From: jgm@ais.org (jim miller)
Subject: Rights Proponent Enjoys Unrebutted Last Word after R.g.m.t Bully Hastily Vows: "Final Article"
Organization: Ann Arbor Information Society -- Capetown Annex
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:11:05 GMT


rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo) writes:

>jgm@ais.org (jim miller) writes:
>>rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo) writes:
>
>>>2) I believe that apartheid is wrong.  I believe that apartheid is morally
>>>unethical.  I do not believe that blacks have rights under apartheid, because
>>>that's what apartheid's all about -- denying privileges to the other guys.
>>>Rights are what the oppressed in South Africa *are trying to get*.
>>
>>I think we almost got ya there, Felix.  Ignore the word "rights" for a
>>minute.  Based on your paragraph 2 above, it seems like you believe
>>that there is some basic human privilege, or entitlement, or need,
>>that the blacks in South Africa deserve, but are not getting.  They
>>don't have the *power* to get it right now, but they deserve it
>>nonetheless.
>
>You tedious, twitching jackal, it doesn't "seem like" anything of the sort.
>Believing that apartheid is wrong has nothing to do with believing in a
>mystical set of "basic" (objective) human privileges, and certainly doesn't
>entail anything about "entitlements."


That's interesting.  What does it have to do with?


>>1.  Explain the substantive difference between the elusive "it"
>>    the blacks in South Africa don't have, and the lofty, muddle-
>>    headed "rights" that Ken and I go on about but in which there's
>>    no point because it's just a silly abstraction unless there's
>>    someone with a sharp stick present to dole them out. 
>
>The blacks in South Africa don't have (subjective) rights because those
>in power are not willing to give them any.
>
>The idiots in North America are babbling about (objective) rights because
>they rather pathetically believe that if you call a duck a fish long enough,
>it'll grow fins and swim away.

A _subjective_ right?  What the hell is a subjective right?  I'm not
asking you to explain your notion of privelege granted by power.  You
said, you believe apartheid is *morally wrong*.  Ya stepped on the
landmine right then, Felix.  There's no turning back with that lump
of twisted, useless flesh hanging from your hip.
Ken forced you to contradict yourself by applying your general statement
("objective rights don't exist") to an extreme situation, the mis-
treatment of blacks in South Africa.  Even you couldn't hem and haw
your way around admitting that there is a moral underpinning to
the beliefs governing the outrage at the situation.

You finally offer some explanation for your belief apartheid is
"morally wrong" later:

>Let me point out that improving the situation in South Africa means granting
>control of a homeland to the indigenous peoples of the land and expulsing 
>a subsociety of racist maniacs.

Oratory fairly laden with moralistic sentiment, eh Felix?  If these
indigenous peoples can't keep the power to control their *own homeland*,
what are we to do about it?  Racist?  Maniacal?  They have the guns,
don't they?  Where does this outrage come from?


Here's the lesson, Felix.  No matter how hard you want to think otherwise,
*all of us* believe people should be treated in certain ways, and
moreover, and this is the kicker:  those beliefs are valueless unless
they are universally applied.  "I believe that racism is bad, but
it is ok if other people view the situation differently" is not a way
out, either.  No one *really* holds both of those beliefs at the same
time.  We are all ideological tyrants.  So if you're next going to
say that this problem you have with apartheid is just, like, your
personal ethics, and those hapless South Africans don't have any
more rights because you personally see something wrong....take a step
back.  You see something wrong, for the same reason lots of other
people see something wrong -- there is something basic and universal
and *valued* that is being denied those people.  This is what
ethics terms a "right".

Relevancy to muds:  mud users are not gazelles, they are people.
People have rights, of the morally enforced type, all the time.
Even while they are using muds.  No one is going to get dragged
out of their home and beaten as a result of using a mud, but
it is plain that there are common, valued things that are often
ignored or denied while using a mud.  These things are not
to be waved away because the mud user is not parting with some
green paper in the process.  Rights do not have to be bought.
Ridicule doesn't make them go away.

-- 
"Don't be silly. Jim Miller is a master of misquoting people. He's gotten
better in that he no longer changes the actual words so they will fit
his interpetation of truth, now he relies on editing and misinformation.
Sadly originality is one of many things that still escapes him."  -Edwin
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny