|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
In fact, you should actually be arguing that the government is curtailing rights by restricting voters by imposing age requirements, citizenship requirements, etc. upon candidates.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-25 21:22, LobowolfXXX wrote: It requires something of others, and it is dependent upon a system in which it is implemented, rather than being an inherent property of ownership. Otherwise it's just you writing on a piece of paper.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
GDW- there seems to be something fundamentally religious about your argument. Who said, or ordained, that man has inherent rights? From where, what or whom, if not God (or Nature's God, Divine Providence, The Creator, etc. as the many Deists among the Founding Fathers put it) do these rights derive?
It seems to me that there is a much more solid foundation for laws based on reason alone. You seem to claim that all natural rights derive from the fact that we "own" our bodies. Says who? |
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Reading this discussion reminds me of the question. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Why is that? The questions aren't even remotely similar. Mine was simply asking whether or not GDW's position was religiously based. Yours is just an example of a meaningless question.
Because everyone knows that angels don't dance. :eek: |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-26 00:14, acesover wrote: A safety pin or a dress pin?
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-25 21:21, gdw wrote: If I have the right to swing my fist in a circle, aren't you infringing on my right by having your face in the way? |
|||||||||
Destiny Inner circle 1429 Posts |
Is this hypothetical fist being swung on a vertical plane?
Surely it would be impossible to swing ones fist in a complete circle on a horizontal plane? The swingers own body would defeat that purpose. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-25 22:24, mastermindreader wrote: Except what I describe IS based in reason. "Rights" exist in the same way "logic" exists. You don't think logic needs a devine decree to exist, do you? Both logic, and inherent rights can be argued from first principles, as many have before me.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
I don't believe it is possible to argue logic from first principles; such a limitation soon becomes apparent when arguing with an illogical person.
The very movement from first principles to some conclusion is already logic, the very thing you are trying to derive.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-26 10:01, gdw wrote: The problem with that kind of reasoning is that if the foundational principle is incorrect, everything built upon it is also incorrect. How does reason establish the basic idea that we own our own bodies? It could just as easily be proposed that we, in fact, own nothing and that the ideas of rules, laws and "rights" are simply part of man's and civilization's evolution. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
The idea that people attempt to use their own bodies to dispute the notion that they own said bodies is insane. The very act of engaging in this discussion us a tacit acceptance of the premise.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
No. What is insane is conflating control with ownership. But don't you think we can have an intelligent conversation without the name-calling? Just because you disagree with someone does not make them insane.
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Not name calling at all Bob, simply pointing out the act of denying something with actions that inherently accept it is insane.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Also, not conflating anything. Exercising control over ones own body (hey, there's that word) is an act of ownership.
The very root of the word, "own," is that of pertaining to, or belonging to oneself. If you do not belong to yourself, to whom do you belong? Even if you do not belong to yourself, by what do you have any "right" to control another?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Then you don't have the "right" to prevent someone from voting.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
As I'm pointing out that it is wrong to conflate ownership with control, which is exactly what you're doing.
The fact that I control my body (to a greater or lesser extent since who knows what micro-organisms also lay claim to it) hardly leads to the conclusion that I "own" it. I controlled my car, but it was owned by the finance company. The act of driving it did not lead to the conclusion that I owned it. |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
I daresay there are many who believe that God owns the body, and it is but on loan to the individual; and others who reject the whole "own" metaphor in the first place. Still others who would find the metaphor incomprehensible.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Exactly.
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Then that's fine for them, it does nothing to affect my rights if that's what they believe. They can allow whatever rules they wish to hold sway over how they use their own bodies.
Quote:
On 2013-10-26 17:33, LobowolfXXX wrote: Unless I'm the one holding the vote, or running the system within which the vote is for. Think about it this way, if you were alone on an island, would you still not have your (natural ) rights? If so, then clearly voting is not one of them, as it would be simply talking to yourself, and that's not voting. Unless you have intercommunicating identities as a result of Dissociative identity disorder.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Compulsory Voting? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |