From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:41:21 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Oct2.161740.6025@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1afk6mINNpej@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.162355.1427@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>    >a god. Rights are arrangeable according to what a society
>    >wants... there is no given right for you to degrade anyone as
>    >to their beliefs, manners, lifestyle or whatever... you may
>    >as a society make rules and laws that govern some of those
>    >things that a majority of people agree are not conducive to a
>    >well functioning society.
>    >
>
>Wrong. There are inherent rights -- they exist whether you care to
>acknowledge or not. As for the majority of people you rave about,

yes I agree - there are inherent rights; the right to be free of mental and
physical persecution; the right to pursue intellectual avenues that favor your
desires... These are but a very few of inherent rights- but who will actually
define them, you use inherent as 'inborn' or 'intrinsic' these are very 
difficult to define.  When I became conscious of my existence as a person
when I was a child- I blindly went ahead thinking that any thing I did was
OK- without needing to worry about others, or my effects upon them.  It is
a requirement of functional societies that they decide what is to be the
scope and (limits and nonlimits) of rights.

For instance, as an inherent right, I think that having laws against suicide are
not correct.  Why they are in place is hard to tell.  But on the other hand
laws against drunk driving seem to be good, even though I might argue that they
go against my inherent right to be drunk at any time that I choose.

>consider that Hitler both rose to power, and did what he di
>to the Jews legally and with the agreement of the majority of
>the people. Indeed, much of terrible crimes committed in the
>"name of god" (so to speak) have been committed with the wishes
>of the majority.

These are well known conditions; they have arose in all parts of the world, and
have turned into something that was not beneficial.  But keep in mind, you do
state above that the majority agreed, and then took it on themselves to exercise
what they thought were their inherent rights- to have their fatherland (homeland)
free of what they considered non-germans.  Hilter was the genesis behind it, but
he didn't do t alone.

>    >You have some real hang up about Nazi's and coercion and blah
>    >blah blah, I remain in my opinion that people may disagree
>    >and state their discontent with a situation, or with the
>    >beliefs of individuals, but I do not feel that you or anyone
>    >has the 'right' to be degrading, demmoralizing to anyone,
>    >just as you tend to do in your messages and writings on the
>    >newsgroups.
>
>If you wish to censor yourself, go ahead. But to claim that other

Yes sometimes I do censor myself because I know that it will not have
a positive effect..  the more I learn and become aware of the world
around me, the more I realize that I must as an individual adjust and
evaluate the effects of my actions even if I think it is my right to
do something.

>worse. You don't have the guts to stand up and state that
>YOU believe YOU can control what other say do you?

I have never said that I wanted to control what other say- I have
simply stated my discontent with particular statements and sentiments.
To attempt to control what others say is foolish and will gain 
nothing in the end- but I can remain rational and state my case with
the hope that other rational people will listen and state their
case and beliefs.

>
>    >The first steps in a civilized society is to work towards a
>    >goal of mutual agree and disagree that does not include
>    >mental harrying or persecusion of an individual or even a
>    >group of individuals. The process is to state your
>    >complaints, concerns and dislikes about concepts and beliefs
>    >and then to work towards a mutually beneficial system.
>
>So, have you welcomed and embrace any NAMBLA, KKK, NAZI, Aryan
>Peoples Party, fascists, socialists, communists, Maoists, Stalinist,
>Trotysky-ites, Earth Firster'sinto your bosom lately?
>
>Some people are desrving of approbataion ...

Approbation- Praise, commendation, approval; not sure what you are trying 
to say.

If you made the last statement as you intended I agree some people deserve
approbation (spelling).

Embraced- why would I?  They have their views, are you now saying that they
are not allowed to state their position or have 'inherent' rights as you 
have stated- if for instance, we apply inherent (inborn,intrinsic) rights
to a group like NAMBLA- then I suppose I could say, well they like having
sex with younger people, it appears that this trait in them is inherent,
therefore they must have inherent rights to do this... hmmmm not sure.

>    >It appears that in your mind one attempts to 'coerce'
>    >(favorite word) other people into accepting that you have
>    >this and that right, then if they don't agree, then you play
>    >the FOA game.
>
>Trouble thinking again? Show me ONE incidence (other than a jest with
>a :-) ) where I have advocated or intimitaed the use of force into
>acccepting any of my ideas. Unlike you, I'm not hiding behind
>the guise of "society this" and "society that" in stating my
>mral beliefs.

I do not know what you are hiding behind- 'coercion' has many meanings and
one is that it can be applied in subtle ways- especially in the area of
verbal coercion.

>    >Yes yes I heard all of this before... hard for you judge,
>    >isn't it, what or who I am. So the common response is; you
>    >are young ignorant, or evil bad immoral and arrogant.
>
>Well, you haven't denied it, have you? In any case, its a label
>that seems to fit very well -- we get to do that you know, call
>'em as we see 'em. And you are a walking PC stereotype.
>

Yes I perfer that people who like to 'label' be left that way.  I do not
need to tell you what my 'lifestyle' is in order to carry on the discussion.
You seem to have the need to be able to 'label' someone into your predifined
categories so that you know which tools to employ against their arguments.

>    >I would tend to say that you are the one exhibits arrogances,
>    >thinking that you have been granted every 'right' to do as
>    >you please and say as you please.
>
>No -- again you be stupid. I can NOT do as I please. But, I do have
>the rght to do as I please, with my property, anything I want with any
>number of other adults (with their own property, etc.). I can
>say what I please (libel , fraud and other coercive practices excepted).
>

As I see it is a requirement for you to use degrading statements, strange
I do not see there value in any way.  As for the above paragraph it seems
that you want it both ways, - I would tend to differ on the private property
issue, since what you do on it may ripple outwards to effect other things.
e.g. having you own toxic chemical dump- do you have the right to dump
these on your privately owned property?

[deleted some stuff about yell fire- my mistake ]

>Mere words  -- what are you afraid of really?
>
>    >>In other words, take your Politically Correct fascist little
>    >>ideas and ....
>    >>
>    >>
>    >Ohh! getting nasty now aren't we??
>    >
>
>Oh yes -- I'm rather intolerant to infringment of rights.

I think you may be inolerant of new things and new ideas, that may just
make sense in the end.
>
>    >>
>    >Earth shoes and peace sign- ho ho, this is very trite and
>    >lacks any imagination. And I will exercise my right to say,
>    >that I think you need to improve somewhat on your
>    >intellectual conversing, by attempting to write sometime
>    >originally, rather than regorging constantly, everything you
>    >hear on some right wing program.
>
>What!!!! Such a hypocrit. I thought YOU thought: 
>"no one, lesser than a god who controls everything, is allowed to
>tell anyone else that they are evil or wrong or immoral..."
>
>
>And here you are, telling me I'm wrong, and being mean about it to.
>
>
>Tsk tsk tsk .... can't live by what you state ...

Not really I did not call you any names, as you seem to have to do, and
did not state anything in such a way as to degrade your character or
person, I made a statement about what I think some improvements might be.

>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc