at quitting time for free housing.
Rand is full of it, as always. Promoting the selfish aspects of man is self-serving. She should get zero air-time.
Put down the Randian BS, educate yourself and read some Locke. Man has certain natural rights that are inalienable. No matter what selfish Rand says.
Suzianne, break through for us.....answer the question that he will not.
Also, you owe me an answer on this: If you and I are running for office in a small town, and I tell the citizens that you are campaigning to have the town treasury pay off student loans, what do you thjink. their response will be?
25 May 23
@AverageJoe1
Wajoma, I subscribed to the Objectivist in the late 60's. Did you? It was a great source of realizing the beauty and efficacy of maintaining and living independence. The people we are debating with have no concept of independence.
@averagejoe1 saidThat's a bit before my time, I'm nudging 60 now, it wasn't until my 20's that I was first introduced to the ideas of Rand by a fellow, Linsay Perigo, of the 'Politically Incorrect' radio show here in NZ, where her work is probably not as well known as in the US. Unfortunately there has not been necessary effort put in to declare myself an Objectivist, definitely a Libertarian, of which you'd probably be aware Rand had some unkind words to say.
@AverageJoe1
Wajoma, I subscribed to the Objectivist in the late 60's. Did you? It was a great source of realizing the beauty and efficacy of maintaining and living independence. The people we are debating with have no concept of independence.
It's odd that suzi chose to attack a quote where Rand remarked on reality, then goes on to mention natural rights which Rand was one of the great protagonists for. Neither Locke nor Rand can claim an exclusive hold on the concept of natural rights, they are both observers of that which is, and that is precisely what suzi chose to attack, natural rights and reality are bound so closely to be as one and the same.
"Nobody decides - nature does not decide, it merely is. Man does not decide in issues of knowledge, he merely observes what is." Ayn Rand
Then she runs away to spread more of her inane tired one liners on any other thread until she's once again put in her place and it too becomes another thread for her to run from.
26 May 23
@averagejoe1 saidThe fukking article 25 I posted, you fukking dumb arse retard.
WHAT is, Shav? What is?
Done with you!
Where do I block morons on this site?
26 May 23
@athousandyoung saidIf you give people a home what will they have to work for?
Leftists blame government for the homeless problem, but so do conservatives! Notice that the California and San Francisco governments are constantly being blamed for the homeless epidemic in San Francisco and the rest of CA. This implies the government should be intervening but right wingers are also constantly trying to "drown the government in the bathtub" as Grover ...[text shortened]... sibility does the government have for homelessness? How much government intervention is appropriate?
Giving people homes does not fit into the economic slavery model. People are supposed to work to escape slavery.
26 May 23
@shavixmir saidYes a person has a right to adequate healthcare, but they also have a right to a Maserati. You must see that article 25 doesn't say anything.
The fukking article 25 I posted, you fukking dumb arse retard.
Done with you!
Where do I block morons on this site?
Define what a right means to you pseud boy. I've posted and reposted a definition, do you agree or disagree, if you disagree try to articulate a response.
26 May 23
@wajoma said“That was without google, don't you have any thoughts on what a right is? Can't you articulate what a 'right' means to you? If not, tell me what's wrong with the definition I've posted.”
I've already posted a definition a couple of times:
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
You can see all humans have a right to life, not that others must provide the means to life, but that no one has a right to violate that right. It fits well with the definition above, we can see how the definition works.
That was without goog ...[text shortened]... ticulate what a 'right' means to you? If not, tell me what's wrong with the definition I've posted.
So just an opinion then
A right is something extracted from the powerful by the relatively powerless
The Right to decent housing is something that can be gained through the ballot box in a democracy and enshrined in law. No need for your hazy gaslighting screw the poor philosophical definition.
26 May 23
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidLet us go back to the basic discussion. I myself hear a lot on this Forum that one person has a right 'to the stuff' of another person. If we can thresh that out, resolving that, then we go to the next phase,.. what rights does a person have living life next to other people, their space. If all of us, through payment of taxes by some of us, own the sidewalks in SFcisco, made to walk on, what right does a person have to sleep on it.? Pretty basic stuff.
“That was without google, don't you have any thoughts on what a right is? Can't you articulate what a 'right' means to you? If not, tell me what's wrong with the definition I've posted.”
So just an opinion then
A right is something extracted from the powerful by the relatively powerless
The Right to decent housing is something that can be gained through the ballot box i ...[text shortened]... acy and enshrined in law. No need for your hazy gaslighting screw the poor philosophical definition.
Then next, what right does a guy sitting on a bench have in a bulding or a chicken coop that someone owns across the street to go live in it?
You can do this,, Shav. Stay the course.
26 May 23
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidkev, this is over your head, you used a bunch of inappropriate meaningless words. There was nothing 'hazy' about the definition I posted. It was very clear, crystal clear.
“That was without google, don't you have any thoughts on what a right is? Can't you articulate what a 'right' means to you? If not, tell me what's wrong with the definition I've posted.”
So just an opinion then
A right is something extracted from the powerful by the relatively powerless
The Right to decent housing is something that can be gained through the ballot box i ...[text shortened]... acy and enshrined in law. No need for your hazy gaslighting screw the poor philosophical definition.
"A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others"
This is natural right theory, and not that difficult. Everyone has the same rights, regardless of wealth and regardless of your 'screw the poor' misconception. You can see if you're only able to do something by the permission of others that cannot be considered a right.
When and if you respond try doing so without the aid of your random word generator.
26 May 23
@kevcvs57 saidAnd, what does this even mean? I havent had my coffee yet.
A right is something extracted from the powerful by the relatively powerless
26 May 23
@averagejoe1 saidHaha, you're asking kev? forget about coffee, kev hasn't had his nappy changed yet.
And, what does this even mean? I havent had my coffee yet.